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)

Download PDF
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

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?