Bentz
v.
Ghosh

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOISAug 1, 2018
Case No. 3:13-cv-00573-NJR-DGW (S.D. Ill. Aug. 1, 2018)

Case No. 3:13-cv-00573-NJR-DGW

08-01-2018

DAVID ROBERT BENTZ, Plaintiff, v. PARTHASARATHI GHOSH, ROBERT STELFOX, SHANE LAIR, and RYAN SADLER, Defendants.


REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge :

This matter has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson by United States District Nancy J. Rosenstengel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), and SDIL-LR 72.1(a) for a Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 309). For the following reasons, it is RECOMMENDED the Motion for Preliminary Injunction be DENIED and the Court adopt the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Plaintiff David Bentz, an inmate at Menard Correctional Center, filed this action alleging that medical personnel at Stateville, Pontiac, and Menard Correctional Centers were deliberately indifferent to his serious dental condition. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges he was denied medical care for an abscessed tooth from approximately October, 2010 to June, 2013. Plaintiff filed this action on June 17, 2013.

The following claims remain before the Court (Doc. 281):

1. Bentz's claim that Dr. Ghosh was deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need because he ignored Plaintiff's need for immediate pain relief during his October 28, 2010 appointment;
2. Bentz's claim that Robert Stelfox, D.D.S. was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's complaints of pain and a tooth abscess;
3. Bentz's Eighth Amendment claims against officers Sadler and Lair for recklessly disregarding a substantial risk of serious pain to an inmate when they ignored Bentz's complaints about an abscessed tooth; and
4. Bentz's Illinois state-law negligence claims against officers Sadler and Lair regarding his complaints of tooth pain.


On March 1, 2018 Bentz filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 309) asking the Court to: (1) update its General Order No. 15:05, (2) grant Dent greater access to his legal materials, (3) order Menard Correctional center not to require Bentz to carry his correspondence box or other legal material to the legal exchange, and (4) for legal mail to be delivered to him more quickly (Doc. 315).

Because there are not facts at issue, the Court finds a hearing on this matter is not required.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A preliminary injunction is an "extraordinary and drastic remedy" for which there must be a "clear showing" that Plaintiff is entitled to relief. Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quoting 11A CHARLES ALANWRIGHT, ARTHUR RMILLER, & MARY KAY KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2948 (5th ed. 1995)). The purpose of such an injunction is "to minimize the hardship to the parties pending the ultimate resolution of the lawsuit." Faheem-Elv. Klincar, 841 F.2d 712, 717 (7th Cir. 1988). The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that a preliminary injunction must be "narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm . . . ," and "be the least intrusive means necessary to correct that harm." 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).

Any relief sought through a preliminary injunction must relate to the underlying claims in the cause of action. De Beers Consol. Mines v. U.S., 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945) ("A preliminary injunction is always appropriate to grant intermediate relief of the same character as that which may be granted finally."). Where the requested injunction relates to matters "lying wholly outside the issues in the suit," an injunction is beyond the power of the Court. Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, 527 U.S. 308, 326 (1999) (quoting De Beers Consol. Mines, Ltd. v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945)).

Here, the motion for preliminary injunction requests relief that is unrelated to the underlying suit. Bentz is requesting the Court order increased or more convenient access to his legal materials and legal mail. Bentz frames these issues as a violation of his constitutional right to access to the courts (Doc. 309, p. 2), however such a claim is not before the Court. The only pending claims allege deliberate indifference to Bentz's medical condition based on the denial of adequate dental treatment. Thus the relief Bentz seeks is outside the issues of the suit and therefore beyond the power of the Court to order.

RECOMMENDATIONS

For the above stated reasons, it is RECOMMENDED the Court DENY the pending Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 309) and adopts the preceding findings of fact and conclusions of law.

NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and SDIL-LR 73.1(b), any party may serve and file written OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation/Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law within fourteen (14) days after service. Failure to file such OBJECTIONS shall result in a waiver of the right to appeal all issues, both factual and legal, which are addressed in the Report and Recommendation/Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd. and Joseph Sclafani, 797 F.2d 538 (7th Cir. 1986).

You are not to file an appeal as to the Report and Recommendation/Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. An appeal is inappropriate until after the District Judge issues an Order either affirming or reversing the Report and Recommendation/Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the U.S. Magistrate Judge. DATED: August 1, 2018

/s/


DONALD G. WILKERSON


United States Magistrate Judge