Wagner v. Comparin et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JOHN ALEXANDER WAGNER, #Y27431, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	Case No. 25-cv-00717-SMY
)
ROBERT COMPARIN, 	)
MICHAEL MOLDENHAUER, and 	)
JILIAN CRANE, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff John Alexander Wagner’s motion for
preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order (Doc. 56). 	Defendants Crane and
Moldenhauer oppose the motion (Doc. 57).
Plaintiff is proceeding on the following claims against medical providers at Menard
Correctional Center, where Plaintiff was previously incarcerated (Doc. 10):
Count 1: 	Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs
claim against Comparin, Moldenhauer, and Crane for failure to
provide Plaintiff with evaluation and treatment for his back, spine,
neck, arm, and hand injuries/conditions.
Count 3: 	First Amendment retaliation claim against Moldenhauer for denying
Plaintiff 	medical 	treatment 	because 	of 	his 	grievances 	and
complaints.
Plaintiff’s initial motion for preliminary injunction seeking medical care (Doc. 2) was
denied as moot because Plaintiff was transferred to Hill Correctional Center (Docs. 44, 47, 60).
The instant motion again seeks medical care for Plaintiff’s painful neck and spine conditions,
spasms, and problems with his arms, hand, and legs (Doc. 56, pp. 1, 3). Plaintiff asserts that Hill
Case 3:25-cv-00717-SMY Document 65 Filed 12/02/25 Page 1 of 2 Page ID
#<pageID>

2
officials, medical personnel, and contracted medical providers are successors in office and agents
of the Menard defendants, making injunctive relief proper. However, he offers no authority for
this argument.
No Hill officials are parties to this lawsuit and Plaintiff has not demonstrated that his
constitutional rights are being violated there. Menard officials do not have control over Plaintiff’s
medical care at Hill, nor are the defendants herein able to direct Hill medical providers to give
Plaintiff the care he seeks (See Doc. 57, p. 2). Thus, Plaintiff’s motion does not satisfy the criteria
for issuance of a preliminary injunction. 	See Mays v. Dart, 974 F.3d 810, 818 (7th Cir. 2020);
(Doc. 47, p. 4).
Accordingly, the motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order (Doc.
56) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 2, 2025
s/ Staci M. Yandle_____
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-00717-SMY Document 65 Filed 12/02/25 Page 2 of 2 Page ID
#<pageID>