Hardy v. Rauner et al
ORDER : Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and/or Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED. Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction remains pending and will be addressed in due course. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 1/4/2018. (tjk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
NEDRICK JEFFREY HARDY, SR.,
ILLINOIS DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS,
JOHN BALDWIN, KIMBERLY BUTLER,
LASHBROOK, J. TROST,
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.,
A. WILLIAMS, AIMEE LANG,
STINSON, LOUIS SHICKER,
MELVIN HINTON, JOHN DOE 1,
JOHN DOE 2, and
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
Plaintiff seeks issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO), which is an order issued
without notice to the party to be enjoined that may last no more than fourteen days. (Doc. 2). A
TRO may issue without notice:
only if (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that
immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before
the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the movant’s attorney
certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should
not be required.
FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b). Without expressing any opinion on the merits of any of Plaintiff’s claims
for relief, the Court concludes that a TRO should not issue at this time. Plaintiff has filed a 102page Complaint alleging at least thirteen separate claims. He seeks a TRO only on a single claim
Page 1 of 2
—his allegations related to overcrowding and/or that his cell size is too small. Plaintiff argues
that he is entitled to a TRO because an injunction has been granted over similar allegations in
Case No. Turley v. Uchtman, 08-cv-0007-SCW. Plaintiff is incorrect; the request for permanent
injunctive relief in that case remains pending. The anticipation of injunctive relief in another case
is not grounds for a TRO. Plaintiff also has not provided any reason why notice should not be
required. Plaintiff’s allegations do not set forth specific facts demonstrating the likelihood of
immediate and irreparable harm before Defendants can be heard.
Moreover, federal courts must exercise equitable restraint when asked to take over the
administration of a prison, something that is best left to correctional officials and their staff. See
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 482 (1995); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 379 (1976) (noting
that where a plaintiff requests an award of remedial relief that would require a federal court to
interfere with the administration of a state prison, “appropriate consideration must be given to
principles of federalism in determining the availability and scope of [such] relief.”).
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and/or Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED. Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction
remains pending and will be addressed in due course.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 4, 2018
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge
Page 2 of 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?