Gully v. Royster et al

Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
RONNIE GULLY, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
PHILIP T. ROYSTER, et al,
Defendants.
Case No. 26-cv-00114-SPM
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MCGLYNN, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on a motion titled “Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
in Conjunction with All Writs Act” filed by pro se Plaintiff Ronnie Gully, Jr. (Doc. 8). Plaintiff is
an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections and is currently incarcerated at Menard
Correctional Center (Menard). Plaintiff brings this lawsuit for violations of his constitutional rights
and civil conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and for intentional infliction of emotional distress
under Illinois law. The Complaint is awaiting preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that on February 14, 2025, Defendant Lieutenant Gaetz
made sexually explicit comments to him during a strip search. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Because of the
comments, Plaintiff requested the presence of another officer. (Id.). Defendant Lieutenant Royster
arrived, and unprovoked, sprayed Plaintiff with mace. (Id.). Following the incident, Plaintiff was
issued a false disciplinary report for disobeying a directed order and attempt to assault. (Id.).
Plaintiff was found guilty of the charges and sanctioned with segregation. Once he was released
from segregation, Royster threatened Plaintiff and stated that Plaintiff was going to wish he was
dead. (Id. at p. 7). Subsequently, Plaintiff was “deadlocked” in his cell and has received three
Case 3:26-cv-00114-SPM Document 9 Filed 02/19/26 Page 1 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 2 of 4
additional false disciplinary reports, which resulted in Plaintiff being held in segregation for over
nine months. (Id. at p. 7- 10). Plaintiff believes that the harassment was orchestrated by Royster
because Plaintiff filed a PREA report and grievances about the incident on February 14, 2025. (Id.
at p. 7). He states that Royster, as union representative, “backs” staff members whenever there is
a lawsuit or complaint filed against them so that they can keep their jobs. (Id. at p. 9).
In his motion seeking a TRO, Plaintiff asserts that the “campaign of harassment” continues.
(Doc. 8, p. 1). He claims that staff at Menard are attempting to “stop, deter, and sift ultimately his
will to litigate” and challenge prison conditions. (Id.). He states that attorney calls have been
cancelled, improper cell searches are repeatedly conducted, legal documents and materials have
been destroyed and mishandled, and mail has been intercepted. (Id.). He also has been denied
medical attention and has been the recipient of threats, taunting, and false disciplinary reports.
(Id.). Plaintiff asserts that these events have hindered and obstructed the “due course of justice.”
(Id. at p. 2).
Plaintiff describes Defendant Royster as a top official who has influence over other staff
members. (Doc. 8, p. 2). Plaintiff argues that if he stays at Menard, it will be impossible for him
to competently litigate his lawsuits because of staff conduct and the poor conditions of his cell.
(Id.). He seeks the Court to intervene and order his transfer pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 65 and the All Writs Act. (Id. at p. 5). Plaintiff requests that prior to his transfer a
restraining order be issued to keep him separate from the staff members who are harassing him.
(Id.).
A temporary restraining order (TRO) is an order issued without notice to the party to be
enjoined that may last no more than 14 days. F ED. 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
Case 3:26-cv-00114-SPM Document 9 Filed 02/19/26 Page 2 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 3 of 4
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. F ED . R. CIV. P. 65(b)(1). Further, pursuant
to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), any grant of injunctive relief, including a TRO,
“shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular
plaintiff or plaintiffs” and cannot issue “unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn,
extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least
intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).
At this point, Plaintiff’s belief that he will be unable to litigate this case without Court
intervention is purely speculative. Plaintiff’s Complaint is awaiting preliminary review pursuant
to Section 1915A (Doc. 1), his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis had been granted
(Doc. 7), and the motion for a TRO is currently before the Court (Doc. 8). Assuming Plaintiff no
longer has access to various documents and legal books, these items are not needed at this early
stage in the case. All that is required when filing a complaint is a short and plain statement telling
what each defendant did wrong. A successful pleading does not require legal research, arguments,
or exhibits. See F ED . R. CIV . P. 8. Here, Plaintiff has been successful in filing a Complaint with
the Court, which includes affidavits from other inmates, copies of grievance receipts, and citations
to case law, and there are no deadlines or further filing requirements while the Complaint awaits
review. (Doc. 4). Plaintiff’s fear that staff misconduct will impede the future prosecution of his
claims is not sufficient to make the requisite showing that he will suffer an irreparable injury before
Defendants can be heard.1 F ED. R. CIV . P. 65(b)(1)(A).
1 The Court further notes that based on the public record, there is no indication that Plaintiff is being impeded from
prosecuting his claims. Currently, he has four open cases in this district. This case and two other cases, Plaintiff
initiated since the commencement of the “campaign of harassment” begun on February 14, 2025. See Case No. 25-
cv-01948-SPM; 26-cv-00107-SMY. In Plaintiff’s fourth case, which was filed in 2022, he filed four motions and a
response brief from February 2025 through April 2025, when he was recruited counsel. See Case No. 22-cv-02816-
RJD (Doc. 72, 75, 76, 77, 78).
Case 3:26-cv-00114-SPM Document 9 Filed 02/19/26 Page 3 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 4 of 4
Additionally, Plaintiff’s request for relief, a transfer to another facility, is far from the “least
intrusive” means of addressing his concerns regarding mishandling of and access to legal
documents, books, and correspondence. A request for a prison transfer is not appropriate here. The
Court will not issue a TRO.
And finally, because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate irreparable injury that would justify
an exercise of jurisdiction over non-parties, the Court also will not grant the request for a transfer
under the All Writs Act. 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).
For these reasons, the motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 19, 2026
s/Stephen P. McGlynn
STEPHEN P. MCGLYNN
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00114-SPM Document 9 Filed 02/19/26 Page 4 of 4 Page ID
#<pageID>