United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff
Gregory Conway's request for a preliminary injunction.
(Docs. 2 and 7). Plaintiff filed the underlying civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged
unconstitutional conditions of confinement at Lawrence
Correctional Center (“Lawrence”). (Doc. 1). Among
other things, he complains of a pest infestation that
resulted in food and water contamination and aggravated his
pre-existing infection with Helicobacter Pylori (h. Pylori).
(Id.). Plaintiff filed a Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order (“TRO”) and/or Preliminary
Injunction with his Complaint, seeking a prison transfer and
a referral to a specialist for treatment of his h. Pylori.
Court denied his request for a TRO (Doc. 5) and deferred a
decision on the preliminary injunction until Defendants
responded to the Motion. (Id.). Before they did so,
Plaintiff filed a second Motion for TRO and/or Preliminary
Injunction making the same arguments he made in the first.
(Doc. 7). The Court again declined to issue a TRO and
deferred a decision on the preliminary injunction until
Defendants responded. (Doc. 8). Defendants filed a Response
(Doc. 44) and Plaintiff did not reply. Because insufficient
grounds exist to issue a preliminary injunction, both motions
will be DENIED without prejudice.
and Procedural Background
Complaint, Plaintiff states that he has been diagnosed with
h. Pylori and claims Defendants exhibited deliberate
indifference to his health and safety at Lawrence. (Doc. 1,
pp. 6-9). Specifically, he alleges that Defendants Wagnor,
Baldwin, Kink, and Ulrich disregarded prison policies aimed
at preventing pest infestations (Id.); that an
infestation occurred and he was bitten by a mouse
(Id. at p. 6); and that when the infestation reached
the dietary center, he consumed contaminated food and water,
which aggravated his pre-existing bacterial infection and
caused severe stomach pain. (Id.). Plaintiff also
alleges that he filed grievances to complain about the
conditions of his confinement and became the target of
retaliation by Defendant Ulrich. (Id. at pp. 8-9).
Court screened the Complaint and allowed Plaintiff to proceed
with Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims against
Defendants for allegedly subjecting Plaintiff to the pest
infestation (Count 1), contaminated water (Count 2), and
unsafe conditions (Count 3). (Doc. 8). Plaintiff was also
allowed to proceed with a First Amendment retaliation claim
(Count 4). (Id.). The only relief Plaintiff requests
in the Complaint is a prison transfer. (Doc. 1, p. 10).
Motions for TRO and/or Preliminary Injunction,  Plaintiff
requests a referral to a specialist for treatment of his h.
Pylori in addition to a prison transfer. (Docs. 2 and 7). He
asserts that ongoing exposure to the pest infestation and
contaminated food/water has caused bouts of severe stomach
pain due to his bacterial infection and fear of another mouse
bite. Plaintiff alleges the prison's nurse told him he
would need to take medication for the remainder of his life
and warned him that further exposure to contaminated food or
water would result in stomach pain. (Doc. 2, pp. 1-2; Doc. 7,
pp. 2-3). Plaintiff claims Defendants have responded to these
conditions with deliberate indifference.
plaintiff seeking preliminary injunctive relief must show
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 preliminary
injunction. See Merritte v. Kessel, 561 Fed.Appx.
546, 548 (7th Cir. 2014) (citing Woods v. Buss, 496
F.3d 620, 622 (7th Cir. 2007)).
determining whether the underlying case has any likelihood of
success on the merits, the Court must decide whether there is
a “greater than negligible chance of winning.”
AM General Corp. v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 311 F.3d
796, 804 (7th Cir. 2002). Here, the only relief Plaintiff
requests in the Complaint is a preliminary injunction in the
form of an order for his immediate prison transfer - he was
transferred from Lawrence to East Moline Correctional Center
in July 2019. (Doc. 43, p. 1; Doc. 44, p. 4). Thus,
Plaintiff's request for relief is moot unless he can
demonstrate some likelihood that he will return to Lawrence
and face the same conditions. Higgason v. Farley, 83
F.3d 807, 811 (7th Cir. 1996) (citing Moore v.
Thieret, 862 F.2d 148, 150 (7th Cir. 1988)). He has made
no claim to this effect.
a preliminary injunction is appropriate only if it seeks
relief of the same character sought in the underlying suit.
Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir.
1994); Neuroscience, Inc. v. Forrest, No.
12-cv-813-bbc, 2013 WL 6331346, at *1 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 5,
2013) (denying motion for preliminary injunction because it
raised issues outside scope of complaint). Plaintiff's
request, made in his motion seeking a preliminary injunction,
for a referral to a specialist for immediate treatment of h.
Pylori clearly exceeds the scope of the claims asserted in
this case. Given these facts, the Court does not find that
Plaintiff has more than a negligible chance of winning his
has also failed to establish that he will suffer irreparable
harm in the absence of the requested preliminary injunction.
Plaintiff asserts the harm he is and will continue to suffer
is severe stomach pain. But this case does not include a
claim for the denial of medical care for Plaintiff's
stomach pain. For this reason and those previously discussed,
Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction must be
requests for preliminary injunctive relief in Documents 2 and
7 are DENIED without prejudice. Because the
Court previously denied Plaintiff's related requests for
a TRO, the Clerk is DIRECTED to
TERMINATE both Motions for ...