govinfo:USCOURTS-ilsd-3_25-cv-02036-1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 
 
DAVEON MOON, ) 
M31268, ) 
 ) 
Plaintiff, ) 
 ) 
vs. ) 
 ) Case No. 25-cv-2036-MAB 
SANDY L. WALKER, ) 
ANTHONY D. WILLS, ) 
JACOB GUETERSLOH, ) 
KEVIN REICHERT, ) 
 ) 
 Defendants. ) 
 
MEMORANDUM & ORDER 
 
BEATTY, Magistrate Judge: 
 
 Plaintiff Daveon Moon, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections 
(IDOC) currently detained at Menard Correctional Center, brought this civil rights action 
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights . (Doc. 
1). Specifically, Plaintiff argued that he was disciplined too harshly in September of 2024, 
and that Defendants Wills, Guetersloh, and Reichert failed to remedy the issue during 
the grievance process. The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint 1 as insufficiently pled 
(Doc. 10), and it ultimately dismissed his Amended Complaint with prejudice for failure 
to state a claim (Doc. 16). A few weeks after judgment was entered, Plaintiff filed a 
Motion for a Temporary Injunction (Doc. 18) wherein he complains about alleged 
 
1 The Court has jurisdiction to resolve Plaintiff’s motions and to screen his Complaint in light of his consent 
to the full jurisdiction of a magistrate judge and the Illinois Department of Corrections’ and Wexford’s 
limited consent to the exercise of magistrate judge jurisdiction as set forth in the Memorandum s of 
Understanding between the Illinois Department of Corrections and Wexford and this Court. Page ID
#<pageID>
retaliation and conditions of confinement. On the same day, Plaintiff also filed a Notice 
of Appeal. (Doc. 19). 
 Although Plaintiff’s appeal is pending, the Court will interpret the Motion for a 
Temporary Injunction and Restraining Order as a motion to reconsider the underlying 
dismissal of this case, and it will dispose of the motion quickly so that the appeal can 
proceed without delay. In the Motion, Plaintiff alleges that he has experienced 
harassment from staff for the last three months, including false discipline, the 
unprovoked use of mace, and a deprivation of food and water, among other things. (Doc. 
18 at 1). The only prison employee mentioned in the motion is Lt. Brandt, an individual 
that was not a defendant in the case. Along with the Motion, Plaintiff also included his 
own affidavit, and the affidavits of fellow inmates, describing their conditions of 
confinement. The affidavits do not make allegations about prison staff by name. 
 Rather than challenging the legal or factual basis for the Court’s dismissal of this 
case, Plaintiff’s motion and supporting documents seek to introduce entirely new factual 
and legal theories. Neither a motion to reconsider nor a motion for temporary or 
preliminary relief are appropriate procedural vehicles to amend the basis for a lawsuit or 
to seek emergency relief. Upon review of the initial complaint in this case, the Court 
informed Plaintiff that if he believed he had conditions of confinement claim he should 
include details about it in his amended complaint (Doc. 10 at 8), but Plaintiff did not 
include any such details in his amended complaint (Docs. 12, 17). The present motion 
comes too late to amend the underlying complaint in this case and does not present a 
compelling basis for the Court to reconsider the dismissal of this case. Page ID
#<pageID>
Additionally, Plaintiff does not associate his new allegations with any named 
defendant, and the Court can only grant injunctive relief related to the underlying claims 
and theories for relief. If injunctive relief is warranted, the Prison Litigation Reform Act 
provides that the 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). Injunctive relief must be related to issues in the underlying 
lawsuit. See e.g., Tatum v. Hunter, Case No. 22- 2411 (S.D. Ill. 2023) (Doc. 16) (denying 
injunctive relief, including a request for a transfer, where the injunctive relief sought was 
not narrowly tailored and did not align with the claims in the case) aff’d in Tatum v. 
Hunter, Case No. 23-2253 (7th Cir. May 16, 2024); Daniels v. Dumsdorff, et al., Case No. 19-
cv-394 (S.D. Ill. 2019). Given the disconnect between the allegations in the Motion, and 
the underlying pleadings, no injunctive relief is appropriate. 
DISPOSITION 
 Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Injunction and Restraining Order (Doc. 18) is 
DENIED. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
Dated: June 15, 2026 
 ______________________________ 
 MARK A. BEATTY 
 United States Magistrate Judge Page ID
#<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight