Timothy Marcus Mayberry v. Ron Neal, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana construed Timothy Marcus Mayberry’s motion for a temporary restraining order as a motion for a preliminary injunction. The court denied relief concerning a one-day food deprivation because irreparable harm was unlikely to recur, but ordered the Warden to respond to allegations concerning recurring unsafe drinking water during lockdowns. The court issued the opinion and order on November 24, 2025.

Holdings

1. The court declined to issue a temporary restraining order and construed the motion as a motion for a preliminary injunction because the court needed additional information and the lockdown had ended.
2. Preliminary injunctive relief was denied with respect to the food-related allegations because the alleged deprivation appeared to be an isolated, one-day incident and there was no indication that it was likely to recur.
3. The court did not resolve the ultimate merits of the water-related allegations but ordered the Warden to respond to the motion for a preliminary injunction concerning those allegations.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should issue a temporary restraining order concerning alleged inadequate food and unsafe drinking water during a lockdown.
2. Whether the motion should instead be treated as a motion for a preliminary injunction after the lockdown ended and additional information was obtained.
3. Whether Mayberry established a likelihood of irreparable harm warranting preliminary injunctive relief for the food-related allegations.
4. Whether the recurring nature of the water-related allegations warranted requiring the Warden to respond to the request for preliminary injunctive relief.

Disposition

other