Kelly Warfield v. Jared Hettich, a/k/a Jerry, Individual and Official Capacity; Troy Ponto, Individual and Official Capacity; Sam Yost, Individual and Official Capacity; Eric Timmerman, Individual and Official Capacity; Cory Ambrose, Individual and Official Capacity; Officer Rodriquez, Individual and Official Capacity; Officer Allen, Individual and Official Capacity; Officer Jones, Individual and Official Capacity; Derek Ekeren, Individual and Official Capacity; Ian Packer, Individual and Official Capacity; Caleb Evans, Individual and Official Capacity; Jess Boysen, Individual and Official Capacity; Jane Does, Individual and Official Capacity; John Does, Individual and Official Capacity; Teressa Bittinger, Individual and Official Capacity; Kellie Wasko, Individual and Official Capacity, along with all staff; Officer Wines, Individual and Official Capacity; Jake Hofer, a/k/a Jack Hofer, Individual and Official Capacity; Donald Williams, Individual and Official Capacity; Amber Pirraglia, Individual and Official Capacity; Daniel Sullivan, Individual and Official Capacity; Officer Struicksma, Individual and Official Capacity; Charles Dombeck, Wisconsin DOC Staff, Individual and Official Capacity; Jeremy Beck, Wisconsin DOC Staff, Individual and Official Capacity; Officer Katze, Wisconsin DOC Staff, Individual and Official Capacity; Seth Hughes, Individual and Official Capacity; Sgt. Dalass, Wisconsin DOC Staff, Individual and Official Capacity; Jermaine Robinson, Individual and Official Capacity

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota denied Kelly Warfield’s motion to amend pleadings, construing it as a renewed motion for a temporary restraining order. The court held that claims concerning conditions at South Dakota prisons were moot after Warfield’s transfer and that the Dataphase factors did not support an order requiring his return to South Dakota or prohibiting alleged retaliation.

Holdings

1. Because a motion for a temporary restraining order is not a pleading under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a), the court construed Warfield's motion to amend as a new motion for a temporary restraining order.
2. Warfield's requests for injunctive relief related to conditions at South Dakota prisons were moot because he had been transferred and was no longer subject to those conditions.
3. Warfield was not entitled to temporary restraining or preliminary injunctive relief requiring defendants to return him to South Dakota because the Dataphase factors did not favor the requested relief.
4. Warfield could not obtain the requested preliminary injunctive relief against the Florida Department of Corrections or other contractors without establishing a relationship between the injury claimed in the motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a motion to amend pleadings may be used to amend a motion for a temporary restraining order when a temporary restraining order is not a pleading under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a).
2. Whether Warfield's requests for injunctive relief concerning conditions at South Dakota prisons were moot after his transfer to an out-of-state prison.
3. Whether Warfield was entitled to temporary restraining or preliminary injunctive relief requiring his return to South Dakota based on the Dataphase factors.
4. Whether Warfield could obtain preliminary injunctive relief against contractors or entities not named as defendants without establishing a relationship between the alleged injury and the conduct asserted in the complaint.

Disposition

denied