United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN U.S. District Judge.
Joshua Headrick, an inmate who is currently incarcerated at
Danville Correctional Center, brings this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case originated in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
Illinois. See Headrick v. Does, No. 16-cv-03003
(C.D. Ill.) (Doc. 1). On January 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed a
letter describing interference with his access to the courts,
and a new case was opened on the basis of the letter. On the
same date, Plaintiff was ordered to file a complaint setting
forth his legal claims against state officials no later than
January 29, 2016. (Id.). Plaintiff was provided with
a standard civil rights complaint form for use in preparing
the complaint. However, a formal written Complaint was never
Plaintiff described his claims to the Court at a status
conference that was held in the Central District on March 18,
2016. There, Plaintiff “cogently explained” that
he was subjected to the unauthorized use of excessive force,
denial of medical care, and retaliation at Saline County Jail
(“Jail”) in 2014 and at Danville Correctional
Center (“Danville”) beginning in 2015. (Doc. 15).
The Court directed Plaintiff to send additional documentation
in support of his claims, and he did so on March 23, 2016.
primarily on statements made by Plaintiff at the March status
conference, the Central District prepared a screening order
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A on June 6, 2016. (Doc. 15,
pp. 1-7). In it, the Court explained that Plaintiff
complained of retaliation by Saline County Jail officials.
(Id. at 1). In response to a letter that Plaintiff
filed with the federal court, several unidentified officials
allegedly used excessive force against him in 2014. He
suffered injuries that still cause him pain, including
migraine headaches, severe earaches, and neck pain.
(Id.). Plaintiff's requests for medical
treatment have been denied since he transferred to Danville
Correctional Center in 2015. (Id. at 2). On these
facts, the Central District held that Plaintiff's claims
of excessive force, denial of medical care, and retaliation
survived threshold review. Because Plaintiff could not
identify any particular defendants with specificity, the
Central District added the Sheriff of Saline County (Keith
Brown) and the Acting Warden of Danville (Victor Calloway)
for the purpose of assisting Plaintiff in identifying the
correct individual defendants. (Id. at 3).
13, 2016, Defendant Brown filed a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3). (Doc. 21). In
the Motion, he requested dismissal of all claims against him
or transfer of the case to the Southern District of Illinois.
Defendant Brown explained that the excessive force and
retaliation claims arose from events that occurred at Saline
County Jail, and the Jail is located in the federal judicial
district for the Southern District of Illinois. Plaintiff
also filed two Motions to Transfer Venue. (Docs. 23, 26). In
response to the three unopposed Motions (Docs. 21, 23, 26),
the Central District entered an Order transferring the
excessive force and retaliation claims against Jail officials
to the Southern District on December 9, 2016. (Doc. 39). The
remaining claim for denial of medical care against officials
at Danville remained in the original action. (Id.).
that the Central District already screened this case pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, it is unnecessary to do so a
second time. Plaintiff's claims of excessive force (Count
1) and retaliation (Count 2) are subject to further review.
Defendant Brown, who is named for the sole purpose of
assisting Plaintiff in identifying the individuals involved
in the constitutional deprivations, is currently the only
defendant named in this action. He shall respond to any
discovery (informal or formal) aimed at identifying the
individuals involved in the constitutional deprivations at
issue with specificity. Once identified, Plaintiff shall file
a Motion to Substitute Defendant Brown with the names of the
Motion to Request Counsel (Doc. 30) shall be REFERRED to
United States Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams for a
Motion for Assistance from the Court (Doc. 31), Motion
Requesting Due Process Clause (Doc. 32), Motion for the
Retaliation of Campaign of Harassment (Doc. 33), and Motion
Requesting Subpoena (Doc. 36) are DENIED as MOOT.
Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc.
34) and Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 35) are
DENIED. In both Motions, Plaintiff alleges that tubes were
forcefully inserted into his ears and controlled remotely
through the use of a computer. He claims that an unidentified
doctor and prison officials at Danville now send signals to
the tubes that cause waves to pulse through his nervous
system. This creates intense pressure and pain in his ears.
Motions pertain to the denial of medical care at Danville.
The claims against Danville officials are not part of this
action. The Motions are unrelated to the transferred case.
a prisoner who seeks injunctive relief for a condition
specific to a particular prison is transferred out of that
prison, the need for relief, and hence the prisoner's
claim, become moot.” Lehn v. Holmes, 364 F.3d
862, 871 (7th Cir. 2004). See also Higgason v.
Farley, 83 F.3d 807, 811 (7th Cir. 1995). Only if
Plaintiff can show a realistic possibility that he would
again be incarcerated at the Jail under the conditions
described in the Complaint, would it be proper for the Court
to consider injunctive relief. See Maddox v. Love,
655 F.3d 709, 716 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing Ortiz v.
Downey, 561 F.3d 664, 668 (7th Cir. 2009)).
claims at issue in this case arise from events that occurred
at the Jail in 2014. Plaintiff transferred from Saline County
Jail in 2015. The only defendant named in this action,
Defendant Brown, no longer has any control over
Plaintiff's medical care. Any need for a TRO or
preliminary injunctive relief as it pertains to the Saline
County defendants is now moot. See Lehn, 364 F.3d at
871; Higgason, 83 F.3d at 811. Plaintiff's
Motion for TRO (Doc. 34) and Motion for Preliminary
Injunction (Doc. 35) are therefore DENIED.