GUILLE v. JOHNSON et al

Filing 109

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying Motions for Preliminary Injunction and temporary restraining order (ECF Nos. 83 , 97 ) and denying 94 Motion for Order to Show Cause. Signed by Judge Peter G. Sheridan on 1/26/2021. (jdb)

Case 3:18-cv-01472-PGS-ZNQ Document 109 Filed 01/26/21 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 977

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ADRIAN GUILLE,
Civil Action No.:
3:1 8-cv-0 1 472-PGS-ZNQ

Plaintiff
V.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STEVEN JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants.

Presently before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Adrian Guille’s motions for a preliminary
injunction and temporary restraining order (ECF Nos. 83, 97), and a motion for an order to show
cause (ECF No. 94). This Court heard oral argument on November 17, 2020. For the reasons
stated below, Plaintiffs motions are denied.
I.
By way of background, an evidentiary hearing was held in August 2019 concerning a prior
motion for a preliminary injunction.1 (ECF No. 54.) At that time, the Court issued an Order that
the Defendants show cause why the Department of Corrections could not place Guille in a secure
location and that he be provided adequate medication. (ECF No. 44.) At the hearing, Defendants
presented three witnesses

—

Major Craig Sears, Dr. Brewer, and Associate Administrator David

Richards. Guille testified on his own behalf. A number of exhibits were entered into evidence,
including Plaintiffs medical records, Plaintiffs disciplinary records, a video of a routine
inspection of Plaintiffs cell dated Augut 5, 2019, and photographs of numerous self-made

As such, I reviewed the transcript of the prior hearing when deliberating on the motions at hand. Defendants
also submitted a certification by Major Craig Sears as part of their defense of the present motions, which
includes references to the August 2019 hearing. (ECF No. 89-1.)
1

Case 3:18-cv-01472-PGS-ZNQ Document 109 Filed 01/26/21 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 978

weapons that were recovered from Guille’s cell2. Major. Sears testified regarding Plaintiff’s
conduct, and his practice of making sharp weapons and hiding them in unexpected locations in his
cell. He also testified about the various security measures undertaken to counter Guille’ s activities.
(ECF No. 89-1

¶J 4-6.)

In addition, David Richards, Associate Administrator of New Jersey State

Prison, testified that the prison where Guille is housed is the only facility in New Jersey capable
of housing Plaintiff given his maximum security custody status. (ECF No. 89.) At the hearing,
Guille argued that he should be transferred to a prison in the State of Montana, that he should be
provided an inhaler for his allergies, and that he be adequately fed. All relief was denied.
II.
Although Guille’ s requests for injunctive relief change frequently in this motion (ECF
No. 83), he has listed four “new claims.” Those “new claims” are addressed herein. They are
(1) when Guille is having an asthma attack, there is no response from corrections officers; (2)
lack of recreational opportunities; (3) lack of access to a telephone; and (4) his cell is illuminated
25 hours per day causing him problems with sleeping. More specifically, Guille alleges that he

suffers with asthma, and on occasion he endures an asthma attack. When such an attack occurs,
Guille needs immediate treatment, but sometimes no corrections officers will respond; or if one
does respond, the officer will advise Guille to sign up for a medical appointment to obtain
treatment. Guille alleges that if an inhaler was immediately provided, it would substantially
ameliorate his symptoms.

2

At the August 2019 hearing, Guille sought to enter certain documents into evidence; but he did not possess them
at the time. Guille indicated that he previously filed them with the Clerk’s Office. After the hearing, the documents
were located, and I reviewed them (ECF No. 43 (attachments)). In this motion (ECF No. 83), Guille argues in his
introductory statements that I acted arbitrarily by failing to review them. I reviewed them after the hearing, but I
gave these documents little weight.

