Blackshear Julian v. Amin et al

Filing 45

ORDER signed by Judge J P Stadtmueller on 3/22/2019: DENYING 27 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Add Defendants; DENYING 37 Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief; DENYING 39 Plaintiff's Motion to Subpoena Documents; and DENYING 43 Plaintiff's Motion For Mediation. See Order. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Julian R. Blackshear at Waupun Correctional Institution) (jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JULIAN R. BLACKSHEAR,
Plaintiff,
v.
TINA AMIN, MARIANA TOKAR,
MICHELLE WILINSKI, MICHAEL
MAYER, AMY EPPING, DR.
MARCELO CASTILLO, STEPHANIE
O’NEILL, CHARLES VENA, and
JOHN and JANE DOES,

Case No. 18-CV-853-JPS-JPS

ORDER

Defendants.
Plaintiff, a prisoner incarcerated in Waupun Correctional Institution
(“Waupun”), proceeding in this action pro se, filed this action in the District
Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. (Docket #1). The matter was
later transferred to this District upon Defendants’ motion for transfer.
(Docket #33). Prior to the transfer, Plaintiff was allowed to proceed on a
claim that Defendants, officials at Racine Correctional Institution
(“Racine”), were deliberately indifferent to his risk of self-harm, in violation
of his rights under the Eighth Amendment. (Docket #14). Specifically,
Plaintiff alleged that he was housed in observation cells where he had
access to implements by which he could harm himself, and that Defendants
had prior knowledge of the cells’ conditions. Id. Four of Plaintiff’s motions
are now pending before the Court. The Court will address them in the order
in which they were filed.

The first motion was filed in May 2018 while this action was still
pending in the Western District. Plaintiff moved to add a number of
defendants to this action based on his investigation of his claims. (Docket
#27). He did not, however, attach an amended complaint stating his
allegations against those defendants. Complaints may not be amended in a
piecemeal fashion. Instead, to amend his complaint, Plaintiff would be
required to file a motion for leave to amend which attaches an amended
complaint. The amended complaint entirely supersedes and replaces the
original complaint, and so the amended complaint must be complete in and
of itself. See Duda v. Bd. of Educ. of Franklin Park Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 84, 133
F.3d 1054, 1056–57 (7th Cir. 1998). Thus, the Court is compelled to deny
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to add defendants. He may nevertheless still file
an amended complaint in accordance with the deadlines set in the Court’s
scheduling order, which will be issued along with this Order.
Plaintiff’s second motion is for an order to transfer him to the
Wisconsin Resource Center for mental health treatment. (Docket #37). He
apparently believes that he is receiving inadequate mental health care at
Waupun. Id.; (Docket #38). The Court will deny this motion for two reasons.
First, Plaintiff’s action concerns conduct occurring at Racine. Moreover,
Plaintiff is now at Waupun, and so none of the Defendants in this case
would have any power to transfer him. Parties cannot seek injunctive relief
against non-defendants for matters not directly related to their claims. See
Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994) (“[A] party moving for
a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between
the injury claimed in the party’s motion and the conduct asserted in the
complaint.”). “[A] District Court does not have jurisdiction to award a
preliminary injunction for an injury unrelated to any cause of action found
Page 2 of 4

in the complaint.” Johnson v. City of Rock Island, Ill., No. 4:11-CV-4058-SLDJAG, 2012 WL 5425605, at *2 (C.D. Ill. Nov. 6, 2012) (citing Stewart v. U.S.
Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 762 F.2d 193, 198 (2d Cir. 1985)).
Second, even assuming the motion was filed in an appropriate case
and directed at appropriate defendants, “[a] preliminary injunction
ordering [a] defendant to take an affirmative act rather than merely refrain
from specific conduct,” as is the case here, “is ‘cautiously viewed and
sparingly issued.’” Knox v. Shearing, 637 F. App’x 226, 228 (7th Cir. 2016)
(quoting Graham v. Med. Mut. of Ohio, 130 F.3d 293, 295 (7th Cir. 1997)). A
preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary remedy and is never awarded
as of right.” Id. (quoting Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24
(2008)). The Court does not find that Plaintiff has made a showing entitling
him to this extraordinary remedy. His dissatisfaction with his mental health
treatment is no different than that of many Wisconsin prisoners. The Court
must leave it to the Department of Corrections and its medical staff to
allocate scarce healthcare resources to treat inmates.
Plaintiff’s third motion asks that the Court issue subpoenas for
various documents. (Docket #39). He does not say who these subpoenas
should be directed to. Id.; (Docket #40). The Court will deny this motion. All
of the documents he requests should be sought from Defendants using the
usual discovery procedures, not through subpoenas. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34.
Plaintiff’s final motion appears to ask the Court to compel
Defendants to participate in mediation. (Docket #43). The Court will deny
this motion. The Court’s policy is that parties may request mediation before
a magistrate judge if they both agree to mediate. The Court will never order
a party to mediate against their will. The parties are, of course, free to
engage in private settlement negotiations as they see fit.
Page 3 of 4

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to add defendants
(Docket #27) be and the same is hereby DENIED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive
relief (Docket #37) be and the same is hereby DENIED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to subpoena
documents (Docket #39) be and the same is hereby DENIED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for mediation
(Docket #43) be and the same is hereby DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 22nd day of March, 2019.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
J. P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 4 of 4