United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE United States District Judge.
matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
of United States Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier (Doc.
39). Judge Frazier recommends that the undersigned deny
Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 4)
and deny Defendant's Motion to Revoke Plaintiff's
pauperis status (Doc. 27). Plaintiff filed a timely objection
(Doc. 43). Defendants have not objected. For the following
reasons, the Court adopts Judge Frazier's Report and
Recommendation in its entirety.
Willie Booker, an inmate currently incarcerated at Menard
Correctional Center (“Menard”), filed this
lawsuit alleging deprivations of his constitutional rights
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges
Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights when they
failed to place him in protective custody at Menard after he
received gang-related threats from other inmates at the
is a convicted sex offender and a former member of the
Gangster Disciples prison gang. Plaintiff currently resides
in cell 812 in the North Cell House at Menard with another
inmate who has not been hostile towards him. However,
Plaintiff alleges that he has received numerous threats that
he will be killed if he returns to the general population
housing unit. On October 20, 2015, Plaintiff had an
altercation with another inmate during a meal. Plaintiff was
not injured during the incident. Other than the alleged
threats and the isolated incident, there have been no
incidents of inmates attempting to harm Plaintiff. Following
an evidentiary hearing on Plaintiff's motion, Judge
Frazier issued his Report and Recommendation.
Report and Recommendation sets forth the nature of the
evidence presented by both sides as well as the applicable
law. Judge Frazier concluded that Plaintiff failed to
establish the elements required to obtain a preliminary
injunction (Doc. 39). Specifically, Judge Frazier found that
Plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits of his
Eighth Amendment claim is low because he cannot show that the
defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his serious
undersigned must undertake a de novo review of the
Judge Frazier's recommendation to deny Plaintiff's
motion for preliminary injunction because a timely objection
was filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C); Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b); SDIL-LR 73.1(b); Harper v. City of Chicago
Heights, 824 F.Supp. 786, 788 (N.D. Ill. 1993); see
also Govas v. Chalmers, 965 F.2d 298, 301 (7th Cir.
1992). De novo review requires the district judge to
“give fresh consideration to those issues to which
specific objections have been made” and make a decision
“based on an independent review of the evidence and
arguments without giving any presumptive weight to the
magistrate judge's conclusion.” Harper,
824 F.Supp. at 788 (citing 12 Charles Alan Wright et al.,
Federal Practice and Procedure § 3076.8, at p.
55 (1st ed. 1973) (1992 Pocket Part)); Mendez
v. Republic Bank, 725 F.3d 651, 661 (7th Cir. 2013). The
Court “may accept, reject or modify the magistrate
judge's recommended decision.” Harper, 824
F.Supp. at 788.
preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary and drastic
remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by
a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.”
Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997). The
purpose of such an injunction is to minimize the hardship to
the parties pending the ultimate resolution of the
lawsuit.” Fahenm-El v. Klincar, 841 F.2d 712,
717 (7th Cir. 1988). In order to obtain a preliminary
injunction, Plaintiff has the burden of establishing that:
(1) he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim; (2)
he has no adequate remedy at law; and (3) he is likely to
suffer irreparable harm without the injunction. Planned
Parenthood of Indiana, Inc. v. Comm'r of Indiana State
Dep't Health, 699 F.3d 962, 972 (7th Cir. 2012),
citing Am. Civil Liberties Unions of Ill. v.
Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 589-90 (7th Cir. 2012).
context of prisoner litigation, the scope of the Court's
authority to enter an injunction is circumscribed by the
Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”).
Westefer v. Neal, 682 F.3d 679, 683 (7th Cir. 2012).
Under the PLRA, preliminary injunction relief “must be
narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct
the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be
the least intrusive means necessary to correct that
harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2); see also
Westefer, 682 F.3d at 683 (noting the PLRA
“enforces a point repeatedly made by the Supreme Court
in cases challenging prison conditions: prisons officials
have broad administrative and discretionary authority over
the institutions they manage”) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted).
generally objects to Judge Frazier's finding that he is
not in imminent danger and asserts that he is seeking to
mitigate his damages from a threatened attack by requesting
prospective injunctive relief in the form of protective
custody status based on the alleged threats he has received
from other inmates. Plaintiff further asserts that if a
preliminary injunction is not granted, he will likely be
harmed at some point by other inmates.
Court is mindful of Plaintiff's concerns. However, there
is no evidence that Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if
the injunction is not granted. Plaintiff has been in the
general population since December 2015 and has not suffered
any physical harm by another inmate during that timeframe.
Additionally, Plaintiff is currently being housed in a
protective custody unit pending a decision of by the ARB.
Again, a preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary
and drastic remedy” requiring the movant to demonstrate
its justification by a clear showing. Mazurek, 520
U.S. at 972. After thoroughly reviewing the record before it,
the Court agrees with Judge Frazier's analysis and
reasons set forth above, the Court ADOPTS Judge Frazier's
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 39). Plaintiff's Motion
for Preliminary Injunction and Defendants' ...