Cutler v. Wills et al
Filing
65
ORDER denying 8 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gilbert C. Sison on 2/7/2024. (klh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHAD CUTLER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ANTHONY WILLS,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 3:23-cv-03127-GCS
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
SISON, Magistrate Judge:
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Chad Cutler, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections
(“IDOC”) currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”), brings this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights.
Plaintiff claims that he is suffering from untreated and undiagnosed episodes of paralysis
that put him in danger of attack and sexual assault by other inmates. Plaintiff seeks
monetary damages and injunctive relief. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for
preliminary injunction. (Doc. 8). Defendant Wills filed an opposition. (Doc. 23). On
November 30, 2023, the Court held a hearing on the motion and heard testimony from
Plaintiff, Angela Crain, Menard Health Care Administrator, and Lieutenant Mark Hanks,
an Internal Affairs supervisor. (Doc. 33). The Court took the matter under advisement
and allowed the parties additional time to supplement the record. Id. Both parties filed
Page 1 of 9
supplemental documents. (Doc. 36, 37, 43, 46, 47, 49).1 For the reasons delineated below,
the Court denies the motion.
Plaintiff alleges that he has low functioning autism and another condition that has
not been diagnosed or evaluated. (Doc. 1, p. 3). This second condition causes Plaintiff to
enter a paralytic state when under extreme stress or at other random moments. During
these episodes, Plaintiff experiences loss of voluntary movement that lasts for minutes or
hours. As a result, Plaintiff claims that he is utterly defenseless to violent or sexual
advances by other inmates when he is in such a state. Id.
On July 10, 2023, Plaintiff began writing the medical department at Menard with
requests for urgent medical attention. (Doc. 1, p. 4). Plaintiff states he has submitted over
fifty requests. According to Plaintiff, all these requests were ignored over a period of
seventy days. Id.
Plaintiff has also submitted three PREA reports due to the high likelihood of being
raped or maimed by a cellmate during a paralytic episode. (Doc. 1, p. 4). In July, Plaintiff
wrote to his counselor twice seeking assistance with acquiring medical attention and did
not receive a response. Id. at p. 5. On July 21, 2023, Plaintiff appeared before the
Administrative Review Board (“ARB”) and described his unsuccessful attempts to be
treated; he also claimed that his condition places him in danger. Id. Plaintiff further wrote
Documents 36, 37, and 47 are filed under seal as these documents pertain to Prison Rape
Elimination Act (“PREA”) claims made by Plaintiff. The Court thoroughly reviewed these
documents prior to issuing this Memorandum & Order. However, the Court is not citing to these
documents or utilizing the information contained in these documents in rendering its decision as
the Court finds that they are not necessary to determine the outcome of the pending motion.
1
Page 2 of 9
emergency grievances on August 20, 2023, and September 1, 2023. On September 27, 2023,
Plaintiff again appeared before the ARB and presented his issues with obtaining medical
treatment and receiving recognition of his condition by staff, which he claims makes him
vulnerable to an attack by another inmate. (Doc. 9). Despite notifying prison officials that
he was being denied medical treatment, his condition continues to go untreated and
ignored by medical staff, thus placing him in a dangerous situation. Id.; (Doc. 9, p. 2-4).
On October 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed his motion for preliminary injunction. (Doc. 8).
On October 16, 2023, the Court performed its preliminary screening Order
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Court permitted Plaintiff to proceed on an Eighth
Amendment claim against Defendant Wills for deliberate indifference to a serious
medical need. (Doc. 11).
DISCUSSION
A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary and drastic remedy” for which there
must be a “clear showing” that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520
U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quoting 11A CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, ARTHUR R MILLER, & MARY KAY
KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2948 (5th ed. 1995)). The purpose of such an
injunction is “to minimize the hardship to the parties pending the ultimate resolution of
the lawsuit.” Faheem-El v. Klincar, 841 F.2d 712, 717 (7th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff has the burden
of demonstrating: (1) a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits; (2) no adequate
remedy at law; and (3) irreparable harm absent the injunction. See Planned Parenthood of
Indiana, Inc. v. Commissioner of Indiana State Dept. Health, 699 F.3d 962, 972 (7th Cir. 2012).
Page 3 of 9
In the context of prisoner litigation, there are further restrictions on a court’s
remedial power. The scope of a court’s authority to enter an injunction in the corrections
context is circumscribed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). See Westefer v.
