United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
FIRAS M. AYOUBI, Plaintiff,
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., CHRISTINE BROWN, SCOTT THOMPSON, ALBERTO BUTALID, PERCY MEYERS, STEPHEN RITZ and ALISA DEARMOND, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. Rosenstengel Chief U.S. District Judge
matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
of United States Magistrate Judge Gilbert C. Sison (Doc. 99),
which recommends denying the Motion for Preliminary
Injunction filed by Plaintiff Firas Ayoubi
("Ayoubi") (Docs. 2 and 23-1). The Report and
Recommendation was entered on July 19, 2019 (Doc. 99), and
Ayoubi filed a timely objection (Doc. 103). For the following
reasons, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and
denies the Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
September 6, 2018, Ayoubi, a former inmate at Pinckneyville
Correctional Center, filed a pro se Complaint
alleging that Defendants have been deliberately indifferent
to a serious medical condition (Doc. 1). Ayoubi alleges that
he suffers from a "nervous tic" which causes
involuntary twitching and jerking, and places him in
"constant" pain and "severe discomfort."
(Doc. 1). The following claim survived threshold review:
Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim against Wexford Health
Sources, Inc., Christine Brown, Scott Thompson, Dr. Alberto
Butalid, Dr. Percy Meyers, Dr. Stephen Ritz, and Alisa
Dearmond for exhibiting deliberate indifference to
Ayoubi's serious medical needs (worsening neurological
symptoms associated with pain).
September 6, 2018, Ayoubi filed a motion for preliminary
injunction, requesting a referral to a neurologist (Doc. 2).
He also requests specialized housing until treated by the
neurologist (Id.). On November 2, 2018, Ayoubi
requested to supplement his motion for preliminary
injunction, and Judge Sison granted that request
(See Docs. 23 and 24). Judge Sison held a hearing on
this motion on June 21, 2019, and heard testimony from
Ayoubi, Defendant Butalid, Defendant Myers and Defendant
Judge Sison's Report and Recommendation currently before
the Court (Doc. 99), he recommends that the request for a
preliminary injunction be denied. Judge Sison reasoned that
Ayoubi has not provided the Court with verifiable evidence
that his condition presents a serious medical need requiring
immediate attention. He noted that, although Ayoubi believes
he suffers from Huntington's Disease or Parkinson's
Disease, both of which would satisfy the first prong, the
record is not clear that Ayoubi actually suffers from either
of these conditions. Judge Sison further found that the
record does not reveal that Defendants knew of and
disregarded an excessive risk to his health. In light of the
fact that Ayoubi had not made a showing that examination by
an outside neurologist is necessary, Judge Sison did not feel
it appropriate to "interfere with the internal
administration of state prisons." (Doc. 99, p. 7).
timely objections are filed, this Court must undertake a
de novo review of the Report and Recommendation. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C); FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b);
SDIL-LR 73.1(b); Harper v. City of Chicago Heights,
824 F.Supp. 786, 788 (N.D. 111. 1993); see also Govas v.
Chalmers, 965 F.2d 298, 301 (7th Cir. 1992). The Court
may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge's
recommended decision. Harper, 824 F.Supp. at 788. In
making this determination, the Court must look at all of the
evidence contained in the record and give fresh consideration
to those issues to which specific objections have been made.
Id., quoting 12 Charles Alan Wright et al.,
Federal Practice and Procedure § 3076.8, at p. 55
(1st ed. 1973) (1992 Pocket Part).
noted above, Ayoubi has filed an objection to the Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 103). This timely objection requires the
Court to undertake a de novo review of the Report
and Recommendation. Ayoubi argues that the Report and
Recommendation fails to adequately state the facts and apply
the applicable law to the facts and circumstances of this
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). The
purpose of a preliminary injunction is "to minimize the
hardship to the parties pending the ultimate resolution of
the lawsuit." Faheem-El v. Klincar, 841 F.2d
712, 717 (7th Cir. 1988). To obtain a preliminary injunction,
a plaintiff has the burden of establishing that: (1) he is
likely to succeed on the merits of his claim; (2) he has no
adequate remedy at law; and (3) he is likely to suffer
irreparable harm without the injunction. Planned
Parenthood of Indiana, Inc. v. Comm'r of Indiana State
Dep't Health, 699 F.3d 962, 972 (7th Cir. 2012),
citing Am. Civil Liberties Union of III. v. Alvarez,
679 F.3d 583, 589-90 (7th Cir. 2012).
the plaintiff has met his burden, the Court must weigh
"the balance of harm to the parties if the injunction is
granted or denied and also evaluate the effect of an
injunction on the public interest." Roland Mach. Co.
v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 749 F.2d 380, 386 (7th Cir.
1984); Korte v. Sebelius, 735 F.3d 654, 665 (7th
Cir. 2013). "This equitable balancing proceeds on a
sliding-scale analysis; the greater the likelihood of success
on the merits, the less heavily the balance of harms must tip
in the moving party's favor." Korte, 735
F.3d at 665.
context of prisoner litigation, the scope of the Court's
authority to enter an injunction is circumscribed by the
Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"). Westefer
v. Neal, 682 F.3d 679, 683 (7th Cir. 2012). Under the
PLRA, preliminary injunctive relief "must be narrowly
drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm
the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least
intrusive means necessary to correct that harm." 18
U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).
argues that the Report and Recommendation fails to adequately
state the facts and apply the applicable law to the facts and
circumstances of this case. The Court has considered all of