United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
DREW M. MOIR, Plaintiff,
TIMOTHY AMDAHL and DAVID RAINS, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge
matter has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge
Donald G. Wilkerson by United States District David R.
Herndon pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), and SDIL-LR 72.1(a) for a
Report and Recommendation on Defendant David Rains'
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 19). For the reasons set
forth below, it is RECOMMENDED the motion be
GRANTED and that the Court adopts the
following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Drew M. Moir was an inmate at Robinson Correctional Center
where he alleges his First Amendment right to the free
exercise of his religious beliefs was violated (Doc. 9, p.
1). Moir filed this action under to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
and the Court conducted a preliminary review of his claims
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Moir was allowed to
proceed on the following claims:
Count 1 - First Amendment claim against
Amdahl for confiscating Plaintiff's prayer rug on June
Count 2 - First Amendment retaliation claim
against Amdahl for filing two unsubstantiated disciplinary
charges against Plaintiff (June 29, 2017 and July 19, 2017)
and for confiscating Plaintiff's prayer rug on June 29,
2017, after Plaintiff filed a civil rights lawsuit naming
Amdahl as a defendant (No. 17-cv-66).
to filing the instant action, Plaintiff filed a pro
se civil rights action against numerous Robinson
officials, including the three individuals named in this
case. See Moir v. Amdahl et al., No.
3:17-cv-66-DRH-RJD (filed January 23, 2017) (Doc. 1, p. 3).
In the instant action, Moir contends Defendants are harassing
him in retaliation for filing the prior lawsuit. The
allegations of harassment include taking Plaintiff's
property without justification (a prayer mat and a hot
plate), false disciplinary charges, and a threat to remove
Plaintiff from the transitions program (Doc. 9, pp. 3-5).
original Complaint, Moir also raised a claim against
Defendant Davis Rains. The Court dismissed Rains from the
action in his individual capacity, but because Rains was the
warden of Robinson Correctional Center, he remained as a
defendant in his official capacity for purposes of any
injunctive relief ordered by the Court (Doc. 9, p. 6).
October 27, 2018 Moir filed a Notice of Change of Address
providing with the Court with a personal address in Iowa
judgment is proper only where there is no genuine dispute as
to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law. Spurling v. C & M Fine Pack,
Inc., 739 F.3d 1055, 1060 (7th Cir. 2014) (quoting
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a)). Courts review the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on
file, together with the affidavits, if any, to determine
whether there are genuine issues of fact or the moving party
is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Albiero v.
City of Kankakee, 246 F.3d 927, 931-32 (7th Cir. 2001).
The court must view the record, and any inferences to be
drawn from the underlying facts, in the light most favorable
to the party opposing the motion. United States v.
Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962); Albiero v.
City of Kankakee, 246 F.3d 927, 931-32 (7th Cir. 2001)
(citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 255 (1986)). If material issues of fact exist that would
allow a reasonable jury to find in favor of the non-moving
party, summary judgment is inappropriate. Spurling,
739 F.3d at 1060.
party is transferred from state custody they no longer have a
basis for obtaining injunctive relief against a prison.
Wilke v. Cole, 630 Fed.Appx. 615, 619 (7th Cir.
2015) (citing Pearson v. Welborn, 471 F.3d 732, 743
(7th Cir. 2006)); see also Easterling v. Pollard,
528 Fed.Appx. 653, 656 (7th Cir. 2013); Vinning-El v.
Evans, 657 F.3d 591, 592 (7th Cir. 2011)). Such relief
is considered moot unless the prisoner “can demonstrate
that he is likely to be retransferred.” Higgason v.
Farley, 83 F.3d 807, 811 (7th Cir. 1996).
it is undisputed that Moir has been released from IDOC
custody (Doc. 12, Doc. 19, p. 2). There is no evidence to
suggest Moir will be remanded back to the custody of either
the IDOC or Robinson Correctional Center. Thus, any claims
for injunctive relief in the case are now moot. Since
Defendant Rains remained as a Defendant solely in his
official capacity for purposes of injunctive relief, the
Court finds it proper to now dismiss him as a defendant.