Filed: Feb. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 26, 2018
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DONALD G. WILKERSON , Magistrate Judge . This matter has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson by United States District Judge David R. Herndon pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), and SDIL-LR 72.1(a) for a Report and Recommendation on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 87) filed by Plaintiff, Malcolm Wiggins. For the following reasons, it is RECOMMENDED the Motion for Preliminary Inju
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DONALD G. WILKERSON , Magistrate Judge . This matter has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson by United States District Judge David R. Herndon pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), and SDIL-LR 72.1(a) for a Report and Recommendation on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 87) filed by Plaintiff, Malcolm Wiggins. For the following reasons, it is RECOMMENDED the Motion for Preliminary Injun..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
DONALD G. WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge.
This matter has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson by United States District Judge David R. Herndon pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), and SDIL-LR 72.1(a) for a Report and Recommendation on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 87) filed by Plaintiff, Malcolm Wiggins. For the following reasons, it is RECOMMENDED the Motion for Preliminary Injunction be DENIED and the Court adopts the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Plaintiff Malcolm Wiggins is an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC"). Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on June 2, 2017 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging his constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated at Shawnee Correctional Center ("Shawnee"). In his complaint, Plaintiff asserts that his cell was shaken down on August 8, 2016, because he was known to file grievances and, during the course of said shakedown, officers subjected him to excessive force and an unreasonable strip search, causing him injury. Plaintiff's complaint was screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and he was allowed to proceed on the following claims:
Count One: John Doe used excessive force on Plaintiff when he cuffed his hands too tightly, causing injury in violation of the Eighth Amendment;
Count Two: Doe and Unknown Orange Crush Member conducted an unreasonable strip search of Plaintiff when they conducted it in a humiliating manner, in violation of the Eighth Amendment;
Count Three: Dennison and Yurkovich had a custom or practice of directing and/or condoning strip searches and/or shakedowns conducted in an unreasonable manner in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and
Count Four: David, Apostle, and Pittayathihan were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's serious medical needs when they delayed treating him after he suffered injuries during the shakedown and persisted in a course of medical treatment after it proved ineffective in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
On July 5, 2017 Wiggins filed a notice informing the Court he had been moved from Shawnee Correctional Center to Illinois River Correctional Center (Doc. 7). Subsequently, he attempted to amend his complaint to add claims arising from his incarceration at Illinois River and involving different defendants.1 (Doc. 82, Exh. A, pp. 4-6). Specifically, Wiggins alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical need by Wexford Health Sources, Illinois River Correctional Center Pharmacy, Kirk Omunsadin and Defendant Meaker for failure to provide him with a Xopenex rescue inhaler (Doc. 82, Exh. A, pp. 4-6). The Court denied the motion to amend as not relating to any claim or defense presented in the original pleadings (Doc. 82, p. 3).
Two weeks later, Wiggins filed the pending motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 87) seeking an order from this Court against, among others, Dr. Kirk Osmunsadin, Wexford Health Source and the Pharmacy Department at Illinois River Correctional Center (Doc. 87, pp. 3-5) for failure to provide him with a Xopenex rescue inhaler (Doc. 87).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A preliminary injunction is an "extraordinary and drastic remedy" for which there must be a "clear showing" that Plaintiff is entitled to relief. Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quoting 11A CHARLES ALANWRIGHT, ARTHUR RMILLER, & MARY KAY KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2948 (5th ed. 1995)). The purpose of such an injunction is "to minimize the hardship to the parties pending the ultimate resolution of the lawsuit." Faheem-Elv. Klincar, 841 F.2d 712, 717 (7th Cir. 1988). A preliminary injunction is appropriate to grant intermediate relief of the same character as that which may be granted finally. Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, 527 U.S. 308, 326 (1999). Where the requested injunction relates to a matter "lying wholly outside the issues in the suit," however, such an injunction is beyond the power of the District Court. Id. (quoting De Beers Consol. Mines, Ltd. v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945)).
Here, the relief Wiggins requests relates to a legal claim and Defendants unconnected to the pending suit. This Court has already reviewed and denied Wiggins' motion to amend in order to add a claim against Osmunsadin, Wexford and the Illinois River Pharmacy for failing to provide him with a rescue inhaler. Because these parties and claims are not part of the pending litigation, it is beyond the power of the Court to order a preliminary injunction on that issue or against those individuals.
RECOMMENDATIONS
For the above stated reasons, it is RECOMMENDED Wiggin's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 87) be DENIED and the Court adopt the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law.
