DeLaCruz, John v. Champagne, Quala et al

Filing 17

ORDER denying plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, (dkt. #8 in 3:17-cv-00161-bbc, dkt. #11 in 3:17-cv-00059-bbc). Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 4/12/2017. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JOHN DELACRUZ,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
17-cv-59-bbc
v.
QUALA CHAMPAGNE, CHAD ENGEBREGTSEN,
ANDREW KOHLHOFF, TOM POLLARD
and COREY SABISH,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JOHN DELACRUZ,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
17-cv-161-bbc
v.
JIM McINNIS, CO II RUECHEL,
SARAH LONDRE, MS. BUTZKE,
RION WETZEL, SGT. WILTZIUS
and MORAINE PARK TECHNICAL COLLEGE,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pro se plaintiff and prisoner John Delacruz is proceeding on multiple claims in both
of these cases. Plaintiff has filed a letter in both cases in which he alleges that “he is being
denied medications and medical treatment in retaliation for the filing of my lawsuits.” In
particular, he says that staff in the health services unit at the Kettle Moraine Correctional

1

Institution “discontinued [his] over the counter medications” such as Excedrin and directed
him to obtain the medications from the prison canteen instead. He asks the court to order
prison staff to provide the medications to him free of charge. I construe plaintiff’s letter as
a motion for a preliminary injunction under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
I am denying plaintiff’s motion. As I informed plaintiff in the order screening the
complaint in case no. 17-cv-59-bbc, if a party wishes to obtain preliminary injunctive relief,
he must follow this court’s procedures for doing so. The court sent plaintiff a copy of these
procedures along with the screening order. They require the party to submit evidence
supporting his motion, along with proposed findings of fact.
Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence that the problems with his medications have
any relationship to either of his lawsuits. He does not allege that any of the defendants are
responsible for the decision and he does not identify any reason that staff in the health
services unit would wish to retaliate against him.
Also, it appears that plaintiff’s motion may be moot. On April 3, 2017, the court
received a notice that plaintiff has been transferred to the Drug Abuse Correctional Center.
Because plaintiff is at a new facility, it is possible that any medical decision made at the
Kettle Moraine prison (where plaintiff was housed previously) is subject to reconsideration.
In any event, because plaintiff has not demonstrated any connection between the
medication decisions and these lawsuits, he cannot use the lawsuits as a vehicle for obtaining
an injunction on that issue. Rather, if plaintiff believes that prison officials are violating his
constitutional right to receive medical care, he will have to file a new lawsuit.

2

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff John Delacruz’s motion for a preliminary injunction,
dkt. #8 (in case no. 17-cv-59-bbc) and dkt. #11 (in case no. 17-cv-161-bbc), is DENIED.
Entered this 12th day of April, 2017.

BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

3