The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
OMAR ASHANTI JOHNSON, #K74565, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 26-cv-00232-SMY
)
LATOYA HUGHES, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, Chief Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
(“TRO”)/Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiff Omar Ashanti Johnson (Doc. 18). Plaintiff is an
inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) currently incarcerated at Menard
Correctional Center. He filed the instant motion after initiating his underlying pro se lawsuit
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting Defendant’s C-grade and B-grade policies violate his First
Amendment right to reasonable access to the telephone to communicate with outsiders (Doc. 1).
Plaintiff alleges the Menard warden sanctioned him to approximately one year in C-grade
status, beginning March 11, 2026, which bars him from all telephone use (Doc. 18, p. 3). His
disciplinary infraction was unrelated to any misuse of the telephone. When he is restored to B-
grade status, he will be allowed telephone access only 24 times in the following year. He argues
the absolute denial of telephone access violates his right to reasonable access to the telephone and
is unrelated to safety and security or any other legitimate penological purpose (Doc. 18, pp. 3-4).
He requests a TRO/preliminary injunction to restore his access to the telephone “now and as often
as necessary to preserve his right to reasonable access to the telephone while this cause proceeds
to resolution at trial.” (Doc. 18, p. 10).
A TRO is an order issued without notice to the party to be enjoined that may last no more
than 14 days. FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b)(2). A TRO may issue without notice only if (A) specific facts
in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or
damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the
movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should
not be required. FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b)(1). Because Plaintiff has not demonstrated the likelihood
of immediate and irreparable harm before Defendant can be heard, his request for a TRO in Doc.
18 is DENIED.
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) (emphasis in original). It may issue only after the adverse
party is given notice and an opportunity to respond. See FED. R. CIV. P. 65(a)(1). A plaintiff
seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he has some likelihood of succeeding on the
merits, that no adequate remedy at law exists, and that he will suffer irreparable harm if injunctive
relief is not granted. Mays v. Dart, 974 F.3d 810, 818 (7th Cir. 2020) (citing Speech First, Inc. v.
Killeen, 968 F.3d 628, 637 (7th Cir. 2020)). If these elements are established, the Court must then
balance the potential harm to the movant if the preliminary injunction were denied against the
potential harm to the non-movant if the injunction were granted, and must consider whether
granting the preliminary injunction is in the public interest. Mays, 974 F.3d at 818; Courthouse
News Serv. v. Brown, 908 F.3d 1063, 1068 (7th Cir. 2018).
Defendant must be given an opportunity to respond before the Court can resolve Plaintiff’s
request for preliminary injunctive relief. However, the Court must first conduct a preliminary
review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the Court to screen prisoner
Complaints to filter out nonmeritorious claims and dismiss any portion of the Complaint that is
legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or requests money damages from an
immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This review will be accomplished by separate order. If
the Complaint survives § 1915A review, defendant will be directed to respond to the request for
preliminary injunctive relief in Doc. 18.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 13, 2026
s/ Staci M. Yandle_____
STACI M. YANDLE
Chief U.S. District Judge