Sanchez v. Olig et al

Filing 47

DECISION AND ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 7/29/2016 DENYING 41 Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The court reminds the plaintiff that the court has stayed all proceedings in this case until 3/1/2017. No further documents should be filed in this case until after 3/1/2017. (cc: all counsel; by US Mail to Plaintiff) (pwm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
SALVADOR SANCHEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 15-cv-935-pp

TODD OLIG, PAUL LUDVIGSON,
and JEREMY WESTRA
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (DKT. No. 41)
______________________________________________________________________________
On May 5, 2016, the court granted the defendants’ motion to stay the
proceedings in this case until March 1, 2017, because defendant Todd Olig had
been mobilized to active duty in the Army National Guard. Dkt. No. 37. On July
18, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction. Dkt No. 41. He
alleges that staff members at Wisconsin Resource Center have threatened him
and other inmates with the denial of psychiatric treatment and/or transfer
from the facility for accessing the courts. Id. at 1-2. The plaintiff also
challenges a Wisconsin Resource Center policy that permits inmates to assist
one another with legal matters only with the permission of the institution unit
supervisor. Id. at 2.
To obtain preliminary injunctive relief . . . [a] plaintiff must show that (1)
his underlying case has some likelihood of success on the merits, (2) no
adequate remedy at law exists, and (3) he will suffer irreparable harm without
the injunction. Hashim v. Hamblin, Case No. 14-cv-1265-LA, 2015 WL
1

1840434, at *3 (E.D. Wis. April 22, 2016). The “underlying case” in this lawsuit
concerns events that occurred at Waupun Correctional Institution. The
injunctive relief that the plaintiff seeks is not related to the “underlying case” of
the events that occurred at Waupun. Thus, the court cannot, in this case,
grant the plaintiff the injunctive relief he seeks. See Hashim v. Hamblin, Case
No. 14-cv-1265, 2016 WL 297465 at *4 (E.D. Wis. January 22, 2016)
(“Plaintiff’s requests for injunctive relief are not connected to the claims he is
proceeding on in this case. He may not seek relief in connection with these
claims in this lawsuit.”) (citations omitted). If the plaintiff believes that he has
claims against employees at the Wisconsin Secure Resource Center, he may file
a separate lawsuit against those individuals. See Hashim, 2015 WL 1840434 at
*3 (quoting George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (“Unrelated
claims against different defendants belong in different suits.”)
The court also reminds the plaintiff that the court has stayed all
proceedings in this case until March 1, 2017. This means that the plaintiff
should not file any further documents in this case until the court lifts the stay.
The court DENIES the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. Dkt.
No. 41.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 29th day of July, 2016.

2