United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
J. DALY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Lawrence
Adamczyk's Motions for Preliminary Injunctive Relief.
Adamczyk is currently subject to civil commitment at Big
Muddy River Correctional Center (“BMRCC”) as a
Sexually Dangerous Person (“SDP”). In this
lawsuit, Adamczyk asserts that the Defendants are violating
his constitutional rights by providing him with inadequate
treatment and by subjecting him to a punitive environment.
Adamczyk seeks a preliminary injunction mandating that he be
released from Illinois Department of Corrections custody. For
the following reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that Adamczyk's
request for preliminary injunctive relief be denied.
initiated this lawsuit on February 16, 2017 (Doc.1),
asserting that he is being unlawfully detained and that the
conditions of his confinement at BMRCC violate his
constitutional rights. On March 27, 2017, the Court screened
Adamczyk's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
In the screening order, Adamczyk was held to have articulated
a colorable claim against Defendants Steve Baldwin (Illinois
Department of Corrections Director) and Dr. Holt
(Administrator of SDP program at BMRCC) for providing him
with inadequate treatment. Adamczyk also stated a colorable
claim that the Defendants have unlawfully subjected him to a
punitive environment. Additionally, Adamczyk requested in his
complaint that he be released from BMRCC. The Court notified
Adamczyk in the screening order that a § 1983 action is
not the proper method for seeking release, but he is free to
file a habeas corpus petition after exhausting state court
has now filed two motions seeking preliminary injunctive
relief. (Docs. 24 and 30). He also filed three motions
seeking a hearing on his request for preliminary injunctive
relief. (Docs. 32, 34 and 38). The Defendants oppose
Adamczyk's request for a preliminary injunction.
(Defendants' Motion to Strike, Doc. 33). Adamczyk states
in his August 9, 2017 motion for preliminary injunctive
The Plaintiff requests the Court for immediate injunctive
relief. To be set free from wrongful and illegal
incarceration at Big Muddy River C.C. prison. As already
shown in documents sent to the Court no charges are
outstanding nor any current convictions. Mr. Adamczyk as a
[sic] American ctizen cannot be incarcerated nor detained by
any constitutional procedure used by the Defendants. In fact
by incarcerating Mr. Adamczyk they are violating his
constitutional rights. No conviction nor charges exist that
allow the Plaintiff to be incarcerated at Big Muddy. Mr.
Adamczyk asks for his immediate release and to have his
judgment overturned because no victim existed which is why
the charges were dropped.
(Doc. 24, p. 1). Adamczyk's subsequent motion for
preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. 30) presents similar
order to obtain a preliminary injunction, Adamczyk must show
that “(1) [he] will suffer irreparable harm in the
period before final resolution of [his] claims; (2)
traditional legal remedies are inadequate; and (3) the claim
has some likelihood of success on the merits.”
Jones v. Markiewicz-Qualkinbush, 842 F.3d
1053, 1058 (7th Cir. 2016). If he is successful in making
this showing, the Court shall then “weigh the factors
against one another, assessing whether the balance of harms
favors [plaintiff] or whether the harm to other parties or
the public is sufficiently weighty that the injunction should
be denied.” Id. Additionally, “[a]
preliminary injunction is always appropriate to grant
intermediate relief of the same character as that which may
be granted finally, ” but a preliminary injunction is
improper when dealing with matters outside the issues in the
lawsuit. De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States,
325 U.S. 212, 220, 65 S.Ct. 1130, 1134, 89 L.Ed. 1566 (1945).
request for a preliminary injunction is premised on his
assertions that the proceedings used to deem him an SDP
violated his constitutional rights. Therefore, he should be
immediately released from the BMRCC SDP program. However,
such claims are outside the scope of this lawsuit.
Adamczyk's two count complaint includes claims that the
Defendants are providing inadequate treatment for his
condition and the Defendants are subjecting him to a punitive
environment. Any claim arising out of the constitutionality
of the Illinois court proceedings deeming Adamczyk an SDP
would be outside the scope of the claims in this case.
Moreover, a § 1983 lawsuit is not the proper legal
method to seek release from confinement. If Adamczyk would
like to challenge the fact that he is subject to involuntary
civil commitment, he must file a habeas corpus petition.
See Ambrose v. Roeckeman, 749 F.3d 615, 616 (7th
Cir. 2014); Brown v. Watters, 599 F.3d 602, 603 (7th
these reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that Adamczyk's motions
for preliminary injunctive relief (Docs. 24 and 30) be
denied. It is also recommended that his motions for a hearing
be denied. (Docs. 32, 34 and 38). Although the issues raised
in Adamczyk's motions are not proper for a preliminary
injunction, they need not ...