United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE United States District Judge
Prince Richard, an inmate currently incarcerated at Menard
Correctional Center (“Menard”), has filed a
putative class action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights related to
conditions throughout the Illinois Department of Corrections
(“IDOC”) (Doc. 1). Before the Court is
Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction/TRO. (Doc.
2). For the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED
Motion and the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts that he and an
indefinite class of other IDOC inmates are being denied a
variety of protections, services and items due to the IDOC
system being overcrowded, understaffed and underfunded.
Specifically, he alleges denial of access to adequate medical
care, denial of adequate clothing, exposure to cold
temperatures, delays in getting mail, having mail opened
outside his presence, denial of an adequate grievance system,
denial of adequate access to the law library, denial of
adequate food, inadequate access to vocational programs,
exposure to a generally violent atmosphere, double-celling of
seriously mentally ill (“SMI”) inmates, exposure
to excessive use of force and being intimidated by
representatives of the Illinois Attorney General's Office
into accepting settlement offers in cases. (Doc. 1, pp. 6-8,
10-13, 15-17, 19-29, 32-33, 40-41). Plaintiff's requested
injunctive relief is “that the Illinois prison
population be ordered to be reduced[.]” (Doc. 2, p.
obtain injunctive relief, whether through a temporary
restraining order (“TRO”) or preliminary
injunction under Rule 65(a) or (b) 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. Merritte v.
Kessel, 561 Fed.Appx. 546, 548 (7th Cir. 2014)
(citing Woods v. Buss, 496 F.3d 620, 622 (7th Cir.
2007)). Further, the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(“PLRA”) requires that any grant of preliminary
injunctive relief or TRO “shall extend no further than
necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a
particular plaintiff or plaintiffs” and cannot issue
“unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly
drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the
violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive
means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal
right.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).
is an order issued without notice to the party to be enjoined
that may last no more than fourteen days. A TRO may issue:
only if (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified
complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury,
loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse
party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the movant's
attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice
and the reasons why it should not be required.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Plaintiff has not filed either a
verified Complaint or an affidavit in this matter. As such, a
TRO cannot issue.
also fails to adequately establish the elements for his
requested injunction. Plaintiff is requesting an order that
the prison population be reduced - in other words, that
prisoners be released. The PLRA provides that “no court
shall enter a prisoner release order unless…(i) a
court has previously entered an order for less intrusive
relief that has failed to remedy the deprivation of the
Federal right sought to be remedied through the prisoner
release order; and (ii) the defendant has had a reasonable
amount of time to comply with the previous court
orders.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3)(A). Additionally,
“[a] party seeking a prisoner release order in Federal
court shall file with any request for such relief, a request
for a three-judge court and materials sufficient to
demonstrate that the requirements of subparagraph (A) have
been met.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3)(C). Plaintiff
has not filed materials sufficient to demonstrate that less
intrusive relief has previously been ordered against
Defendants and that Defendants have had a reasonable amount
of time to comply with such order(s). Therefore, he has not
demonstrated an entitlement to the requested preliminary
Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction/TRO (Doc.
2) is DENIED without prejudice.
Plaintiff's Complaint will be screened under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A via separate order