Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilcd;;1:16-cv-01381_de25> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 6 of
6
with 100 items per page.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01381_de25 RegisterActionDate "2017-01-23" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01381_de25 RegisterActionDescriptionText "TEXT ORDER Entered by Judge Sara Darrow on 1/23/2017. Plaintiff filed a letter with the Court 16 seeking an injunction against officials at Pontiac Correctional Center and an order preserving certain tangible evidence. The Court interprets the letter as a motion. The motion 16 is DENIED in part, and GRANTED in part. Plaintiff alleges that Pontiac officials have not given him his property since he returned to the prison from a five-month court writ. Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure prohibits the Court from entering a preliminary injunction without notice to the opposing party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1). Though waivers of service have been executed by the defendants, Plaintiff filed this motion before defense counsel entered an appearance and Plaintiff did not attach a proof of service to his letter. The Court may issue a temporary restraining order without notice but only if Plaintiff shows immediate and irreparable injury will result before the adverse party can be heard and the movant outlines the efforts that have been made to effect service and explains why it should not be required. Id. 65(b). Plaintiff has not done so. Plaintiff has not shown a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, or that he lacks an adequate remedy at law. See Foodcomm Intl v Barry, 328 F.3d 300, 303 (7th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff offers only conclusory statements that the reasons he has not been given his property are in retaliation for this lawsuit. In addition, the grievance process appears available to Plaintiff, and if he needs more time in the future to meet deadlines in this case, he can always file a motion for extension of time. Plaintiffs motion 16 insofar as it seeks an injunction is DENIED. Plaintiff seeks a court order directing the defendants to preserve documents from any Internal Affairs investigation that was conducted, photos of his injuries, and any relevant video footage arising from the alleged incident of excessive force in his complaint. A party has a duty to preserve evidence when it knows or should have known that litigation was imminent. Trask-Morton v. Motel 6 Operating L.P., 534 F.3d 672, 681 (7th Cir. 2008). To the extent that such evidence now exists, the motion is granted. Defendants shall preserve any such evidence in existence at, or created after, the date of entry of this Order. Defendants Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer 18 is GRANTED. Defendants shall file their answers by February 21, 2017. (ED, ilcd) (Entered: 01/23/2017)" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01381_de25 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01381_de25 hasJudgeReference SJ001510 @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01381_de25 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:16-cv-01381_de22 @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01381_de25 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:16-cv-01381_de24 @default.