United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
WILLIAM E. DUFFIN' U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
November 9, 2018, pro se plaintiff Victor Robert Brown, an
inmate at the Green Bay Correctional Institution (GBCI),
filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1) He
later filed an amended complaint on November 26, 2018. (ECF
No. 11.) On January 15, 2019, the court screened Brown's
amended complaint and allowed him to proceed on claims of
deliberate indifference against Gregg Friedal and CO David
Yang. (ECF No. 18.) On January 23, 2019, Brown filed three
separate motions: a motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF
No. 19), a motion to amend his complaint a second time (ECF
No. 20), and a motion for an order requiring the GBCI
business office to provide him with five legal loan
applications (ECF No. 21).
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
seeking a motion for a preliminary injunction, Brown states
that he has been diagnosed with various mental illnesses and
is “in serious need of treatment.” (ECF No. 19 at
2.) He alleges that GBCI has him in a cell with no emergency
call button, refuses to put him on scheduled safety check
while in this cell with no call button, does not have any
rehabilitative programs available, and is very short staffed
in their psychological department. (Id. at 1-2.) He
asks to be either 1) placed in a cell with an emergency call
button, 2) placed on thirty minute or one-hour safety checks,
3) given a transfer hearing and a thirty minute to an
hour-long mental health therapy session once a month, or 4)
be administratively transferred to another facility and given
a thirty minute to an hour-long mental health therapy session
once a month. (Id. at 2-3.)
obtain preliminary injunctive relief, whether through a TRO
or a preliminary injunction, 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).
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. NRDC,
Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008) (citing Mazurek v.
Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per
curiam)). Such an injunction is appropriate only if it
seeks relief of the same character sought in the underlying
suit. Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th
Cir. 1994) (“[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.”); Neuroscience, Inc. v.
Forrest, No. 12-cv-813-bbc, 2013 WL 6331348, at *1 (W.D.
Wis. Dec. 5, 2013) (denying motion for preliminary injunction
because it raised issues outside scope of complaint).
Furthermore, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA),
preliminary injunctive relief must be “narrowly drawn,
” must “extend no further than necessary to
correct the harm, ” and must be “the least
intrusive means necessary to correct the harm.” 18
U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).
court orders the defendants to respond to Brown's request
for a preliminary injunction within twenty-one days.
Thereafter, if necessary, the court will schedule a hearing.
Motion to Amend Complaint
has already amended his complaint once. In his amended
complaint he claims the defendants violated his rights under
the Eighth Amendment by acting with deliberate indifference
to his risk of suicide. In his motion to amend his complaint
a second time, Brown seeks only to correct the date on which
the defendants engaged in the constitutional violation.
decision to grant leave to amend is left to the discretion of
the district court. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178,
182 (1962). Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, leave to amend should be “freely given when
justice so requires, ” absent considerations such as
“undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part
of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by
amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the
opposing party by virtue of allowance of an amendment, and
futility of amendment.” Id.
the liberal amendment policy under Rule 15, the court will
grant Brown's motion to amend the complaint for a second
time. Because the court has screened Brown's first
amended complaint, and the only change in the second amended
complaint is the date of the alleged constitutional
violation, the court need not perform an additional
screening. Brown may proceed on his Eighth Amendment claim
against the defendants. The defendants must file a responsive
pleading to the second amended complaint.
Motion for Order to Provide Legal Loan Forms
Lastly, Brown moves for an order requiring the GBCI business
office to provide him with five legal loan applications. (ECF
No. 21.) He states he requested the forms from the GBCI
business office but was told they had already been sent and
to check with security. (Id. at 1-2.) When he
informed the business office that he did not get them, he
received no response. (Id. at 2.) Brown states he
needs the forms to apply for loans to litigate this and other
pending and future cases. (Id.)
request, however, relates to a legal aid program provided and
managed by GBCI. The court is not inclined to insert itself
into matters of prison administration, to which it normally
accords substantial deference. See Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S.
460, 467 (1983) (“[P]rison officials have broad
administrative and discretionary ...