Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilcd;;1:16-cv-01473_de77> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01473_de77 RegisterActionDate "2018-08-22" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01473_de77 RegisterActionDescriptionText "TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/22/18. Plaintiff files an Emergency Motion 60 , asserting that on 8/10/18, he was illegally placed on "personal property strip out." Plaintiff claims that, during the strip out he was assaulted by Officer Gruel. Plaintiff alleges retaliation, not identifying any First Amendment exercise which caused the retaliation. Watkins v. Kasper, No. 05-00028, 2007 WL 772939, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 8, 2007). He also asserts that the unavailability of his personal property has affected his access to the courts, without alleging any particular detriment. Shango v. Jurich, 965 F.2d 289, 291 (7th Cir.1992). The Court reviews Plaintiff's Motion as one for preliminary injunction. The Seventh Circuit has repeatedly stated that a preliminary injunction is an exercise of a very far-reaching power, never to be indulged in except in a case clearly demanding it. Girl Scouts of Manitou Council, Inc. v. Girl Scouts of U.S.A., Inc., 549 F.3d 1079, 1085 (7th Cir. 2008). A party seeking the injunction has the burden to prove that he will suffer irreparable harm during the time prior to final resolution of his claims, the inadequacy of legal remedies available, and some likelihood of success on the merits. Ty, Inc. v. Jones Group, Inc., 237 F.3d 891, 895 (7th Cir. 2001). Here, Plaintiff does not establish "some likelihood of success on the merits," as his claims are insufficient to support retaliation and denial of access to the courts. He also fails to allege that he will suffer irreparable harm if the relief is denied. Furthermore, the deprivation of personal property does not state a constitutional claim, and is properly brought in the Court of Claims. Stewart v. McGinnis, 5 F.3d 1031, 1035-36 (7th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff's claim that he was recently assaulted by Officer Gruel is unrelated to the claims at issue here and represents an attempted misjoinder. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). If Plaintiff wishes to assert a claim against Officer Gruel, he must file a separate action with responsibility for the attendant filing fee. 60 is DENIED.(FDS, ilcd) (Entered: 08/22/2018)" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01473_de77 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01473_de77 hasJudgeReference SJ001506 @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01473_de77 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:16-cv-01473_de76 @default.