BOYKINS v. WARDEN et al

Filing 82

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER - Plaintiff Maurice Boykins, an Indiana Department of Correction inmate, has filed a motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. Dkt. 71 . Plai ntiff filed his current motion pro se, after counsel had been recruited and her appointment became effective. For this reason alone, Plaintiff's current motion is subject to denial. Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at Wabash Valley, having been transferred from there to New Castle Correctional Facility in January 2024. Thus, Plaintiff's present request for injunctive relief against Defendant Vanihel is now moot. Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, dkt. 71 is denied without prejudice. (See Order.) Copy mailed to Plaintiff. Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 5/13/2024. (BAA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
MAURICE BOYKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
FRANK VANIHEL Warden, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:23-cv-00046-JPH-MJD

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Plaintiff Maurice Boykins, an Indiana Department of Correction ("IDOC")
inmate, 1 has filed a motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining
order. Dkt. 71. This is the third time Plaintiff has requested such relief during
the course of this action, each time alleging that he is unsafe being either in
"ordinary" segregation or general population while in prison and requesting
placement in protective custody for an indefinite period of time. See dkts. 23, 34,
48. The Court previously denied such requests. Dkts. 43, 57.
The Court recruited counsel to assist and represent Plaintiff in this matter,
after reconsidering its previous denial of Plaintiff's motion requesting counsel.
Dkt. 69. However, Plaintiff filed his current motion pro se, after counsel had been
recruited and her appointment became effective. For this reason alone, Plaintiff's
current motion is subject to denial. Although the Court "has discretion to read
and act on pro se filings by represented litigants [it] is not obliged to do so."
Plaintiff was convicted of crimes by the State of Virginia and transferred to IDOC
custody to serve his sentence.
1

United States v. Blount, 93 F.4th 1063, 1065 (7th Cir. 2024). "A litigant
represented by counsel . . . cannot simultaneously represent himself." Id.
The Court reminds Plaintiff of his obligations in accepting counsel that it
has recruited on his behalf, including that although Plaintiff sets the objectives
of the litigation, it is usually counsel's choice as to the strategies used to
accomplish those objectives. Also, Plaintiff must fully cooperate with recruited
counsel, and if he does not do so, recruited counsel may withdraw.
Second, the Court notes that as screened, Plaintiff's action is currently
proceeding for injunctive relief only against Defendant Frank Vanihel, Warden of
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility, "because Warden Vahinel is best positioned
to provide Mr. Boykins with his requested relief." Dkt. 20, pp. 5-6. 2 However,
Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at Wabash Valley, having been transferred from
there to New Castle Correctional Facility in January 2024. Thus, Plaintiff's
present request for injunctive relief against Defendant Vanihel is now moot. "An
inmate's transfer from the facility complained of moots the equitable and
declaratory claims unless his return to the facility is certain." Howe v. Godinez,
558 F. Supp. 3d 664, 667 (S.D. Ill. 2021) (citing Ortiz v. Downey, 561 F.3d 664
(7th Cir. 2009); Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401–04 (1975)). The Court
offers no opinion on the status of this claim going forward. However, as currently

The Court also allowed a claim for damages only to proceed against IDOC ombudsman
Charlene Burkett based on her statutory authority "to investigate and resolve
complaints regarding the health and safety of any person, and violations by the
department of specific laws, rules, or written policies" under Ind. Code § 11-11-1.5-2.
Dkt. 20, p. 5.
2

pled and allowed to proceed by the Court at screening, Plaintiff cannot seek
preliminary injunctive relief against Defendant Vanihel, and there is no other
named party against whom such relief could be obtained.
Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining
order, dkt. [71] is denied without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
Date: 5/13/2024

Distribution:
All ECF-registered counsel of record via email
MAURICE BOYKINS
285506
NEW CASTLE - CF
NEW CASTLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels
1000 Van Nuys Road
P.O. Box E
NEW CASTLE, IN 47362