DAVIS v. ARNOLD et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
SONNY DAVIS, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:25-cv-01423-SEB-KMB
)
LLOYD ARNOLD Commissioner, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction
In this action, Plaintiff Sonny Davis is proceeding with claims that Defendants – Lt. Leffler,
Sgt. Carter, and Correctional Officer Auberry – violated his constitutional rights related to the
exercise of his religion at Westville Correctional Facility ("Westville"). Dkts. 1, 7 (complaint and
screening order). Mr. Davis has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction asking for five
accommodations, namely for Indiana Department of Correction ("IDOC") 1) to provide Islamic
inmates with separate diets that are not Kosher or which impose on them Jewish dietary restrictions
and religious observances, 2) to allow Islamic inmates to observe 'White Nights' of fasting, 3) to
provide prayer rings; 4) to provide scented prayer oil, and 5) to allow the Islamic community to
worship together in one count letter. Dkt. 9. For the following reasons, Mr. Davis's motion, dkt.
[9], is denied.
I. Facts and Background
Mr. Davis is incarcerated in a restrictive housing unit at Westville. Dkt. 22-1 at 1. Each
complex at Westville holds their own religious services for the inmates who reside in each complex
where appropriate. Id. Within Mr. Davis's restrictive housing unit, he can pray in his cell, and he
can possess religious materials such as a Quran and prayer rug, and a facility chaplain makes
Case 1:25-cv-01423-SEB-KMB Document 31 Filed 03/02/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
regular rounds to the housing unit. Id. at 1-2. Mr. Davis is also able to purchase food items, hygiene
items, and religious items from the Westville commissary. Id. at 2.
Westville is certified to serve halal meals to incarcerated individuals. Dkt. 22-1 at 2. Mr.
Davis can elect to receive a halal diet and not observe the Sabbath or Passover. Id. White Nights
are not a required Islamic religious practice and occur during the middle days of each Islamic
month. Id. at 2-3. Due to the differences in the calendars, these middle days would fall on different
dates each month. Id. This would create the need for additional regular strategic planning and
logistical challenges to the IDOC, which is currently serving three daily meals to approximately
28,000 incarcerated individuals. Id.
Islamic prayer rings are rings which instruct individuals on prayer times. Dkt. 22-1 at 3.
Electronic devices such as prayer rings pose legitimate risks to the safety and security of IDOC
facilities and the employees and inmates within. Id. Generally, inmates are permitted to possess
non-electronic band rings. Id.
Inmates at Westville can purchase up to two ounces of prayer oil. Dkt. 22-1 at 3-4.
Formerly, two scents of prayer oil were available, however, after an investigation determined that
that the scented prayer oils tested positive for K2, IDOC made the decision that items which tested
positive for illicit substances could not be permissibly available to inmates. Id. IDOC has tested
35 scented oils to attempt to make scented prayer oils available to inmates, but it must meet
numerous standards including that it must not test positive for illicit drugs, be non-flammable, be
in a clear plastic bottle and be transparent, not contain alcohol, and cannot mask the scents of
contraband or other illicit substances. Id. A non-scented prayer oil is currently available for inmates
to purchase until a suitable scented prayer oil is discovered. Id.
Case 1:25-cv-01423-SEB-KMB Document 31 Filed 03/02/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
For safety and security purposes, most IDOC facilities do not allow incarcerated
individuals to take items with them to recreation. Id. at 4. This is done for multiple reasons,
including that recreation could supply certain individuals with the opportunity to traffic items
through the facilities, as well as adding additional time-consuming duties for correctional staff
who would be required to conduct more in-depth searches for individuals going to and returning
from recreation to ensure that no items were being trafficked. Id.
Mr. Davis's previous facility, Correctional Industrial Facility ("CIF"), had divided Islamic
religious services in two groups. Dkt. 22-1 at 2. This occurred for numerous reasons, including the
congregation was growing to a size that made elements of the services difficult, including access
to the prayer rug, safety and security concerns mixing individuals from certain housing units which
contained individuals that were intentionally kept separate, safety and security concerns regarding
the high number of Security Threat Group individuals that attended Islamic religious services, and
to limit trafficking between housing units, conflict, and gang interactions. Id. Those split religious
services occurred one after another. Id. Muslim inmates at CIF eventually had the opportunity to
receive one hour of services on Monday and one hour of services on Friday. Id. at 2.
