ARNOLD v. COY et al
ENTRY DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - Therefore, his motions for preliminary injunctive relief, dkt. 72 and dkt. 73 , are denied (SEE ENTRY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION). Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 9/14/2020. Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. (DWH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
LESLIE GOODMAN Officer, et al.
ENTRY DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
In this civil rights action, plaintiff prisoner Keandre Arnold alleges in his fifth amended
complaint that from March through June 2018, when incarcerated at the New Castle Correctional,
he was subjected to excessive force and racial threats and his equal protection rights were violated.
Mr. Arnold now seeks two preliminary injunctions. He seeks an order granting him 1)
access to the law library, and 2) access to his medical files. Dkt. 72; dkt. 73. The defendants have
opposed the motions for preliminary injunction. Dkt. 74.
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy.” HH-Indianapolis, LLC v. Consol.
City of Indianapolis and County of Marion, Indiana, 889 F.3d 432, 437 (7th Cir. 2018) (internal
quotation omitted). “A party seeking a preliminary injunction must satisfy all three requirements
in the threshold phase by showing that (1) it will suffer irreparable harm in the period before the
resolution of its claim; (2) traditional legal remedies are inadequate; and (3) there is some
likelihood of success on the merits of the claim.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). In addition, a
portion of the Prison Litigation Reform Act provides as follows:
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. The court shall give substantial
weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice
system caused by the preliminary relief and shall respect the principles of comity
set out in paragraph (1)(B) in tailoring any preliminary relief.
18 U.S.C.A. § 3626(a)(2).
"This section of the PLRA enforces a point repeatedly made by the Supreme Court in cases
challenging prison conditions: [P]rison officials have broad administrative and discretionary
authority over the institutions they manage." Westefer v. Neal, 682 F.3d 679, 683 (7th Cir. 2012)
(internal quotation omitted).
The defendants have shown that they have no control over Mr. Arnold's access to the law
library or medical records. Therefore, any Court order against the defendants would be of no effect.
In addition, the defendants have submitted evidence showing that Mr. Arnold does have access to
library resources and that he has been instructed to talk to his doctor about reviewing his mental
health records. Dkt. 74-2; dkt. 74-3. Mr. Arnold has failed to satisfy any of the three requirements
for such extraordinary relief. He has not shown irreparable harm, lack of other available remedies,
or likelihood of success on the merits of his motions. Therefore, his motions for preliminary
injunctive relief, dkt.  and dkt. , are denied.
NEW CASTLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels
1000 Van Nuys Road
NEW CASTLE, IN 47362
Adam Garth Forrest
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?