Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Peace v. Pollard

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

February 10, 2017

DANIEL ANTHONY PEACE, Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN WILLIAM POLLARD, TONY MELI, BRADLEY TANNER, BONNIE LIND, JAMES OLSON, TONIA MOON, ALYSSA EAKE, LAJUAN LEWIS, WELCOME ROSE, and CINDY O'DONNELL, Defendants.

         DECISION 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, 2017

          HON. PAMELA PEPPER United States District Judge.

         The 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 pending.

         I. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

         The 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.

         To 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).

         A 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.”).

         The “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.”) (citations omitted).

         Nor can 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.

         Finally, 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 future.

         The court will deny the plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief.

         II. MOTION TO STRIKE

         The 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.