United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
PRINCE F. RASHADA, Plaintiff,
CATHY JESS, ET AL., Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM M. CONLEY DISTRICT JUDGE.
se plaintiff Prince F. Rashada, a prisoner at the Fox
Lake Correctional Institution (“FLCI”), is
proceeding in this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
(“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-2(b), on
claims that defendants violated his constitutional and
statutory rights by confiscating his religious newspapers.
Currently before the court are Rashada's motion to amend
his complaint (dkt. #20), motion for a preliminary injunction
and temporary restraining order (dkt. #22) and motion to
compel (dkt. #23). For the reasons that follow, the court is
denying Rashada's motions to amend and compel, but will
direct defendants to respond to his request for a preliminary
injunction related to the continued confiscation of his
Motion to amend complaint (dkt. #20)
seeks to amend his complaint to provide further details about
the claims upon which he is proceeding. While the proposed
amended complaint updates the list of defendants to include
only those the court allowed him to proceed against, provides
details about Rashada's efforts to exhaust his
administrative remedies, and elaborates on the injunctive
relief he seeks, Rashada's proposed claims are the same.
For that reason, the court sees no basis to modify the
operative complaint in this lawsuit and require defendants to
file another answer. Accordingly, the motion to amend will be
denied as unnecessary.
Motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining
order (dkt. #22)
seeks a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining
order: (1) requiring FLCI to recognize the Nation of Islam
(“NOI”) as an approved religion; (2) instructing
Wisconsin Department of Corrections (“DOC”)
employees not to force Rashada to take part in a religious
group that does not reflect his personal beliefs; (3)
instructing DOC employees to stop discriminating against and
mistreating Rashada with respect to his NOI practice; and (4)
precluding defendants from denying future Final Call
newspapers. (See dkt. #22-1.) To start, Rashada has
not made a showing that he requires immediate relief
without notice to and an opportunity to respond by the
defendants, his request for a temporary restraining order
will be denied. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1) (to
obtain temporary restraining order without prior notice to
the adverse party, plaintiff must show that “immediate
and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the
movant before the adverse party can be heard in
opposition”). However, with respect to his request for
a preliminary injunction, the court will direct defendants to
respond, but only to his request related to the Final Call
first three requests are broader than his claims in this
lawsuit, so the court is denying those requests for that
reason. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2) (injunctive
relief to remedy prison conditions must be “narrowly
drawn to extend no further than necessary to correct the harm
the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least
intrusive means necessary to correct that harm”).
However, his fourth request relates to Rashada's
challenge to the confiscation of his Final Call newspapers,
which is the subject of his RLUIPA and constitutional claims
in this lawsuit. Since Rashada has submitted an affidavit in
which he avers that Final Call newspapers do not violate
prison policy in any way, the court will require defendants
to respond to that request for preliminary injunctive relief.
Motion to compel (dkt. #23)
Rashada's motion to compel will be denied. In it, Rashada
asks for an order requiring defendants to respond to his
first set of interrogatories and request for production of
documents. Yet defendants point out that their deadline to
respond had not yet passed when Rashada filed his motion,
Rashada did not try to work with defendants before filing his
motion, and, in any event, defendants now have timely
responded to Rashada's discovery requests. Rashada does
not dispute defendants' response. Accordingly, the court
accepts that Rashada's motion to compel was premature and
will deny it.
Plaintiff Prince Rashada's motion for leave to amend
(dkt. #20) is DENIED.
Plaintiff's motion to compel (dkt. #23) is DENIED.
Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction (dkt.
#22) is RESERVED in part and ...