2

Case 3:18-cv-01472-PGS-ZNQ Document 109 Filed 01/26/21 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 979

The State has submitted two certifications in opposition to this motion from Dr. Ihuoma
Nwachukwu, M.D. (ECF No. 90) and Major Craig Sears. (ECF No. 89-1.) Dr. Nwachukwu
reviewed Guille’s medical records, especially with regard to Guille’s treatment for asthma. Dr.
Nwachukwu noted that Guille is treated with Montelukast, given once per day; Symbicort, a
maintenance inhaler, administered twice per day; and Xopenex, a rescue inhaler used as needed,
every 4-6 hours. (ECF No. 90, ¶ 5.) Dr. Nwachukwu’s also noted that Guille does not comply with
this dosage, and has refused his medication on many days.
Major Sears certified to many of the facts that were presented at the prior hearing (Section
I, supra). He certified that Guille is assigned to a highly secure area of the prison because of
Guille’s practice of making dangerous weapons from everyday items; and that Guille is rotated
between two cells for security reasons. (ECF No. 89-1
weapons, Guille is placed in the other cell. (Id.

¶ 4.) That is, while one cell is searched for

¶ 5.) Furthermore, Major Sears emphasized that

Guille is not permitted to possess an inhaler because Guille hones a sharp razor-like weapon from
the materials of the inhaler. (Id.

¶ 7.) As a result, Guille may access asthma medications twice per

day, and an emergency inhaler is secured near his cell to be used as needed. (Id.

¶ 6.) Major Sears

further certified that on October 21, 2019, Guille slashed an officer across the face with a selfmade weapon, and as a result, Guille was disciplined for the assault with a year of segregation,
loss of phone privileges for a year, and a thirty-day loss of recreational privileges. (id.
Presently, Guille has recreation twice per week for 2.5 hours. (Id.

¶ 7.)

¶ 9.)

III.
To obtain preliminary injunctive relief, the moving party must demonstrate: (1) a
reasonable likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury if the requested relief is not
granted; (3) the granting of preliminary injunction will not result in greater harm to the non-moving

3

Case 3:18-cv-01472-PGS-ZNQ Document 109 Filed 01/26/21 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 980

party; and (4) the public interest weighs in favor of granting the injunction. Reilly v. City of
Harrisburg, 858 F.3d 173, 176 (3d Cir. 2017); GJJMEnters., LLCv. City ofAtl. City, 293 F. Supp.
3d 509, 517 (D.N.J. 2017). The Third Circuit has explained that “a movant for preliminary
equitable relief must meet the threshold for the first two ‘most critical’ factors: it must demonstrate
that it can win on the merits (which requires a showing significantly better than negligible but not
necessarily more likely than not) and that it is more likely than not to suffer irreparable harm in
the absence of preliminary relief.” Reilly, 858 F.3d at 179. ‘These two factors serve as a “gateway”
for the remaining two factors. Id.
Here, the facts are in dispute. In the certifications submitted by Defendants, it is alleged
that Plaintiff’s violence necessitates restrictions on his access to an inhaler, and that his disciplinary
punishment included the loss of recreation time and phone usage. Moreover, Major Sears notes
that Guille may not be provided a food tray because of its material composition; but Guille is
provided meals on Styrofoam plates that cannot be made into a weapon. Plaintiff’s protracted time
in solitary confinement, loss of recreation, and loss of phone privileges were imposed as a result
of Guille’s slashing of a corrections officer, and not some indiscriminate activity by Defendants.
The Court already dismissed any claims regarding lighting as it is a condition reasonably related
to a legitimate penological interest. See Randolph v. Wetzel, 987 F. Supp. 2d 605, 616 (E.D. Pa.
2013); (ECF No. 10.)
In order to impose injunctive re1ief, Plaintiff must demonstrate that he has a likelihood of
succeeding on the merits of the case. Here, the certifications of Dr. Nwachukwu and Major
Sears depicting Guille’s medical and disciplinary history establish that Guille has failed to meet
that standard.

4

Case 3:18-cv-01472-PGS-ZNQ Document 109 Filed 01/26/21 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 981

ORDER
The Court having carefully reviewed and taken into consideration the submissions of the
parties, as well as the arguments and exhibits therein presented, and for good cause having been
shown, and for all of the foregoing reasons,
IT IS on this

26th

day of January, 2021,

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining
order (ECF Nos. 83, 97) are DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion’s for an order to show cause (ECF No. 94) is DENIED;
The Clerk of the Court is directed to a mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff Adrian Guille.

PETER G. SHERIDAN, U.S.D.J.

5