Sullivan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ROCK ISLAND DIVISION

ANTHONY SULLIVAN, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 26-4117

)

CODY WATERKOTTE et al., )

Defendants. )

ORDER

COLLEEN R. LAWLESS, United States District Judge:

Before the Court for screening is a Motion for Leave to File an Amended

Complaint (Doc. 7), a Petition to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (Doc. 4), a Motion for

Injunctive Relief (Doc. 5), and a Motion for Status filed by Plaintiff Anthony Sullivan, a

resident of the Illinois Department of Human Services Treatment and Detention (“TDF”)

Facility under the Illinois Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act, 725 ILCS 207/1 et

seq.

I. Amended Complaint

A. Screening Standard

The “privilege to proceed without posting security for costs and fees is reserved

to the many truly impoverished litigants who, within the District Court’s sound

discretion, would remain without legal remedy if such privilege were not afforded to

them.” Brewster v. North Am. Van Lines, Inc., 461 F.2d 649, 651 (7th Cir. 1972). Additionally,

a court must dismiss cases proceeding in forma pauperis “at any time” if the action is

frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim, even if part of the filing fee has been paid.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)(2).

In reviewing the complaint, the district court accepts the factual allegations as true,

liberally construing them in the plaintiff’s favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649 (7th

Cir. 2013). However, conclusory statements and labels are insufficient. Enough facts must

be provided to “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Alexander v. United

States, 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).

B. Factual Allegations

On April 8, 2026, Defendants Cody Watterkotte and John Doe seized a Universal

Serial Bus (a.k.a., USB) drive that Plaintiff stored in his TDF storage box and accessed

“privileged” documents and communications without Plaintiff’s approval. (Doc. 7 at 3.)

Thereafter, Plaintiff claims that Watterkotte and Doe downloaded “inappropriate content

(porn-like) media” onto the USB drive and then authored a false disciplinary report. On

May 6, 2026, Defendants Sharlene Caraway, Kenneth Queen, and Curtis Parsons, acting

as a Behavioral Committee (“Committee”), denied Plaintiff’s request to postpone a

hearing on the allegedly false disciplinary report so that Plaintiff could review the

evidence against him. The Committee subsequently determined that Plaintiff committed

the undisclosed allegations raised in the disciplinary report.

C. Analysis

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Doc. 7) and IFP

Petition (Doc. 4) are granted. The Clerk of the Court is directed to docket Plaintiff’s

amended pleading and calculate the filing fee under the Court's standard procedures.

The Fourteenth Amendment provides that state officials shall not “deprive any

person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Id.; see also Brown v.

Phillips, 801 F.3d 849 (7th Cir. 2015) (reversing dismissal of First Amendment challenge

to keeping sexually explicit materials from TDF detainees unless evidence is provided

showing the restraint is rationally related to state’s interests). The Court concludes

Plaintiff’s account is sufficient to state First Amendment Freedom of Expression and

Fourteenth Amendment due process claims against Defendants Caraway, Doe, Parsons,

Queen, and Watterkotte.

II. Injunctive Relief

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending a

final hearing on the merits of the case. American Hospital Ass’n v. Harris, 625 F.2d 1328,

1330 (7th Cir. 1980). A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary and drastic remedy”

and “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) (citation

omitted). In civil suits, “damages are the norm, so the plaintiff must show why his case

is abnormal.” e360 Insight v. Spamhaus Project, 500 F.3d 594, 604 (7th Cir. 2007) (quoting

Walgreen Co. v. Sara Creek Property Co., B.V., 966 F.2d 273, 275 (7th Cir. 1992)).

“To determine whether a situation warrants such a remedy, a district court

engages in an analysis that proceeds in two distinct phases: a threshold phase and a

balancing phase.” Girl Scouts of Manitou Council, Inc. v. Girl Scouts of the United States of

Am. Inc., 549 F.3d 1079, 1086 (7th Cir. 2008). “A party seeking a preliminary injunction

must satisfy all three requirements in the ‘threshold phase’ by showing that (1) [he] will

suffer irreparable harm in the period before the resolution of its claim; (2) traditional legal

remedies are inadequate; and (3) there is some likelihood of success on the merits of the

claim.” HH-Indianapolis, LLC v. Consol. City of Indianapolis, 889 F.3d 432, 437 (7th Cir. 2018).

Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief does not address any aspect of his threshold

requirement. Instead, Plaintiff seeks an Order directing Defendants to “preserve all

evidence” relevant in this case, to include the content on the USB drive at issue. Thus,

Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief (Doc. 5) is denied. Defendants are directed to

preserve the content of the USB drive at issue. See Ogurek v. Gabor, 827 F.3d 567, 568 (7th

Cir. 2016) (“[A] district judge err[s] in refusing to compel production of [a] security video”

where the security video “would have been the dispositive piece of evidence in [the]

case.”).

Plaintiff’s Motion for Status (Doc. 9) is moot with the entry of the Court’s Order.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1) Plaintiff’s IFP Petition (Doc. 4) and Motion for Leave to File an Amended

Complaint (Doc. 7) are GRANTED.

2) The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to docket Plaintiff’s amended pleading.

3) Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief (Doc. 5) is DENIED.

4) Defendants are DIRECTED to preserve the content of the USB drive at issue.

5) According to the Court’s screening of Plaintiff’s Complaint [1] under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A, Plaintiff states First and Fourteenth Amendment claims against

Defendants Caraway, Doe, Parsons, Queen, and Watterkotte.

6) This case is now in the process of service. The Court advises Plaintiff to wait

until counsel has entered an appearance before filing any motions to give

Defendants notice and an opportunity to respond to those motions. Motions

filed before counsel has filed an appearance will be denied as premature.

Plaintiff need not submit evidence to the Court unless otherwise directed by the

Court.

7) The Court will attempt service on Defendants by mailing a waiver of service.

Defendant has sixty days from service to file an Answer. If Defendant has not

filed an Answer or appeared through counsel within ninety days of the entry of

this Order, Plaintiff may file a motion requesting the status of service. After

service of process, the Court will enter an order setting discovery and

dispositive motion deadlines.

8) Concerning a Defendant who no longer works at the address provided by

Plaintiff, the entity for whom that Defendant worked while at that address shall

submit to the Clerk said Defendant’s current work address or, if not known,

said Defendant’s forwarding address. This information shall be used only for

effectuating service. Documentation of forwarding addresses shall be retained

only by the Clerk and shall not be maintained in the public docket nor disclosed

by the Clerk.

9) Defendants shall file an Answer within sixty days of the date the Clerk sends

the waiver. A motion to dismiss is not an answer. The Answer should include

all defenses appropriate under the Federal Rules. The Answer and subsequent

pleadings shall be to the issues and claims stated in this Order. In general, an

answer sets forth Defendants’ positions. The Court does not rule on the merits

of those positions unless and until Defendants file a motion. Therefore, no

response to the Answer is necessary or will be considered.

10) This District uses electronic filing, which means that after Defendants’ counsel

has filed an appearance, Defendants’ counsel will automatically receive

electronic notice of any motion or other paper filed by Plaintiff with the Clerk.

Therefore, Plaintiff does not need to mail copies of motions and other

documents that Plaintiff has filed with the Clerk to Defendants’ counsel.

However, this does not apply to discovery requests and responses. Discovery

requests and responses are not filed with the Clerk. Instead, Plaintiff must mail

his discovery requests and responses directly to Defendants’ counsel. Discovery

requests or responses sent to the Clerk will be returned unfiled unless they are

attached to and the subject of a motion to compel. Discovery does not begin

until Defendants’ counsel has filed an appearance and the Court has entered a

scheduling order, which will explain the discovery process in more detail.

11) Defendants’ counsel is granted leave to depose Plaintiff at his place of

confinement. Defendants’ counsel shall arrange the time for the deposition.

12) Plaintiff shall immediately notify the Court, in writing, of any change in his

mailing address and telephone number. Plaintiff’s failure to inform the Court

of a change in mailing address or phone number will result in the dismissal of

this lawsuit with prejudice.

13) If a Defendant fails to sign and return a waiver of service to the Clerk within

thirty days after the waiver is sent, the Court will take appropriate steps to effect

formal service through the U.S. Marshals Service on that Defendant and will

require that Defendant pay the total costs of formal service under Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 4(d)(2).

14) The Court directs the Clerk to enter the standard qualified protective order

under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

15) The Court directs the Clerk to attempt service on Defendants under the standard

procedures.

ENTERED September 9, 2026.

s/ Colleen R. Lawless

____________________________________

COLLEEN R. LAWLESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE