RAMON v. HEATHERLY

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana
DecidedJuly 22, 2025
Docket1:24-cv-00836
StatusUnknown

This text of RAMON v. HEATHERLY (RAMON v. HEATHERLY) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Indiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
RAMON v. HEATHERLY, (S.D. Ind. 2025).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

GILBERT RAMON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 1:24-cv-00836-JPH-KMB ) JESSICA HEATHERLY Sgt., et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

The plaintiff, Gilbert Ramon, has filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's June 6, 2025, order denying his motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. Dkt. 24. Mr. Ramon's motion, dkt. [24], is denied. "Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1269 (7th Cir. 1996) (internal quotations and citation omitted). "A manifest error is not demonstrated by the disappointment of the losing party. It is the wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling precedent." Oto v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Mr. Ramon's motion to reconsider challenges the Court's denial of his request for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. Id. The Court denied Mr. Ramon's motion because his request for preliminary relief— permitting him greater access to his tablet and less surveillance at Indiana State Prison—was unrelated to the claims about the power outages at Pendleton Correctional Facility. Dkt. 22. Mr. Ramon argues that his request

should be granted because he named Jeffery Mallott in both his amended complaint and motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. Id. He argues because one defendant overlaps, there is a direct relationship between the facts and injury claimed. Id. "A preliminary injunction is always appropriate to grant intermediate relief of the same character as that which may be granted finally." De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945). If a motion for preliminary injunction "deals with a matter lying wholly outside the issues in

the suit," it should be denied. Id. As the Court explained in its previous order, the facts, circumstances, and relief sought in Mr. Ramon's motion for preliminary injunction is a matter wholly outside the issues raised in his amended complaint. One potential defendant being named in both his amended complaint and preliminary injunction request does not modify this analysis. Mr. Mallott is listed as an employee at Pendleton. Dkt. 18 at 2. Thus, even if the Court screens Mr. Ramon's amended complaint and permits a claim to proceed against Mr.

Mallott, there is no reason to believe he would have the authority to carry out any injunctive relief at Indiana State Prison. See Gonzalez v. Feinerman, 663 F.3d 311, 315 (7th Cir. 2011) (noting that proper defendant for injunctive relief request is the individual who "would be responsible for ensuring that any injunctive relief is carried out."). Because there has been no manifest error in law and no newly discovered evidence, the motion for reconsideration must be denied. If Mr. Ramon wants a court to order injunctive relief concerning the conditions he is experiencing at Indiana State Prison, he must file a lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana, where that prison is located. Any further requests for injunctive relief in this matter will be summarily denied so long as Mr. Ramon is not housed at Pendleton Correctional Facility. See Lehn v. Holmes, 364 F.3d 862, 871 (7th Cir. 2004) ("[W]hen a prisoner seeks injunctive relief for a condition specific to a particular prison is transferred out of that prison, the need for relief, and hence the prisoner's claim, become moot."). For these reasons, Mr. Ramon's motion to reconsider his motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, dkt. [24], is denied. SO ORDERED. Date: 7/22/2025 Sjamnu Patnaik Hanbore James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Southern District of Indiana Distribution: GILBERT RAMON 171903 INDIANA STATE PRISON INDIANA STATE PRISON Electronic Service Participant — Court Only

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
RAMON v. HEATHERLY, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramon-v-heatherly-insd-2025.