Krueger, Jr. v. Santos et al

Filing 42

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 11 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 10/13/2020. (ksp)

Case 3:20-cv-00070-SMY Document 42 Filed 10/13/20 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #512

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
GEORGE A. KRUEGER, JR, #R01396,
Plaintiff,
vs.
VENERIO M. SANTOS,
DR. RITZ, and
WARDEN OF CENTRALIA
CORRECTIONAL CENTER,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 20-cv-00070-SMY

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
Plaintiff George Krueger, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections, filed this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff
claims deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment related to inadequate medical
treatment for painful and bleeding hemorrhoids. This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff’s
“Amended Order to Show Cause for Preliminary Injunct[ive] Relief,” which the Court construes
as a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. 11). He also addresses his request for a preliminary
injunction in his Amended Complaint. (Doc. 12, pp. 18-21). Specifically, Plaintiff seeks an order
requiring Defendants to provide him with hemorrhoid removal surgery and an examination at a
hospital to rule out cancer, Crohn’s disease, and any other disease. (Doc. 11, p. 2).
Defendant Thompson, who is a defendant solely for purposes of Plaintiff’s claims for
injunctive relief, has filed a response to the motion. (Doc. 27). According to Defendant, Plaintiff
is receiving medical care at Centralia Correctional Center and was seen by an outside medical
expert for an examination of his hemorrhoids on September 11, 2020. (Doc. 27, p. 3; 27-2, p. 1;
31, p. 25). Plaintiff filed a Reply in which he acknowledges he was approved to see an outside

Case 3:20-cv-00070-SMY Document 42 Filed 10/13/20 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #513

medial expert for examination and removal of his hemorrhoids. (Doc. 30). Therefore, Plaintiff
has received the requested relief and his Motion (Doc. 11) is DENIED as MOOT. 1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 13, 2020
s/ Staci M. Yandle_____
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

1

Plaintiff’s request that the Court continue this matter “to see into the future outcome” is without legal basis and
therefore denied.

2