II. Legal Standard
"A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary equitable remedy that is available only when
the movant shows clear need." Turnell v. Centimark Corp., 796 F.3d 656, 661 (7th Cir. 2015). The
plaintiff first must show that "(1) without this relief, [he] will suffer irreparable harm; (2)
traditional legal remedies would be inadequate; and (3) [he] has some likelihood of prevailing on
the merits of its claims." Speech First, Inc. v. Killen, 968 F.3d 628, 637 (7th Cir. 2020). The plaintiff
bears the burden of proving each element by a preponderance of the evidence. Girl Scouts of
Manitou Council, Inc. v. Girl Scouts of U.S.A., Inc., 549 F.3d 1079, 1086 (7th Cir. 2008). If the
Case 1:25-cv-01423-SEB-KMB Document 31 Filed 03/02/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
plaintiff meets these threshold requirements, "the court then must weigh the harm the denial of the
preliminary injunction would cause the plaintiff against the harm to the defendant if the court were
to grant it." Id.
"A movant's showing of likelihood of success on the merits must be strong." Tully v.
Okeson, 977 F.3d 608, 613 (7th Cir. 2020) (quotation marks omitted). A "better than negligible"
likelihood of success is not enough. Ill. Republican Party v. Pritzker, 973 F.3d 760, 762−63 (7th
Cir. 2020). The precise likelihood of success required depends in part on the balance of harms:
"the more likely the plaintiff is to win on the merits, the less the balance of harms needs to weigh
in his favor, and vice versa." Mays v. Dart, 974 F.3d 810, 818 (7th Cir. 2020). "A preliminary
injunction that would give the movant substantially all the relief he seeks is disfavored, and courts
have imposed a higher burden on a movant in such cases." Boucher v. Sch. Bd. of Sch. Dist. of
Greenfield, 134 F.3d 821, 826–27 (7th Cir. 1998).
III. Discussion
Mr. Davis has not met his burden of showing he is entitled to the "extraordinary remedy"
of a preliminary injunction. Defendants responded in opposition to Mr. Davis's motion, arguing
that he is unlikely to succeed on any of his constitutional claims because he has not shown that he
will face irreparable harm if his motion is denied. Dkt. 22 at 5. In support of this argument, the
Defendants state that Mr. Davis's vague allegations that the denial of his religious requests would
"deny [him] the ability to experience paradise" do not provide sufficient legal basis for irreparable
harm. Dkt. 9 at 5. Further, they allege that Mr. Davis is able to access halal items, hygiene and
religious items from commissary and possess religious items within his cell to practice his Islamic
faith. Id. The Court agrees.
Case 1:25-cv-01423-SEB-KMB Document 31 Filed 03/02/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
"[C]ourts must afford prison administrators wide-ranging deference in the adoption and
execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and
discipline and to maintain institutional security." Henry v. Hulett, 969 F.3d 769, 783 (7th Cir. 2020)
(cleaned up). "Prison officials are uniquely qualified to decide where a particular prisoner should
be housed, how to manage the staffing at each institution, and how to preserve safety and security
at the institution. It is not this Court's job to second-guess those decisions." Shaw v. Rozmarynoski,
2025 WL 1869659, at *2 (E.D. Wis. June 4, 2025). As to Mr. Davis first requests for a prayer ring
and scented prayer oil, the undisputed evidence indicates that Mr. Davis can access unscented
prayer oil through commissary and possess non-electronic rings in his current IDOC facility.
Further, IDOC made to decision to not offer items like scented prayer oil and electronic rings based
on legitimate penological safety and security concerns. He has not shown that he will suffer
irreparable harm by using these IDOC-approved alternatives to his preferred religious items.
With regard to Mr. Davis's requests to celebrate White Nights and congregate in one
service, he has also not met his burden. His requests for a joint congregation seem to be specific
to his previous facility, CIF, and Mr. Davis is now located at Westville. Further, the Defendants
have designated numerous legitimate penological reasons why creating two separate services was
necessary, namely safety and security concerns within the prison. Additionally, White Nights occur
during the middle days of each Islamic month, which would create the need for additional regular
strategic planning and logistical challenges to the IDOC due to the differences in calendars, which
is currently serving three daily meals to approximately 28,000 incarcerated individuals. Dkt. 22-1
at 2-3. Additionally, Mr. Davis's current facility is certified for halal religious diets, and he can
elect to receive a halal diet. Dkt. 22-1 at 2. Mr. Davis has not refuted any of these assertions in his
response. And because IDOC has presented evidence that Mr. Davis will not be irreparably harmed
Case 1:25-cv-01423-SEB-KMB Document 31 Filed 03/02/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
and does not have a likelihood of success on the merits, this Court cannot grant a motion for
preliminary injunction.
Finally, traditional legal remedies of damages will be sufficient to compensate Mr. Davis
for the deprivations he alleges that the Defendants caused him to endure. All in all, Mr. Davis has
failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to injunctive relief in the form
of an immediate transfer to another prison.
III. Conclusion
Mr. Davis' motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED. Dkt. [9].
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: _________________
Distribution:
SONNY DAVIS
128888
WESTVILLE – CF
WESTVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only
All Electronically Registered Counsel
_______________________________
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
3/2/2026
Case 1:25-cv-01423-SEB-KMB Document 31 Filed 03/02/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>