United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
David Bentz, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections who is currently incarcerated at Menard
Correctional Center (“Menard”), brings this
action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His Complaint (Doc. 1) is subject
to initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A to
filter out non-meritorious claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
Plaintiff has included in his Complaint a request for a
preliminary injunction. (Doc. 1, p. 21). As requests for
preliminary injunctive relief are by their nature
time-sensitive, the Court will address that portion of the
Complaint and rule upon it now. The Court will issue a
screening order on the remainder of Plaintiff's claims at
a later date.
makes the following allegations as they pertain to his
request for a preliminary injunction: Plaintiff has an
extensive litigation history with various personnel at
Menard. On March 30, 2018, Plaintiff saw Nurse Mears in the
sick call line, and she refused to treat him. (Doc. 1, p. 9).
Later, C/O Waller issued Plaintiff a false disciplinary
ticket for intimidation or threats with regard to the
interaction with Mears. (Id.) As a result of the
ticket, Plaintiff was placed in segregation. (Id. at
April 3, 2018, Plaintiff went before the Adjustment Committee
consisting of Brookman and Hart regarding the disciplinary
ticket. (Id. at 12). Plaintiff requested that
Brookman and Hart recuse themselves, as Plaintiff is suing
them in a number of other cases, but the request was denied.
He also made several evidentiary requests that were denied.
(Id. at 12-13). Plaintiff alleges that this denied
him due process and was done in retaliation for previous
lawsuits. (Id.). He contends Brookman and Hart
relied solely on the reporting officer's statement and
found him guilty. (Id. at 13). He was confined to
segregation for one month, which he alleges involved a
variety of cruel and unusual conditions of confinement.
(Id. at 10, 13).
requests a preliminary injunction requiring the Warden of
Menard to do the following:
1. Expunge the disciplinary conviction described in the
Complaint from Plaintiff's institutional records.
2. Prohibit Brookman and Hart from participating in any of
Plaintiff's future disciplinary hearings due to bias.
3. Prohibit Walker from participating in Plaintiff's
future disciplinary proceedings including investigations or
hearings due to bias.
4. Stop investigating disciplinary tickets after a hearing.
5. Allow inmates access to personal property and documents
before a disciplinary hearing to allow them an opportunity to
present documents or other relevant materials at a hearing.
“[A] 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). To obtain a preliminary injunction under
Rule 65(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff
must demonstrate that (1) his underlying case has some
likelihood of success on the merits; (2) no adequate remedy
at law exists; and (3) he will suffer irreparable harm
without the relief. GEFT Outdoors, LLC v. City of
Westfield, 922 F.3d 357, 364 (7th Cir. 2019).
If the plaintiff fails to meet any of these threshold
requirements, the court must deny the injunction.
Id. (quoting Girl Scouts of Manitou Council,
Inc. v. Girl Scouts of U.S. of Am., Inc., 549 F.3d 1079,
1086 (7th Cir. 2008)).
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he will suffer
irreparable harm without relief. “An injury is
irreparable for purposes of granting preliminary injunctive
relief only if it cannot be remedied through a monetary award
after trial.” East St. Louis Laborers' Local
100 v. Bellon Wrecking & Salvage Co., 414 F.3d 700,
703 (7th Cir. 2005). Speculative injuries do not justify
preliminary injunctive relief, and “a ...