Opinion
Case No. 3:18-cv-1091-NJR-DGW
10-10-2018
NORBERTO TORRES, Plaintiff, v. KIMBERLY BUTLER, WILLIAM SPILLER, KENT BROOKMAN, TERRANCE JACKSON, and SHANA BEBOUT, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge :
This matter has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson by United States District Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel 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 Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief (Doc. 11). For the reasons set forth below, it is RECOMMENDED the Motion be DENIED and the Court adopt the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Plaintiff Norberto Torres, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC") brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court conducted a threshold review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and the following claims were allowed to proceed:
Count 1 - Bebout retaliated against Plaintiff for failing to provide information relevant to her investigation by writing him a false disciplinary report in violation of the First Amendment;
Count 2 - Bebout, Spiller, Brookman, Jackson, and Butler violated Plaintiff's due process rights in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment when they found him guilty of the false disciplinary report;
The allegations arise out of an altercation at Menard in the West yard on December 7, 2015. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Shots were fired, and Plaintiff immediately got down. Id. An officer came and escorted Plaintiff to segregation, allegedly for lying in an improper position. Id. When Plaintiff arrived at the segregation building, Bebout interviewed him. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Plaintiff told her that he did not know anything about the incident and was not involved. Id. Bebout stated that unless changed his story, he would be "written up" as participating in the altercation and labeled a member of the "Latin Folk." Id. Plaintiff asked Bebout to review the camera footage, but she declined. Id. Plaintiff threatened to file grievances, but Bebout said she would destroy any grievance naming her.
Later in his cell, a guard that Torres that Spiller and Bebout had placed him on investigative status. (Doc. 1, p. 7). On December 9, 2015, Plaintiff received an investigative status report. Id. Less than a week later, he received a disciplinary report. Id. Spiller wrote the disciplinary report, but it contained everything Bebout threatened she would include. Id.
On December 22, 2015, Plaintiff appeared before the adjustment committee, composed of Brookman and Jackson. Id. He pleaded not guilty and denied being a gang member. Id. Based solely on the disciplinary report, Plaintiff was found guilty and received one year C-grade, one-year segregation, one-year commissary restriction, and six months contact visit restriction. Id. Butler approved the report on December 31, 2015. Id.
In his original complaint, Torres stated he was seeking, among other things, "preliminary and permanent injunction" (Doc. 1, p. 12). The Court construed this statement as a motion for preliminary injunction, which is currently pending, before the Court.
Torres requests a preliminary injunction ordering the current defendants and all future wardens, committee members and grievance officers to "immediately cease their illegal practices of disregarding exonerating evidence in disciplinary hearings and illegally placing prisoners in punitive segregation." (Doc. 1, p. 12). Plaintiff further requests the Court order the same individuals to begin audio recording all disciplinary hearings, abide by the Illinois administrative code, and provide prisoners with due process and equal protection of the law during hearings. (Doc. 1, p. 12).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
No response or hearing on this motion is necessary because it is apparent from the face of the motion that Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief requested.
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). The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that a preliminary injunction must be "narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm . . . ," and "be the least intrusive means necessary to correct that harm." 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). To obtain a preliminary injunction the movant has the burden of demonstrating: (1) a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits; (2) no adequate remedy at law; and (3) irreparable harm absent the injunction. Planned Parenthood v. Commissioner of Indiana State Dept. of Health, 699 F.3d 962, 972 (7th Cir. 2012). If the movant successfully meets this burden, the Court must then weigh "the balance of harm to the parties if the injunction is granted or denied and also evaluate the effect of an injunction on the public interest." Planned Parenthood, 699 F.3d at 972.
Here, there is no evidence before the Court that Plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm or that he has no adequate remedy at law. Only harm that cannot be remedied following a final determination on the merits qualifies as irreparable harm. Am. Hosp. Ass'n v. Harris, 625 F.2d 1328, 1331 (7th Cir. 1980). As a result of the complained of disciplinary hearing Torres received a one year C-grade, one year segregation, one year commissary restriction, and six months contact visit restriction. (Doc. 1, p. 7). He has served the time in segregation and all of the other restrictions have long since been lifted — some as a result of the Administrative Review Board's remand of the disciplinary hearing (Doc. 1, p. 9). Thus, there is no injunctive relief the Court can grant Torres regarding his prior hearing. Further, there is no evidence before the Court that Torres is likely to face another disciplinary hearing. The prospective relief Torres requests is therefore premature at best. Finally, while a jury may eventually determine Torres is entitled to damages resulting from the hearing, there is no evidence money damages would be inadequate to remedy his injury. See Girl Scouts of Manitou Counsel, Inc. v. Girl Scouts of United States of American, Inc., 549 F.3d 1079, 1095 (7th Cir. 2008) (holding where money damages are sufficient to redress the injury there is an adequate remedy at law).
Because the Court finds Torres has not met his threshold burden, there is no need to weigh the harms or consider the equities. See Korte v. Sebelius, 735 F.3d 654, 665 (7th Cir. 2013). --------
RECOMMENDATIONS
For the foregoing reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that the motion for injunctive relief be DENIED and the Court adopt the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law.
NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and SDIL-LR 73.1(b), 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 after service. 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 are not to file an appeal as 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. DATED: October 10, 2018
/s/
DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge