THOMPSON v. CONANT et al

Filing 87

ENTRY - Denying Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction; Thompson does not have the right to dictate which mental health professionals work with him in prison. Nor can he use his motion for a TRO and preliminary injuncti on as a means of challenging a disciplinary proceeding. There is no basis on which Thompson's request to no longer have contact with Ms. Keefer would "succeed" given these circumstances. Thompson's motion for TRO and preliminary injunction [Dkt. 85] must be DENIED. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 5/15/2013. Copy Mailed. (CKM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
ROGER THOMPSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DR. CONANT, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12-cv-1177-SEB-TAB

Entry Denying Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction
The motion for temporary restraining order ("TRO") and preliminary injunction filed by
plaintiff Roger Thompson (“Thompson”) has been considered.
Thompson requests an order to restrain defendant Catherine Keefer from having any
contact with him. Ms. Keefer is a mental health provider at the facility where Thompson is
confined. Thompson alleges that Ms. Keefer wrote a “frivolous” and “vindictive” conduct report
against him which resulted in the loss of good time credit. The conduct report was written after
Ms. Keefer met with Thompson on April 3, 2013, for a 90-day behavioral health consultation.
The affidavits of Thompson and Ms. Keefer describing what occurred during and shortly
after the mental health session are not consistent. It is undisputed, however, that after the session,
Ms. Keefer wrote a conduct report charging Thompson with inappropriate and threatening
behavior.
After an administrative hearing, Thompson was found guilty of the charge. Ms. Keefer
had no involvement in deciding the punishment, lost good time, imposed as a sanction for
Thompson’s behavior.

“[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.” Goodman v.
Illinois Dept. of Financial and Professional Regulation, 430 F.3d 432, 437 (7th Cir. 2005)
(internal quotation omitted). To warrant preliminary injunctive relief, the movant must first
establish that he has “(1) no adequate remedy at law and will suffer irreparable harm if a
preliminary injunction is denied and (2) some likelihood of success on the merits.” Ezell v. City
of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684, 694 (7th Cir. 2011).
Thompson does not have the right to dictate which mental health professionals work with
him in prison. See Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 754 (7th Cir. 2011) (prisoners do not have
the right to “demand specific care”). Nor can he use his motion for a TRO and preliminary

injunction as a means of challenging a disciplinary proceeding. There is no basis on which
Thompson's request to no longer have contact with Ms. Keefer would "succeed" given these
circumstances.
Thompson’s motion for TRO and preliminary injunction [Dkt. 85] must be denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

05/15/2013
Date: __________________
Distribution:
All electronically registered counsel
Roger Thompson
#926378
Plainfield Correctional Facility
Inmate Mail/Parcels
727 Moon Road
Plainfield, IN 46168

_______________________________
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana