The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker United States District Judge
This cause is before the court for case management and consideration of several pending motions including the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order [d/e 18], plaintiff's motion to continue [d/e 44], defendants' motion for an extension of time to file an answer [d/e 56], and plaintiff's motions for leave to file additional exhibits in support of his motion for temporary restraining order. [d/e 57, 58]
The plaintiff's motions to file additional exhibits in support of his motion for temporary restraining order are granted. The court will consider the additional exhibits.
MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
The plaintiff has filed a motion for a temporary restraining order claiming that he needs protection from attacks by other inmates. The purpose of a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo until a final decision is reached concerning the merits of the case. American Hospital Assn v. Harris, 625 F.2d 1328 (1980). A plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the inadequacy of a remedy at law; (3) the existence of irreparable harm if the injunction is not issued; (4) the threat of harm to the plaintiff outweighs the threatened harm to the defendant if the injunction were issued; and (5) the granting of a preliminary injunction will not disserve the public interest. Somerset House, Inc. v. Turnock, 900 F.2d 1012, 1014-15 (7th Cir. 1990).
The plaintiff states that there has been a pattern of attacks against him by other inmates. The plaintiff states that he has warned the defendants about these attacks, but they continue to intentionally place him in situations where he is assaulted. The plaintiff says the defendants are conspiring to place him in danger and are retaliating for past grievances and lawsuits. The plaintiff is asking to be placed in protective custody due to concerns about his safety The defendants state that the plaintiff has made vague claims about assault and is not eligible for protective custody. The plaintiff is currently in disciplinary segregation due to numerous infractions. The plaintiff is not entitled to the privileges afforded inmates in protective custody and is actually allowed greater protection while in segregation.
The plaintiff's had not met his burden and his motion is denied. [d/e 18] The plaintiff has not provided evidence that he has been assaulted by other inmates or that the defendants are responsible for any attacks on the plaintiff.
The court will appoint Attorney Daniel O'Day of Cusack, Fleming, Gilfillan and O'Day to represent the plaintiff in both this case and Dupree v. Pierce, 05-1028. The plaintiff is advised that any further motions in these cases must be filed by plaintiff's counsel.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1) The plaintiff's motion for leave to file additional exhibits in support of his motion for temporary restraining order are granted. [d/e 57, 58]. The court will consider the additional exhibits.
2) The plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order is denied. [d/e 18]
3) The plaintiff's motion for an enlargement of time to provide service forms is denied as moot. [d/e 44]. The court instructed the clerk to fill out the forms in order to expedite this case.
4) The defendants' motion for an extension of time to file an answer to the second amended complaint is granted. [d/e 56] The ...