United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
JOSEPH M. JACKSON, Plaintiff,
DAVID BROOKS, et al., Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
AN INJUNCTION (DKT NO. 13) AND DENYING HIS MOTION FOR AN
EXTENSION OF TIME AND FOR AN ORDER FOR A LEGAL LOAN (DKT. NO.
PAMELA PEPPER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
plaintiff, a Wisconsin state prisoner who is representing
himself, is proceeding on a deliberate indifference claim
against the defendants, based on his allegations that,
despite the fact that he was allergic to apples, the
defendants repeatedly denied or ignored his requests for
assistance in obtaining a food tray free of apple products.
Dkt. No. 12 at 3-4. On March 9, 2018, the plaintiff filed a
motion seeking: (1) an injunction requiring his institution
to give him a medical diet tray free of apple products; (2)
an order “issu[ing] access for medical files to be
copies for review for lawsuit;” (3) the ability to talk
to Judge Joseph about his settlement demands; and (4)
information about what was going on with his case and what he
needed to do next. Dkt. No. 13.
Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph (the judge assigned to the case
at that time) gave the plaintiff information about how his
case would proceed, denied the plaintiff's request for
access to his medical records, denied his request for a
settlement, and ordered the defendants to respond to his
request for injunctive relief. Dkt. No. 14.
April 11, 2018-before the court received the defendants'
response- the court received another motion from the
plaintiff. Dkt. No. 19. He first asks whether this court
could provide him with “an extension on the motion [he]
filed to have access to medical records on March 3rd
2018.” Dkt. No. 19. The plaintiff appears to indicate
that he has been given access to the medical files regarding
his apple allergy. Id. It is not clear why the
plaintiff wants an extension on the motion; Judge Joseph
denied this motion in her March 22, 2108 order. Dkt. No. 14.
The court will deny this request as moot.
plaintiff also asks the court to “have it court ordered
that [he] would need a year of funding through legal loan so
he can stay in contact with the court and respond to and file
motions.” Dkt. No. 19. The court will deny that
request. The court is not involved in giving or monitoring
legal loans. Those decisions are made by the inmate's
institution. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547
(1979) (“Prison administrators therefore should be
accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution
of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed
to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain
institutional security.”) If the plaintiff wants a
legal loan, he must follow his institution's rules and
guidelines for applying for one.
the plaintiff again asks the court to file an injunction for
a medical tray to be provided to him, due to his allergy.
Dkt. No. 19. The plaintiff already had filed an earlier
motion asking for this same relief, dkt. no. 13, and the
defendants filed their response on May 4, 2018, dkt. no. 21.
The plaintiff did not file a reply.
obtain preliminary injunctive relief, a 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 things, the court then
balances 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). 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).
court will deny the plaintiff's motion, because he has
not established that he will suffer irreparable harm if the
court does not order his institution to provide him with
apple-free food trays. The defendants provide a detailed
medical history of the plaintiff's allergy. Their
evidence (which the plaintiff did not dispute or disagree
with) demonstrates that a preliminary injunction is
unnecessary because: (1) the plaintiff can avoid eating any
food items on his tray that contain apples; and (2) the mere
presence of apples on his food tray will not harm him. Dkt.
No. 21 at 12-13.
defendants explain that the plaintiff's meal trays have
six to eight sections for individual food items, and that if
any items containing apples contaminate other items, the
plaintiff can alert the chow officer or food staff and
present his diet card. Id. at 13. The chow officer
or food staff then will give him a new tray. Id. To
the extent food items containing apples are on the plaintiffs
food tray, he can simply not eat them.
although the plaintiff reported in November 2017 that he had
developed a rash on his arm and shoulder from the mere
presence of apples on his food tray, neither the sergeant or
health services staff found any sign of a rash. Id.
There is no evidence to support the plaintiffs conclusion
that the mere exposure to (as opposed to ingestion of) apples
will harm him.
court will deny the plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief,
because the plaintiff has not carried his burden of showing
that a preliminary injunction is necessary for him to avoid
court DENIES the plaintiffs motion for an
injunction requiring the institution to give him a medical
tray. Dkt. No. 13.
court further DENIES as moot the plaintiffs
motion for extension of time and DENIES his