Jordan v. Brookhart

Filing 35

ORDER ADOPTING 34 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION as to 22 MOTION for Order to Show Cause and Preliminary Injunction filed by Pierre Jordan and 14 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order filed by Pierre Jordan: For the re asons stated in the attached Order, the Court ADOPTS in its entirety Judge Williams' R&R (Doc. 34) and DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief and restraining order (Docs. 14, 22). Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 9/10/18. (soh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PIERRE JORDAN,
Plaintiff,

vs.

DR. DEE DEE BROOKHART,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 17-cv-0625-MJR-SCW

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
REAGAN, Chief Judge:
This is a prisoner civil rights lawsuit brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983 by Pierre
Jordan (Plaintiff), who was incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional Center when he filed
this suit and is now confined at Pontiac Correctional Center. The claim in this case -- a
First Amendment access-to-courts claim -- was severed out from Jones v. Lamb, et al.,
Case No. 17-0207-SMY, and opened as the above-captioned case number. On threshold
review under 28 U.S.C. 1915A, the Court found cognizable Plaintiff’s claim that Dr.
Brookhart 1 interfered with or obstructed Plaintiff’s right to meaningful access to the
courts (a right safeguarded by the First Amendment) by instructing a law librarian to
deny certain requests by Plaintiff, which resulted in Plaintiff missing a key filing
deadline.
Defendant Brookhart answered the complaint, a discovery schedule and trial

The individual named in Plaintiff’s complaint as “Dr. Brookhart” has
been more completely identified as Dr. Dee Dee Brookhart (see, e.g., Docs. 9, 15).
The Clerk’s Office shall update the docket sheet to correctly reflect this
defendant’s name.
1

1

practice schedule were entered, and the case moved forward. Plaintiff filed motions
seeking injunctive relief (Docs. 14, 22). 2 More specifically, Plaintiff asks the Court to
issue an order enjoining Defendant Brookhart (as well as a host of nonparties to this
lawsuit) from violating Plaintiff’s right to court access, right to freedom from sexual
harassment, right to freedom from racial discrimination, right to freedom from
retaliation, and right to be free of other harms.
Defendant opposed the motions (Docs. 15, 25). Now before the Court is a Report
and Recommendation submitted by the Honorable Stephen C. Williams, United States
Magistrate Judge (Doc. 34, R&R). The R&R recommends that the undersigned deny as
moot the motions for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. In a
thorough and well-reasoned R&R, Judge Williams delineates the standards governing
motions for preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders and then explains
that Plaintiff’s various requests directed to alleged problems/violations at Lawrence
Correctional Center have been rendered moot by his transfer to a different institution.
The R&R concludes (Doc. 34, pp. 6-7)
A prisoner’s request for injunctive relief is rendered moot by his transfer
to another prison. [Citations omitted.] … Plaintiff is currently housed at
Pontiac, not Lawrence, and has made no showing that he is likely to be
transferred back to Lawrence anytime in the future. Defendant Brookhart
is no longer in a position to be able to cause Plaintiff any of the harms
alleged in Plaintiff’s motions.
The R&R plainly stated that any objection must be filed by September 7, 2018.
That date passed, with neither an objection nor a motion for extension of the objection
Doc. 22 was docketed as a motion for order to show cause but plainly
requested issuance of a preliminary injunction.
2

2

deadline filed by any party. Because no objection was lodged against the R&R, the
undersigned need not conduct de novo review of the R&R. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C) (A
judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.); Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140 (1985); Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 741 (7th Cir. 1999);
Video Views Inc., v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538 (7th Cir. 1986).
The Court ADOPTS in its entirety Judge Williams' R&R (Doc. 34) and DENIES
AS MOOT Plaintiff’s motions (Docs. 14, 22).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED September 10, 2018.
s/ Michael J. Reagan
Michael J. Reagan
United States District Judge

3