Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilcd;;1:16-cv-01430_de23> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01430_de23 RegisterActionDate "2017-06-15" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01430_de23 RegisterActionDescriptionText "TEXT ORDER Entered by Judge Sara Darrow on 6/15/2017. Plaintiff filed an Emergency Motion for Restraining Order 18 seeking an order directing officials at Pontiac Correctional Center to provide him with a special diet and a fan he alleges is medically necessary. Plaintiff alleges he is hypoglycemic and subject to overheating. "preliminary injunction is appropriate only if it seeks relief of the same character sought in the underlying suit and deals with a matter presented in that underlying suit." Howard v. Bartow, No. 14-CV-237, 2014 WL 6819308, at *3 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 2, 2014) (collecting cases). Plaintiff alleged First Amendment access-to-the-courts and retaliation claims in his complaint and he now seeks injunctive relief related to medical care issues that arose after he filed this lawsuit. Thus, injunctive relief is not proper. Furthermore, Plaintiff has not shown that he lacks an adequate remedy at law. See Foodcomm Int'l v Barry, 328 F.3d 300, 303 (7th Cir. 2003) (a movant must show, among other things, that he lacks an adequate remedy at law for a preliminary injunction to issue). Plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Plaintiff attached two grievances he filed on June 5, 2017 regarding the issues he raises in his motion. See 18 at 17-21. His remedy at this point lies within the grievance process at the prison and he must follow that process through to its conclusion. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion 18 is DENIED.(KB, ilcd) (Entered: 06/15/2017)" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01430_de23 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01430_de23 hasJudgeReference SJ001510 @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01430_de23 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:16-cv-01430_de22 @default.