Neal, 682 F.3d 679, 683 (7th Cir. 2012). Under the PLRA, preliminary injunctive relief
“must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court
finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct
that harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). See also Westefer, 682 F.3d at 683 (noting that the PLRA
“enforces a point repeatedly made by the Supreme Court in cases challenging prison
conditions: prison officials have broad administrative and discretionary authority over
the institutions they manage”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Finally,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), a preliminary injunction would bind
only the parties, their officers or agents, or persons in active concert with the parties or
their agents.
The Seventh Circuit has described injunctions like the one sought here, where an
injunction would require an affirmative act by the defendant, as a mandatory preliminary
injunction. See Graham v. Medical Mut. of Ohio, 130 F.3d 293, 295 (7th Cir. 1997). Mandatory
injunctions are “cautiously viewed and sparingly issued,” because they require the court
to command a defendant to take a particular action. Id. See also W.A. Mack, Inc., v. General
Motors Corp., 260 F.2d 886, 890 (7th Cir. 1958) (stating that “[a] preliminary injunction
does not issue which gives to a plaintiff the actual advantage which would be obtained
in the final decree.”).
Page 4 of 9
Here, Plaintiff seeks “[a]n order requiring Menard and I.D.O.C. to place Chad
Cutler in strictly single cell status, protecting and isolating him from potential attackers.”
(Doc. 8, p. 3). In his reply brief, Plaintiff clarified his injunctive relief as follows: “[c]ourt
ordered application of single-cell status until such time as a medical evaluation can be
completed and further recommendations made.” (Doc. 30, p. 4). Plaintiff maintains that
he has demonstrated that he “suffers from a disabling condition which, in a prison
environment and without protection, places him in grave danger on a daily basis.” (Doc.
8, p. 4).
Regarding the first element, the Court must determine whether “plaintiff has any
likelihood of success – in other words, a greater than negligible chance of winning.” AM
General Corp. v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 311 F.3d 796, 804 (7th Cir. 2002). If Plaintiff meets
his burden, the Court must then weigh “the balance of harm to the parties if the injunction
is granted or denied and also evaluate the effect of an injunction on the public interest.”
Id.
The undersigned finds that Plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating that
he is entitled to a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff seeks single cell placement and a
medical evaluation for his condition from medical staff at Menard. Despite Plaintiff’s
contentions in his reply brief that his “ability to articulate clearly his medical condition to
this Court has been severely hindered by Defendant denying him medical attention since
July 10th,” (Doc. 30, p. 1), Plaintiff participated fully in the hearing, testified on his own
behalf and cross-examined Defendants’ witnesses without experiencing an episode of
Page 5 of 9
this purported paralysis.2 Indeed, in his court filings prior to the hearing, Plaintiff warned
the Court that he might not be able to get through the hearing because of this condition.
However, the Court observed Plaintiff during this lengthy hearing, and Plaintiff did not
appear to experience any of these issues.
Further, the undersigned notes that Plaintiff has not provided the Court with
verifiable evidence that he has this medical condition or that this condition presents a
serious need requiring immediate medical attention. The record does not contain a
diagnosis regarding this medical condition from any doctor who may have seen Plaintiff
prior to his incarceration or from any medical doctor during his incarceration, even
though Plaintiff testified that he has had this issue his entire life.3 Plaintiff argues that he
will suffer irreparable harm from this condition and that this condition puts him in grave
danger of attacks. The undersigned notes that according to Plaintiff, his symptoms have
persisted many years prior to his incarceration, continued while he has been incarcerated
and have gotten worse in the last year during moments of extreme stress, shock or fear.
However, he has not provided evidence that his symptoms have escalated or that his
health has deteriorated. As to the frequency of these episodes, Plaintiff stated that in July
2023, the episodes began to increase to three to four times a week. When asked by the
Court to explain what caused these episodes to occur more frequently, Plaintiff testified
that in July 2023, he was moved from a good location to a bad one, which caused him a
2
The undersigned notes that the preliminary injunction hearing lasted over 3 ½ hours.
Plaintiff stated that, prior to incarceration, he never made a report of the episodes to
doctors, but symptoms were discussed.
