United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for
Immediate Transfer to Federal Custody. (Doc. 17).
is an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections
(“IDOC”) currently incarcerated at Pontiac
Correctional Center (“Pontiac”). According to
Plaintiff, he has 6 civil rights cases pending in federal
court against 200 IDOC officials for constitutional and state
law claims, including 3 in this District. Plaintiff claims he
has been repeatedly harassed and assaulted by prison
officials and that “targeted threats” against him
and his family members have occurred at Pontiac, Menard
Correctional Center (“Menard”), and Stateville
Correctional Center (“Stateville”). He alleges
that he has reported death and kidnapping threats directed to
members of his family, which includes a Chicago police
officer and a former Deputy Director of IDOC, to internal
affairs but that prison officials have refused to contact his
family to notify them of the threats.
further alleges that on July 8, 2019, he had saliva, urine,
and feces hurled at him, making contact with his eyes and
mouth, and that the “biological matter” was
obtained from three prisoners who are high risk for HIV,
AIDS, hepatitis, and other communicable diseases. He claims
that prison officials at Pontiac refused to investigate the
incident. Finally, Plaintiff alleges he has information that
there is a conspiracy to harm or kill him and his family and
that IDOC is behind it.
Motion, Plaintiff requests the following: 1) a protective
order; 2) a referral of this matter to the FBI and the U.S.
Attorney General; 3) that the Court contact the Organized
Crime Division of the Chicago Police Department regarding the
threats to his family members; 4) that the Court contact
Plaintiff's family member, former Deputy Director Austin
Randolph, regarding threats made against him by prison
officials; and 5) a transfer to federal custody or other
non-traditional confinement. The Court construes
Plaintiff's motion as a request for a temporary
restraining order and/or preliminary injunctive relief.
temporary restraining order (“TRO”) is an order
issued without notice to the party to be enjoined; it may be
in effect no longer than fourteen days. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 65(b)(2). A TRO may issue only if “specific
facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show
that immediate or irreparable injury, loss, or damage will
result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in
opposition.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b)(1)(A). A TRO may be
issued “to prevent a substantial risk of serious injury
from ripening into actual harm.” Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 845 (1994).
obtain injunctive relief through a TRO order or preliminary
injunction (issued with notice and an opportunity to be heard
to the party to be enjoined), a plaintiff must show that (1)
his underlying case has a reasonable likelihood of success on
the merits, (2) no adequate remedy at law exists, and (3) he
will suffer irreparable harm without the injunction. Wood
v. Buss, 496 F.3d 620, 622 (7th Cir. 2007). If the
plaintiff establishes those three elements, the Court must
then weigh the harm to each party and to the public interest
from granting or denying the injunction. Id.;
Korte v. Sebelius, 735 F.3d 654, 665 (7th Cir.
2013). A preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary
remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the
plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v.
Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008).
the Court takes Plaintiff's allegations regarding threats
to his safety seriously, Plaintiff's allegations do not
establish that he faces an immediate or irreparable injury,
loss, or damage warranting a TRO. He claims that threats were
made while he was incarcerated at Stateville, Menard, and
Pontiac without reference to a specific time. Plaintiff does
not describe any specific instances of assaults or threats of
assault other than the July 8, 2019 incident, nor does he
provide information as to who made the threats or the content
of the threats. His claims are not directed at any of the
individual defendants in this case. Accordingly,
Plaintiff's request for a TRO is DENIED
Court DEFERS ruling on Plaintiff's
request for a preliminary injunction as Plaintiff's
Motion does not set forth the reasons he is entitled to
relief under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
If Plaintiff wishes to pursue a request for preliminary
injunction, he must file a brief in support within thirty
days (on or before September 5, 2019). Failure to do so by
this deadline will result in dismissal of the motion without
is ADVISED that he is under a continuing
obligation to keep the Clerk of Court informed of any change
in his address; the Court will not independently investigate
his whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not later
than 7 days after a transfer or other change
in address occurs. Failure to comply with this Order will
cause a delay in the transmission of court documents, and may
result in a dismissal of this action for want of prosecution.