Bohlinger v. Neal et al

Filing 38

OPINION AND ORDER: The deadline for initiating discovery is EXTENDED to 2/21/2023, the deadline for completing discovery is EXTENDED to 3/24/2023, and the deadline for filing dispositive motions is EXTENDED to 4/28/2023. Further extensions of these deadlines will not be granted to the plaintiff. Any other relief requested in his motion 37 is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael G Gotsch, Sr on 1/19/2023. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (rmf)

USDC IN/ND case 3:21-cv-00588-MGG document 38 filed 01/19/23 page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
JASON R. BOHLINGER,
Plaintiff,
v.

CAUSE NO. 3:21-CV-588-MGG

BOOTZ, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Jason R. Bohlinger, a prisoner without counsel, filed a “Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.” (ECF 37.) He argues that staff at Indiana
State Prison are not giving him sufficient access to the law library to litigate this case.
The court understands him to be requesting an order requiring prison staff to let him go
to the law library whenever he deems it necessary. (ECF 37-4.)
“[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that
should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of
persuasion.” Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (emphasis in original). “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

USDC IN/ND case 3:21-cv-00588-MGG document 38 filed 01/19/23 page 2 of 6

interest.” 1 Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). On the first prong,
“the applicant need not show that [he] definitely will win the case.” Illinois Republican
Party v. Pritzker, 973 F.3d 760, 763 (7th Cir. 2020). However, “a mere possibility of
success is not enough.” Id. at 762. “A strong showing . . . normally includes a
demonstration of how the applicant proposes to prove the key elements of its case.” Id.
at 763 (quotation marks omitted). In assessing the merits, the court does not simply
“accept [the plaintiff’s] allegations as true, nor do[es] [it] give him the benefit of all
reasonable inferences in his favor, as would be the case in evaluating a motion to
dismiss on the pleadings.” Doe v. Univ. of S. Indiana, 43 F.4th 784, 791 (7th Cir. 2022).
Instead, the court must make an assessment of the merits as “they are likely to be
decided after more complete discovery and litigation.” Id.
As to the second prong, “[i]ssuing a preliminary injunction based only on a
possibility of irreparable harm is inconsistent with . . . injunctive relief as an
extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff
is entitled to such relief.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22. Mandatory preliminary injunctions,
meaning “those requiring an affirmative act by the defendant,” are “cautiously viewed
and sparingly issued.” Mays v. Dart, 974 F.3d 810, 818 (7th Cir. 2020) (quotation marks
omitted). Additionally, in the prison context, the court’s ability to grant injunctive relief
is significantly circumscribed; any remedial injunctive relief “must be narrowly drawn,

1 To the extent he is requesting a temporary restraining order, this would require him to satisfy
an even more demanding standard. He must provide “specific facts in an affidavit or verified complaint
clearly showing that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before
the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b)(1).

2

USDC IN/ND case 3:21-cv-00588-MGG document 38 filed 01/19/23 page 3 of 6

extend no further than necessary to remedy the constitutional violation, and use the
least intrusive means to correct the violation of the federal right.” Westefer v. Neal, 682
F.3d 679, 681 (7th Cir. 2012) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Mr. Bohlinger is proceeding on a claim against Defendants Gordon-Ball and
Batsel stemming from an incident of alleged excessive force occurring in July 2019, and
a claim against Defendant Bootz for allegedly denying him access to medical care
following the July 2019 incident. 2 (ECF 5.) Defendants moved for summary judgment
arguing that he did not properly exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit,
but the motion was resolved in favor of Mr. Bohlinger. (See ECF 25.)
Thereafter, in a scheduling order issued in July 2022, the court set a deadline of
November 21, 2022, for initiating discovery and deadline of December 21, 2022, for
completing discovery. (ECF 26.) Mr. Bohlinger did not initiate any discovery during the
roughly five months allotted by the scheduling order.3 After the deadline for initiating
discovery expired, he moved for appointment of counsel. (ECF 33.) The court denied his
request, finding that he was capable of litigating the case on his own at this stage.
Nevertheless, in the interest of justice, the court granted him an extension of the
scheduling deadlines to permit him more time to conduct discovery. (ECF 34.) Mr.

