United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL, Chief U.S. District Judge.
matter is before the Court on several Reports and
Recommendations entered by Magistrate Judge Gilbert C. Sison.
Plaintiff Fredrick Goings, an inmate of the Illinois
Department of Corrections, brought this action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations of his constitutional
rights and violations of Illinois state law that allegedly
occurred while he was housed at Menard Correctional Center.
Goings is proceeding on an Eighth Amendment excessive force
claim, two Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims
related to Defendants’ alleged failure to provide
medical care and necessary medication, a Fourth Amendment
claim for excessive strip searches unrelated to any
penological interest, a state law battery claim, and a state
law assault claim (Doc. 79).
reasons set forth below, the Court adopts Judge Sison’s
recommendations over the objections of Plaintiff Fredrick
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction
24, 2019, Judge Sison entered a Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 209) regarding Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary
injunction (Doc. 167). Judge Sison noted that, within his
motion, Goings attempted to state several new claims against
numerous individuals who work at Menard, some were parties to
this litigation, and some were not. All of the allegations in
the request for injunctive relief pertain to incidents that
allegedly occurred at Menard. On June 17, 2019, however,
Goings informed the Court that he had been transferred to
Pontiac Correctional Center (Doc. 202). As a result, his
request for injunctive relief related to the conditions and
individuals at Menard was rendered moot. Judge Sison
therefore recommended that the undersigned deny the motion as
Court granted Goings two extensions of time to object to the
Report and Recommendation, ultimately ordering him to file
his objection on or before September 12, 2019 (Docs. 214,
222). Goings was warned that, absent extraordinary
circumstances, no further extensions would be granted (Doc.
222). On September 4, 2019, Goings filed a third motion for
extension of time to object (Doc. 225). Goings asserts that
he is in segregation, the law library has an inadequate
resource reference list of materials, and the prison has not
yet provided him with the requested case law, rules, and
third motion for extension of time is
DENIED, as the Court has given him ample
time to form a response. Moreover, the Court does not find
the normal incidents of prison life, even in segregation, to
constitute exceptional circumstances. Even if he did not have
access to case law and other legal materials, Goings could
have objected and made arguments as to why the Report and
Recommendation was erroneous in order to preserve his right
to de novo review. Because he did not, the Court
reviews the Report and Recommendation only for clear error.
Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739
(7th Cir. 1999); 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B), (C); Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b). The Court may then “accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by
the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
the Court finds no clear error. When a prisoner who seeks
injunctive relief for a condition specific to a particular
prison is transferred out of that prison, the need for
relief, and hence the prisoner’s claim, become moot.
Higgason v. Farley, 83 F.3d 807 (7th Cir. 1995) (per
curiam); Calhoun v. DeTella, 319 F.3d 936, 939 (7th
Cir. 2003) (finding transfer from prison where inmate sought
declaratory and injunctive relief concerning strip search
practice mooted claim); Henderson v. Sheahan, 196
F.3d 839, 848 n. 3 (7th Cir. 2000) (finding transfer from
Cook County Jail to state prison system mooted
plaintiff’s claim for declaratory and injunctive relief
against jail-specific practice). Because Goings seeks
injunctive relief related to specific practices at Menard,
his transfer to Pontiac moots his claims.
the Court ADOPTS Judge Sison’s Report
and Recommendation (Doc. 209) and DENIES as
moot the Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by
Plaintiff Fredrick Goings (Doc. 167).
Motions for Sanctions and Related Motions
January 8, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for sanctions
related to Goings’s refusal to go forward with a
scheduled deposition (Doc. 156). Defendants seek $209.10 (the
scheduled court reporter fee) and dismissal of the case with
prejudice. Alternatively, they seek the court reporter fee
and an order requiring Goings to sit for his deposition after
he pays the fee. Goings filed a response in opposition,
arguing that he received the notice of deposition only 10
days prior to the deposition, when he should have had at
least 14 days’ notice (Doc. 165).
also filed several motions for sanctions and supplements
thereto alleging that “Defendants and agents”
engaged in “misconduct and sabotage, ” destroyed
his personal property, failed to provide thermal clothing,
and gave him food with debris in it, among other things
(Docs. 166, 170, 183, 184, 189).
8, 2019, Judge Sison entered the Report and Recommendation
currently before the Court (Doc. 213). Judge Sison recommends
denying Defendants’ motion for sanctions because the
notice of deposition was not sent at least 14 days prior to
the scheduled deposition, as required by the Amended
Scheduling Order (Doc. 121). Judge Sison also recommends
denying Goings’s various motions because they are an
improper attempt to bring new claims and new defendants into
to the Report and Recommendation were due July 25, 2019. The
undersigned granted Goings an extension of time until August
26, 2019, to object to the Report and Recommendation (Doc.
216). The ...