Moir v. Andahl et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 2 Motion for TRO without prejudice; denying 2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction without prejudice. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 8/2/2017. (jaj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DREW M. MOIR, #M48561,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 17-cv-821-DRH

TIMOTHY J. ANDAHL,
MICHELLE NEESE, and
DAVID RAINS,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
Plaintiff Drew M. Moir, an inmate who is currently incarcerated at Robinson
Correctional Center (“Robinson”), brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Prior to filing the instant action, Plaintiff filed a pro se civil rights
action against numerous Robinson officials, including the three individuals
named in this case. See Moir v. Amdahl et al., No. 3:17-cv-66-DRH-RJD (filed
January 23, 2017). In the instant action, Plaintiff contends Defendants are
harassing him in retaliation for filing the prior lawsuit. The allegations of
harassment include taking Plaintiff’s property (a prayer mat and a hot plate), false
disciplinary charges, and threats to transfer Plaintiff to another prison and/or
remove Plaintiff from the transitions program.
Plaintiff has also filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary
Restraining Order (“TRO”) (Doc. 2). Plaintiff sets forth a litany of vague
complaints involving alleged retaliation, including “meritless” disciplinary tickets,
Page 1 of 4

the unwarranted confiscation of Plaintiff’s property, and threats to transfer
Plaintiff to another prison or kick him out of the transitions program. (Doc. 2, p.
3). He seeks an order enjoining Defendants from transferring Plaintiff to another
prison, removing Plaintiff from transition programs, writing Plaintiff meritless
tickets and/or punishing Plaintiff with false tickets, taking Plaintiff’s property, and
from threatening Plaintiff “in any way.” (Doc. 2, p. 1).
The allegations do not support Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief at this
time. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for a TRO and/or preliminary injunction will
be denied.
Discussion
In his Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiff claims that he is
being “continuously harassed” for filing the prior civil rights action and sets forth
a list of complaints that allegedly demonstrate Plaintiff is being harassed. (Doc. 1,
p. 3). Plaintiff complains that officials have threatened to transfer him to another
prison or to kick him out of the transitions program. Id. He also contends that his
property was taken, without cause, and that he has been the victim of false
disciplinary tickets.
The allegations in the motion do not support the issuance of a TRO or
preliminary injunction at this time. A TRO is an order issued without notice to the
party to be enjoined that may last no more than fourteen days. See FED. R. CIV. P.
65(b)(2). A TRO may issue only if “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified
complaint clearly show that immediate or irreparable injury, loss, or damage will

Page 2 of 4

result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” FED. R.
CIV. P. 65(b)(1)(A). This form of relief is warranted “to prevent a substantial risk
of injury from ripening into actual harm.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 845
(1994).
A preliminary injunction is issued only after the adverse party is given
notice and an opportunity to oppose the motion. See FED. R. CIV. P. 65(a)(1). “A
plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to
succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence
of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an
injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555
U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citations omitted). See also Korte v. Sebelius, 735 F.3d 654,
665 (7th Cir. 2013); Woods v. Buss, 496 F.3d 620, 622 (7th Cir. 2007); Cooper v.
Salazar, 196 F.3d 809, 813 (7th Cir. 1999).
Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he faces any immediate or irreparable
injury or loss that warrants this drastic form of relief. See FED. R. CIV. P.
65(b)(1)(A). Plaintiff’s claims (e.g., the prior confiscation of property/filing of a
false disciplinary charge and possible transfer or removal from a program), do
not suggest that he faces a substantial risk of injury that can be addressed
through the issuance of a TRO or preliminary injunction.
Plaintiff has put forth insufficient allegations in support of his request for
injunctive relief. Should his situation change during the pending action,
necessitating emergency intervention by the Court, Plaintiff may file a new motion

Page 3 of 4

for TRO and/or preliminary injunction pursuant to Rule 65(a)-(b). At this time,
the motion shall be DENIED without prejudice.
The required preliminary review of the Complaint will follow in due course.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and
Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 2) is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 2, 2017

Judge Herndon
2017.08.02
21:10:22 -05'00'
United States District Judge

Page 4 of 4