Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Reeves v. Harrington

United States District Court, Seventh Circuit

November 20, 2013

MICHAEL REEVES, # B-82558, Plaintiff,


J. PHIL GILBERT, District Judge.

Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center ("Menard"), has brought this pro se action seeking injunctive relief. To initiate this suit, he filed a "Petition for Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO")" (Doc. 1). Based on the allegations in this petition, the Court construes this action as having been brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming the deprivation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights by persons acting under color of state law.

Plaintiff is serving multiple sentences for six felonies, which together are projected to keep him incarcerated until approximately 2052.[1] Given Plaintiff's current age of 59, he will likely spend the rest of his life in prison. In his petition, he alleges that in February 2013, his medical permit expired and Doctor Shearing[2] refused to renew it (Doc. 1, pp. 1, 5, 6). The expired medical permit authorized Plaintiff to receive meals in his cell, and included several other accommodations for his medical condition (Doc. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff suffers from degenerative arthritis, which causes him so much pain that he cannot walk to the prison dining room to eat his meals. In the absence of the feed-in-cell medical permit, Plaintiff has not been able to eat regularly. Since February 2013, Plaintiff has lost 65 pounds, going from a weight of 254 pounds to only 180 (Doc. 1, p. 1). According to Plaintiff's inmate profile, he is six feet, six inches tall.

Plaintiff has requested the renewal of his medical permit and has filed a grievance over the lack of action on his request (Doc. 1, pp. 6, 8). Further, he filed a suit in the Illinois Court of Claims in March 2013, seeking damages for the failure to address his medical needs.

In the instant petition, Plaintiff claims that prison officials have been deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs (Doc. 1, p. 3). Further, he alleges "disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act" ("ADA"). Id. Finally, he invokes Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b), and claims that if relief is not granted, he will suffer irreparable injury, loss, and damage to his health. Id. The sole relief requested herein is for this Court to order Menard officials to renew Plaintiff's medical permit "until the Court of Claims makes a ruling on [his] complaint" (Doc. 1, p. 2).

Merits Review Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A

Under § 1915A, the Court is required to conduct a prompt threshold review of a complaint filed by a prisoner, and to dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from an immune defendant.

Accepting Plaintiff's allegations as true, the Court finds that Plaintiff has articulated a colorable federal cause of action against Defendant Doctor Shearing for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs (Count 1). He also states a claim against Defendants Shearing and Harrington (the Menard Warden) for injunctive relief pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., that merits further review (Count 2). See Gonzalez v. Feinerman, 663 F.3d 311, 315 (7th Cir. 2011) (proper defendant in a claim for injunctive relief is the government official responsible for ensuring any injunctive relief is carried out).

Request for Temporary Restraining Order

Plaintiff's allegations indicate that he has already suffered injury due to the lack of adequate nutrition over several months' time, resulting from Doctor Shearing's inaction on his requests for renewal of his feed-in-cell permit. This injury is compounded each day that Plaintiff is unable to get to the dining hall or be given a tray in his cell. Without opinion as to the ultimate merits of the motion, the Court's preliminary review dictates that Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief deserves prompt consideration.

Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.1(c), Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief (Doc. 1) is hereby REFERRED to United States Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier for an evidentiary hearing and issuance of a report and recommendation. Personal service on the Defendants shall be ordered. A hearing on Plaintiff's request for a TRO shall be held as detailed below. Any motions filed after the date of this Order that relate to the request for injunctive relief or seek leave to amend the complaint are also hereby REFERRED to Judge Frazier.

Pending Motion

Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") (Doc. 2) is GRANTED. A separate order shall issue regarding the payment of Plaintiff's initial partial filing fee and ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.