United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
JULIAN R. BLACKSHEAR, Plaintiff,
TINA AMIN, MARIANA TOKAR, MICHELLE WILINSKI, MICHAEL MAYER, AMY EPPING, DR. MARCELO CASTILLO, STEPHANIE O'NEILL, CHARLES VENA, and JOHN and JANE DOES, Defendants.
STADTMUELLER U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
a prisoner incarcerated in Waupun Correctional Institution
(“Waupun”), proceeding in this action pro
se, filed this action in the District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin. (Docket #1). The matter was
later transferred to this District upon Defendants'
motion for transfer. (Docket #33). Prior to the transfer,
Plaintiff was allowed to proceed on a claim that Defendants,
officials at Racine Correctional Institution
(“Racine”), were deliberately indifferent to his
risk of self-harm, in violation of his rights under the
Eighth Amendment. (Docket #14). Specifically, Plaintiff
alleged that he was housed in observation cells where he had
access to implements by which he could harm himself, and that
Defendants had prior knowledge of the cells' conditions.
Id. Four of Plaintiff's motions are now pending
before the Court. The Court will address them in the order in
which they were filed.
first motion was filed in May 2018 while this action was
still pending in the Western District. Plaintiff moved to add
a number of defendants to this action based on his
investigation of his claims. (Docket #27). He did not,
however, attach an amended complaint stating his allegations
against those defendants. Complaints may not be amended in a
piecemeal fashion. Instead, to amend his complaint, Plaintiff
would be required to file a motion for leave to amend which
attaches an amended complaint. The amended complaint entirely
supersedes and replaces the original complaint, and so the
amended complaint must be complete in and of itself. See
Duda v. Bd. of Educ. of Franklin Park Pub. Sch. Dist. No.
84, 133 F.3d 1054, 1056-57 (7th Cir. 1998). Thus, the
Court is compelled to deny Plaintiff's motion for leave
to add defendants. He may nevertheless still file an amended
complaint in accordance with the deadlines set in the
Court's scheduling order, which will be issued along with
second motion is for an order to transfer him to the
Wisconsin Resource Center for mental health treatment.
(Docket #37). He apparently believes that he is receiving
inadequate mental health care at Waupun. Id.;
(Docket #38). The Court will deny this motion for two
reasons. First, Plaintiff's action concerns conduct
occurring at Racine. Moreover, Plaintiff is now at Waupun,
and so none of the Defendants in this case would have any
power to transfer him. Parties cannot seek injunctive relief
against non-defendants for matters not directly related to
their claims. See 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.”).
“[A] District Court does not have jurisdiction to award
a preliminary injunction for an injury unrelated to any cause
of action found in the complaint.” Johnson v. City
of Rock Island, Ill., No. 4:11-CV-4058-SLD-JAG, 2012 WL
5425605, at *2 (C.D. Ill. Nov. 6, 2012) (citing Stewart
v. U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 762 F.2d
193, 198 (2d Cir. 1985)).
even assuming the motion was filed in an appropriate case and
directed at appropriate defendants, “[a] preliminary
injunction ordering [a] defendant to take an affirmative act
rather than merely refrain from specific conduct, ” as
is the case here, “is ‘cautiously viewed and
sparingly issued.'” Knox v. Shearing, 637
Fed.Appx. 226, 228 (7th Cir. 2016) (quoting Graham v.
Med. Mut. of Ohio, 130 F.3d 293, 295 (7th Cir. 1997)). A
preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary remedy and
is never awarded as of right.” Id. (quoting
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7,
24 (2008)). The Court does not find that Plaintiff has made a
showing entitling him to this extraordinary remedy. His
dissatisfaction with his mental health treatment is no
different than that of many Wisconsin prisoners. The Court
must leave it to the Department of Corrections and its
medical staff to allocate scarce healthcare resources to
third motion asks that the Court issue subpoenas for various
documents. (Docket #39). He does not say who these subpoenas
should be directed to. Id.; (Docket #40). The Court
will deny this motion. All of the documents he requests
should be sought from Defendants using the usual discovery
procedures, not through subpoenas. See Fed. R. Civ.
final motion appears to ask the Court to compel Defendants to
participate in mediation. (Docket #43). The Court will deny
this motion. The Court's policy is that parties may
request mediation before a magistrate judge if they both
agree to mediate. The Court will never order a party to
mediate against their will. The parties are, of course, free
to engage in private settlement negotiations as they see fit.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion
for leave to add defendants (Docket #27) be and the same is
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for
injunctive relief (Docket #37) be and the same is hereby
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to
subpoena documents (Docket #39) be and the same is hereby
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for
mediation (Docket #43) be ...