REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

REONA J. DALY, Magistrate Judge.

Before the Court is Plaintiff William Buck's "Motion for Preliminary Injunction Relief." (Doc. 17). Buck initiated this lawsuit on March 15, 2017, while at Menard Correctional Center ("Menard"). According to Buck's complaint, he was subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement while on suicide watch at Menard. Buck also states that prison officials at Menard subjected him to excessive force and denied him adequate medical treatment. On April 11, 2017, the Court screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and permitted Buck to proceed on five counts consisting of various Eighth Amendment violations.

On May 23, 2015, Buck filed the motion for preliminary injunctive relief currently at issue. Buck states in the motion that he is not receiving proper mental health treatment at Menard, and that he continues to be placed in cells that are contaminated with feces, blood and other bodily floods. Additionally, Buck states that various prison officials have made dismissive comments about this lawsuit towards him, and he fears that he is being subjected to retaliation for litigating this case. In the "Relief Requested" section of his motion, Buck requests "[t]hat Plaintiff be transferred immediately to another maximum security facility in the Illinois Dept. of Corr. equivalent to the level of Menard, as in Stateville C.C. or Pontiac C.C. or transferred to Dixon Corr. Cen. where they have the staff and facility to deal with plaintiff's mental health issues."

The Defendants filed a joint response (Doc. 44) to Buck's motion, stating that on June 17, 2017, Buck was transferred from Menard to Pontiac Correctional Center ("Pontiac"). Defendants state that they spoke to Sheila Molinero, Buck's current primary mental health care provider, and Molinero informed them that Buck "was transferred primarily due to an incident with staff on June 16th, though the transfer was accompanied by psychiatric issues." (Doc. 46, p. 2). Molinero also stated that Buck will be serving one year in segregation, and that he will likely be serving the segregation time at Pontiac. Id. The Defendants request that the motion for preliminary injunctive relief be denied as moot due to Buck's transfer to Pontiac, and because he has otherwise failed to establish the necessary elements to warrant a preliminary injunction.

In Buck's motion for preliminary injunctive relief, he seeks a transfer out of Menard to another IDOC prison. To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must show that "(1) [he] will suffer irreparable harm in the period before final resolution of [his] claims; (2) traditional legal remedies are inadequate; and (3) the claim has some likelihood of success on the merits." Jones v. Markiewicz-Qualkinbush, 842 F.3d 1053, 1058 (7th Cir. 2016). If the plaintiff makes this showing, the Court shall then "weigh the factors against one another, assessing whether the balance of harms favors [plaintiff] or whether the harm to other parties or the public is sufficiently weighty that the injunction should be denied." Id. Furthermore, the Prison Litigation Reform Act mandates that preliminary injunctions issued in prisoner civil rights lawsuits "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.A. § 3626(a)(2). The statue also requires that "[t]he court shall give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the preliminary relief [.]"

In this case, Buck sought a transfer out of Menard, and prison officials have in fact transferred him to a different facility. The Seventh Circuit has noted that "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." Lehn v. Holmes, 364 F.3d 862, 871 (7th Cir. 2004) (citing Higgason v. Farley, 83 F.3d 807 (7th Cir.1995)). Because Buck obtained the relief sought in his motion, the issue is now moot. An exception to a claim being deemed moot does exist, however, in situations where the "alleged wrongdoing is capable of repetition" and it is likely that the issue will "evade judicial review" unless considered by the court. Ciarpaglini v. Norwood, 817 F.3d 541, 546 (7th Cir. 2016). Here, it is possible, but unlikely, that Buck will return to Menard in the near future. The Defendants state that Buck was transferred to Pontiac because of an incident with staff, that he was disciplined with one year of segregation, and that he will likely serve his term of segregation at Pontiac. If Buck does return to Menard and again finds himself in potentially unlawful conditions of confinement, he may file a new motion for preliminary injunctive relief.

RECOMMENDATION

It is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff William Buck's motion for preliminary injunctive relief be denied.

SO RECOMMENDED.

NOTICE

PURSUANT to Title 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Rule 73.1(b) of the Local Rules of Practice in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, any party may serve and file written OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation/Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law within fourteen (14) days of service.

Please note: You are not to file an appeal as to the Report and Recommendation/Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. At this point, it is appropriate to file OBJECTIONS, if any, to the Report and Recommendation/ Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. An appeal is inappropriate until after the District Judge issues an Order either affirming or reversing the Report and Recommendation/ Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the U.S. Magistrate Judge.

Failure to file such OBJECTIONS shall result in a waiver of the right to appeal all issues, both factual and legal, which are addressed in the Report and Recommendation/Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Video Views, Inc. v Studio 21, Ltd. and Joseph Sclafani, 797 F.2d 538 (7th Cir. 1986).

You should e-file/mail your OBJECTIONS to the Clerk, U.S. District Court at the address indicated below: