Lima v. Warden, No. 3:2022cv00692 - Document 12 (N.D. Ind. 2022)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: The court DENIES the 3 preliminary injunction motion, VACATES that portion of the 2 order which required the Warden of the Westville Correctional Facility to file and serve a response to the preliminary injunction motion and DIRECTS the clerk to edit the docket entry of that 2 order to note the vacated portion. Signed by Judge Damon R Leichty on 8/31/22. (Copy mailed to pro se party). (nal)

Download PDF
Lima v. Warden Doc. 12 USDC IN/ND case 3:22-cv-00692-DRL-MGG document 12 filed 08/31/22 page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION RICHARD LIMA, Plaintiff, v. CAUSE NO. 3:22-CV-692-DRL-MGG WARDEN, Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER Richard Lima, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction. ECF 3. “[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). As to the first prong of the preliminary injunction test, “the applicant need not show that it definitely will win the case.” Illinois Republican Party v. Pritzker, 973 F.3d 760, 763 (7th Cir. 2020). However, “a mere possibility of success is not enough.” Id. at 762. “A strong showing . . . normally includes a demonstration of how the applicant proposes to prove the key elements of its case.” Id. at 763 (quotation marks omitted). Dockets.Justia.com USDC IN/ND case 3:22-cv-00692-DRL-MGG document 12 filed 08/31/22 page 2 of 2 Here, Lima cannot make such a showing until the exhaustion of administrative remedies affirmative defense is resolved. See ECF 10 at 2. “[E]xhaustion is . . . a preliminary issue for the court.” Wagoner v. Lemmon, 778 F.3d 586, 592 (7th Cir. 2015). In a separate order, the court is set a schedule for the prompt resolution of the exhaustion affirmative defense. After it is resolved, if the case is not dismissed, Mr. Lima may refile the preliminary injunction motion if he believes one is still needed. For these reasons, the court: (1) DENIES the preliminary injunction motion (ECF 3); (2) VACATES that portion of the August 24, 2022, Order (ECF 2) which required the Warden of the Westville Correctional Facility to file and serve a response to the preliminary injunction motion; and (3) DIRECTS the clerk to edit the docket entry of that order (ECF 2) to note the vacated portion. SO ORDERED August 31, 2022 s/ Damon R. Leichty Judge, United States District Court 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.