3
Page 6 of 9
great deal of stress and anxiety. Specifically, Plaintiff stated that up until July 2023, he
was in a cell house with small, single cells and then moved to a cell house with more
aggressive individuals. Additionally, Plaintiff testified that his medical condition is not
obvious to other inmates, as he tries to hide it. As a result, he has never been assaulted or
threatened because of this medical condition.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits
as to his claim regarding Defendant Wills’s alleged deliberate indifference towards his
serious medical needs. To succeed on this claim, Plaintiff must show: (1) that he suffers
from an objectively serious medical need, and (2) that the prison officials knew of and
disregarded an excessive risk to his health. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994).
Plaintiff believes that he suffers from these episodes of paralysis, which would be an
objectively serious and debilitating condition that would satisfy the first prong. However,
as stated supra the record does not establish that Plaintiff suffers from this medical
condition or that Defendant Wills knew of and disregarded such a risk to his health.4
First, the record does not reveal that Plaintiff has an objectively serious medical
condition. In fact, Plaintiff admitted that he did not report this purported medical
condition upon arriving to IDOC custody. Further, the record demonstrates that attempts
were made to address whatever mental health concerns Plaintiff had. For example, on
August 4, 2023, Lt. Hanks referred Plaintiff to Mental Health, but Plaintiff refused to go
There is conflicting testimony regarding the 75 written requests Plaintiff claims he made
regarding this issue by Plaintiff and Ms. Crain. Ms. Crain testified that after reviewing Plaintiff’s
medical records there were no medical requests from Plaintiff from June to the present and that
there were no grievances written by Plaintiff regarding medical treatment.
4
Page 7 of 9
on August 10, 2023. (Doc. 46-1, p. 18, 19). On August 12, 2023, Plaintiff wrote a letter
asking for a full evaluation of his condition, and in this letter, he noted that this was at
least his 17th written request. This letter has a handwritten notation: “Refused/Addressed
8/14/23 KW.” Id. at p. 20. Thereafter, the medical record contains a refusal of services for
Mental Health dated August 21, 2023. Id. at p. 21. Also, Plaintiff saw a nurse practitioner
for this condition on November 22, 2023, wherein he was referred to Mental Health. Id.
at p. 5. On November 29, 2023, Plaintiff was seen by Mental Health and found to have no
current mental health diagnosis. Id. at p. 25. Just recently, Plaintiff saw a medical provider
at Menard on December 29, 2023, wherein a CT scan of Plaintiff’s brain was ordered, and
Plaintiff was told to obtain and provide the name of his prior provider/providers who
may have diagnosed him with any illness. (Doc. 46-1, p. 22-24). Thus, the Court finds that
there is no objective evidence of Plaintiff’s reported symptoms/medical condition or that
the relevant authorities ignored any appreciable risk to Plaintiff’s health. Therefore,
Plaintiff has not established this prong of the test.
Second, Plaintiff must show that he lacks an adequate remedy at law. The Court
concludes that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that his legal remedies are inadequate.
Plaintiff can prosecute his case to achieve the legal remedies he seeks. An evaluation by
a medical provider for care is the type of relief Plaintiff could obtain if he is ultimately
successful at the conclusion of the case. Indeed, Plaintiff most recently had a medical
appointment on December 29, 2023.5 Such injunctive relief is not warranted when the
The fact that Plaintiff had the medical evaluation on December 29, 2023, and a CT scan of
his brain was ordered could render Plaintiff’s request for a medical evaluation moot. See, e.g.,
5
Page 8 of 9
order would give “to plaintiff the actual advantage which would be obtained in the final
decree.” W.A. Mack, 260 F.2d at 890.
Lastly, to demonstrate entitlement to preliminary relief, Plaintiff would need to
establish that irreparable harm will result if injunctive relief does not issue. Here, Plaintiff
has failed to show any actual danger that he is experiencing. He testified that he has not
been attacked or threatened by anyone because of this medical condition. In fact, his
situation stems from his status as an inmate, rather than from circumstances unique to
him. He failed to identify any specific threat or assault he has received or why his
situation is any different from other inmates.
CONCLUSION
For the above-stated reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary
injunction. (Doc. 8).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Digitally signed
by Judge Sison
Date: 2024.02.07
12:33:35 -06'00'
______________________________
DATED: February 7, 2024.
GILBERT C. SISON
United States Magistrate Judge
Nelson v. Miller, 570 F.3d 868, 882 (7th Cir. 2009) (holding that the PLRA bars claims for injunctive
relief that are moot). However, out of an abundance of caution, the Court addresses the merits of
the motion.
Page 9 of 9
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?