United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (DKT. NO. 30),
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE (DKT. NO. 38),
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (DKT.
NO. 51), GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECIVE
ORDER (DKT. NO. 61), GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
ENLARGE PAGE LIMITS (DKT. NO. 78), DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO STAY PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. NO. 80), GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE (DKT. NO. 80),
AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO THE DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON OR BEFORE APRIL 14,
PAMELA PEPPER United States District Judge.
plaintiff, Daniel Anthony Peace, is representing himself on
Eighth Amendment claims regarding the defendants' alleged
failure to provide him medically prescribed ice for a foot
injury in December 2014. There are a number of motions
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
plaintiff filed a combined motion for preliminary injunction
and temporary restraining order. Dkt. No. 30. He asks the
court to overturn a conduct report he received and void the
punishment that resulted. Id. at 1-2. He also wants
the court to order that he be transferred from Waupun
Correctional Institution to another maximum security prison,
or to a medium security prison. Id. at 2. Finally,
he wants the court to order that none of the defendants be
involved in making decisions on new inmate complaints or
appeals he files. Id. The factual basis for his
motion includes a recitation of the facts underlying this
complaint, dkt. no. 32 at 2-6, problems he had filing a
complaint in July 2015, id. at 7-9, an incident with
librarian Nevin Webster in October 2015, id. at
9-10, complaints regarding his job assignment in 2016,
id. at 10-13, and an incident at work in June 2016
where he drove a lawn mower over a padlock on a manhole,
id. at 13-15.
obtain preliminary injunctive relief, whether through a
temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, the
plaintiff must show that (1) his underlying case has a
reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, (2) no
adequate remedy at law exists, and (3) he will suffer
irreparable harm without the injunction. Wood v.
Buss, 496 F.3d 620, 622 (7th Cir. 2007). If he shows
those three factors, the court then must move to the second
phase of the test for injunctive relief: balancing the harm
to each party and to the public interest from granting or
denying the injunction. Id.; Korte v.
Sebelius, 735 F.3d 654, 665 (7th Cir. 2013); Cooper
v. Salazar, 196 F.3d 809, 813 (7th Cir. 1999).
preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary remedy that
may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff
is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Natural Res.
Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008) (citing Mazurek
v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam)). A
preliminary injunction is appropriate only if it seeks relief
of the same character sought in the underlying suit, and
deals with a matter presented in that underlying suit.
Kaimowitz v. Orlando, Fla., 122 F.3d 41, 43 (11th
Cir. 1997) (citing De Beers Consol. Mines v. U.S.,
325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945)); see also Omega World Travel v.
TWA, 111 F.3d 14, 16 (4th Cir. 1997); Devose v.
Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994) (per
curiam) (“[A] party moving for a preliminary injunction
must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury
claimed in the party’s motion and the conduct asserted
in the complaint.”) (citing Penn v. San Juan Hosp.,
Inc., 528 F.2d 1181, 1185 (10th Cir. 1975)); Alston
v. City of Madison, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106317, 2
(W.D. Wis. Aug. 4, 2014) (“[T]he general rule is that a
plaintiff may not obtain injunctive relief on issues that do
not relate to the claims asserted in the complaint.”).
“underlying suit” in this case relates to the
defendants’ alleged denial of medical ice on several
days in December 2014. The injunctive relief that the
plaintiff seeks-voiding an unrelated conduct report, a
transfer to a new prison, and the handling of his inmate
complaints-is not related to his allegations that he was
denied ice for his foot over two years ago. See Hashim v.
Hamblin, Case No. 14-cv-1265, 2016 WL 297465 at *4 (E.D.
Wis. January 22, 2016) (“Plaintiff’s requests for
injunctive relief are not connected to the claims he is
proceeding on in this case. He may not seek relief in
connection with these claims in this lawsuit.”)
the plaintiff demonstrate that he has an inadequate remedy at
law if he does not receive the relief he requests. “The
absence of an adequate remedy at law is a precondition to any
form of equitable relief.” Roland Mach. Co. v.
Dresser Indus., Inc., 749 F.2d 380, 386 (7th Cir. 2984).
The usual “adequate remedy at law” is money
damages. Maerican Medicorp., Inc. v. Continental Illinois
Nat. Bank and Trust Co. of Chicago, 475 F. Supp. 5, 7
(N.D. Ill. 1977). In this case, the plaintiff has asked, as a
remedy for the defendants’ alleged failure to give him
medical ice, for a million dollars in money damages. Dkt. No.
1 at 13. Thus, he has an adequate remedy at law.
the plaintiff has not demonstrated that he will suffer
irreparable harm if the court does not grant the injunctive
relief. In support of this factor, the plaintiff argues only
that the defendants have violated his constitutional rights
in the past. Dkt. No. 31 at 4-6. Alleging that the defendants
violated his rights in the past does not demonstrate that the
plaintiff is in danger of suffering irreparable harm in the
court will deny the plaintiff’s motion for injunctive
MOTION TO STRIKE
plaintiff has asked the court to strike the proposed findings
of fact he filed with his motion for preliminary injunction,
accept the amended proposed findings of fact he filed with
that motion, and direct the defendants to respond to these
amended proposed findings of fact. Dkt. No. 28. There is no
need to strike the plaintiff’s proposed findings of
fact, or for the defendants to respond to them, because the
court did not base its denial of the plaintiff’s motion
for preliminary injunction and ...