2 Mr. Bohlinger asserts in his motion that Warden Ron Neal is a defendant, but the Warden was
dismissed from the case in September 2021. (ECF 5.)
3 The Local Rules of this District require that all discovery must be filed in a case where a litigant
is proceeding without counsel. N.D. Ind. L.R. 26-2(a)(2)(A). There were no discovery requests by Mr.
Bohlinger filed on the docket during this period.

3

USDC IN/ND case 3:21-cv-00588-MGG document 38 filed 01/19/23 page 4 of 6

Bohlinger propounded one discovery request before the deadline, which has now
expired.
It appears he wants time to conduct more discovery, and it can also be discerned
from the docket that he has not yet responded to discovery requests propounded on
him by Defendants in November 2022. He argues that he has had difficulty meeting
discovery deadlines in part because he has two other civil rights cases pending in this
District. The fact that he brought two other lawsuits in addition to this one does not
excuse him from complying with deadlines in this case. As the plaintiff, it is his
obligation to diligently prosecute the case. He also claims he is only given two hours a
week in the law library, which in his view was not enough to meet the court’s discovery
deadlines. He does not explain ---nor is it evident---why he needed to go to the law
library to write out discovery requests or answer discovery requests served on him by
Defendants. Discovery involves the sharing of factual information and evidence, not
conducting legal research.
Additionally, his filings in this case---including the present one---reflect that he is
being given reasonable access to legal materials needed to the litigate the case. His
present filing is lengthy and detailed, consisting of a motion, a memorandum with
extensive citations to case law, a declaration, a proposed order, and other attachments. 4
It is evident it took him some time to prepare and file this motion, whether in the law

4 Mr. Bohlinger’s other filings have been equally as polished and cogent. Among other things, he
filed a detailed 12-page complaint, a status report, and a response to the summary judgment motion
totaling 58 pages, including a 14-page legal memorandum containing citations to relevant case law.

4

USDC IN/ND case 3:21-cv-00588-MGG document 38 filed 01/19/23 page 5 of 6

library or elsewhere, and it is unclear why he did not use that time to meet the
deadlines set by the court regarding discovery. Nevertheless, in the interest of justice,
the court will grant him one final extension of the scheduling deadlines to give him
additional time to conduct discovery. Given the age of the case and the amount of time
has already been granted to conduct discovery, he should not expect any additional
extensions.
Although the court will extend the scheduling deadlines, the court does not find
a basis to grant him the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction. As stated,
this lawsuit pertains to an incident of excessive force occurring in 2019. Events
occurring in late 2022 and early 2023 involving non-parties who allegedly denied his
requests to go to the law library fall well outside the parameters of this lawsuit. 5 To the
extent he believes his constitutional rights are being violated in connection with the
quality of the law library or policies regulating inmates’ access to it, such a claim
belongs in a separate lawsuit. See Owens v. Evans, 878 F.3d 559, 566 (7th Cir. 2017);
George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).
Additionally, the court must afford substantial deference to prison staff on
matters that trigger safety and security concerns, including Mr. Bohlinger’s movements
within the facility. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1979) (“Prison administrators . . .
should be accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies
and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline

He attaches documentation showing that he made requests to go to the law library to nonparties Todd Kenton and Ms. Feidner (first name unknown). (ECF 37-3 at 6-7.)
5

5

USDC IN/ND case 3:21-cv-00588-MGG document 38 filed 01/19/23 page 6 of 6

and to maintain institutional security.”). As outlined above, the docket reflects that Mr.
Bohlinger has been given reasonable access to legal materials while this case has been
pending, and the court trusts that this will continue. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351
(1996); Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977). With the extension being granted in this
order, he should have more than ample time to complete discovery.
For these reasons, the deadline for initiating discovery is EXTENDED to
February 21, 2023, the deadline for completing discovery is EXTENDED to March 24,
2023, and the deadline for filing dispositive motions is EXTENDED to April 28, 2023.
Further extensions of these deadlines will not be granted to the plaintiff. Any other
relief requested in his motion (ECF 37) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED on January 19, 2023
s/ Michael G. Gotsch, Sr.
Michael G. Gotsch, Sr.
United States Magistrate Judge

6