Chad Cutler v. Anthony Willis

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted May 27, 2025 *
Decided May 28, 2025
Before
DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge
No. 24-2194
CHAD CUTLER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ANTHONY WILLIS,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of
Illinois.
No. 3:23-cv-03127-GCS
Gilbert C. Sison,
Magistrate Judge.
O R D E R
Chad Cutler, an Illinois prisoner, appeals the denial of his request for a
preliminary injunction. While this appeal was pending, Cutler was transferred to
another prison, and so we dismiss the appeal as moot.
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and record
adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the
court. FED . R. A PP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. A PP. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 24-2194 Page 2
In September 2023, Cutler sued the warden of Menard Correctional Center for
injunctive relief and money damages, alleging a violation of his rights under the Eighth
Amendment. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his complaint, Cutler said that he experiences
“catatonic episodes”—periods during which he slips into a “trancelike” state and
becomes paralyzed—and that the warden deliberately ignored his numerous requests
for medical care to address the episodes.
The following month, Cutler moved for a preliminary injunction to compel the
warden to place him in a single-occupancy cell until a full medical evaluation was
completed. A magistrate judge, acting with the parties’ consent, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(c),
held a hearing and denied the motion. The judge determined that Cutler did not show
that he was likely to succeed on the merits (because the prison was addressing his
medical concern), that the remedies at law were inadequate, or that irreparable harm
would result if the injunction were denied.
Cutler twice moved for reconsideration, but the judge denied both motions
because Cutler did not identify any reason to disturb the ruling.
Cutler appeals the interlocutory order denying his motion for a preliminary
injunction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). But seven months after filing his opening brief, he
was transferred from Menard to Western Illinois Correctional Center. 1 Cutler’s transfer
to a different institution moots his claim for injunctive relief, which pertains only to the
specific conditions at Menard. See Calhoun v. DeTella, 319 F.3d 936, 939 (7th Cir. 2003);
see also Lehn v. Holmes, 364 F.3d 862, 871–72 (7th Cir. 2004).
DISMISSED
1 See Illinois Department of Corrections, Individual in Custody Search,
https://idoc.illinois.gov/offender/inmatesearch.html (search for “Chad Cutler” last performed May 15,
2025).

-- 2 of 2 --