United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge
Darrian Daniels, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”) who is currently
incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center (“Menard),
brings this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
for violations of his constitutional rights. Daniels claims
that he is receiving contaminated food and at times denied
food altogether. He seeks monetary damages and injunctive
relief. Along with the Complaint, Daniels filed a motion for
a preliminary injunction or protective order. (Doc. 2).
Because Daniels did not provide enough facts for the Court to
conclude that he would suffer irreparable harm absent
injunctive relief, the motion was denied without prejudice.
(Doc. 4). Daniels has now filed a second motion for a
preliminary injunction or a protective order (Doc. 7).
addressing Daniels's request for emergency injunctive
relief, the Court must review the Complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A. Under Section 1915A, any portion of a complaint
that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, or requests money damages
from a defendant who by law is immune from such relief must
be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). At this juncture,
the factual allegations of the pro se Complaint are
to be liberally construed. Rodriguez v. Plymouth
Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
has filed two documents titled “Notice to the
Court” (Docs. 5 and 6). In the first Notice, Daniels
asks for the status of his Complaint. This request will be
denied as moot in light of this Order.
second Notice, he states that he mailed the $400.00 filing
fee payment to the Court when he filed the Complaint, but did
not receive a payment authorization form to prove that the
money was taken from his account (Doc. 6, p. 1). The Court
has not, however, receive his payment. Regardless, because he
seeks immediate emergency injunctive relief, the Court will
take up the case now. See Wheeler v. Wexford Health
Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680 (7th Cir. 2012). Daniels
must still meet his obligations with regard to the filing
fee. To be clear, he must either pay the $400.00 filing fee
or submit a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP motion”) in this action,
together with his inmate trust fund account statement for the
six-month period prior to the filing date of this case, no
later than January 23, 2020. If Daniels
fails to either pay or submit his IFP motion, this action
shall be subject to dismissal for failure to comply with an
order of the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Daniels claims that he has not received certain notifications
of electronic filings (“NEFs”) or documents filed
in this case (Doc. 6, p. 1). The Clerk of Court will be
ordered to mail Daniels a copy of the docket sheet and a
motion to proceed in forma pauperis form. If Daniels
requires copies of any documents, he must submit a request to
the Clerk of Court in writing by referring to the case number
and document number and submitting the required payment of
$0.50 per page.
Complaint, Daniels alleges the following: Since September 5,
2019, in retaliation for filing a previous lawsuit,
Correctional Officer Brown has been serving him food trays
with feces, dirt, and other substances, and at times refusing
to bring him food at all. (Doc. 1, p. 3). He wrote an
emergency grievance to the warden at Menard, Frank Lawrence,
and letters to the director of IDOC, John Baldwin, but did
not receive a response (Id. at p. 5).
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to designate the claims in this case into the
following two Counts:
Count 1:Eighth Amendment claim of cruel and
unusual punishment against Brown, Baldwin, and Lawrence for
serving Daniels contaminated food and denying him food.
Count 2:First Amendment claim against Brown
for retaliating against Daniels for filing a lawsuit by
serving him contaminated food and denying him food.
parties and the Court will use this designation in all future
pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a judicial
officer of this Court. Any other claim that is mentioned in
the Complaint but not addressed in this Order should be
considered dismissed ...