LEVELS v. COMMISSIONER OF THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
REKO D. LEVELS, JR., 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:25-cv-00892-JPH-TAB
)
CENTURION HEALTH OF INDIANA, LLC
in its' official capacity, et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, MOTION
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, MOTION FOR JUDICIAL
NOTICE, AND MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
In this civil rights matter, Plaintiff Reko Levels, Jr. is proceeding on Eighth
Amendment deliberate indifference claims related to a knee injury, and First
Amendment, RLUIPA and RFRA claims related to his lack of access to halal meals
due to his inability to move throughout the prison without a mobility device. Dkt.
15 at 3−4, 8−10 (Screening Order). Before the Court are several pending motions.
I. 	Motions for Preliminary Injunction
The facts underlying Mr. Levels' complaint occurred when he was housed
at Plainfield Correctional Facility. He has since been transferred to Westville
Correctional Facility. Dkt. 27 (Notice of Change of Address, August 7, 2025).
According to Mr. Levels' complaint, he needed to have knee surgery in
February 2025 after injuring his knee the previous fall. He was supposed to
receive crutches upon his discharge from the hospital, but he didn't receive them
until March 11. On April 3, he received a cane. A nurse also gave him a
wheelchair pass but did not provide him a wheelchair. Mr. Levels is Muslim and
Case 1:25-cv-00892-JPH-TAB Document 62 Filed 12/22/25 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
received a halal diet. But because he was not provided the necessary mobility
aids, he was unable to go to the cafeteria at Plainfield in February and March of
2025 to get his halal meals. As a result, he lost between 20 and 30 pounds. Mr.
Levels also alleged that due to the inadequate treatment of his knee injury, he is
unable to pray prostrate on the floor as required by his faith.
Mr. Levels has filed two motions for preliminary injunction in which he
requests that Defendants "continue" to provide him with a religious diet; that he
receive a Halal Ensure-style supplemental nutrition drink; "legitimate pain
medication (not Tylenol or Mobic) due to his re-injuries/weight loss"; a new MRI;
and to "enjoin Sgt. Ruble from the practice of medicine." Dkt. 4 at 2 (May 6,
2025, Motion for Preliminary Injunction), dkt. 12 at 2 (July 8, 2025, Renewed
Motion for Preliminary Injunction).
In response, Centurion Defendants state that they are not responsible for
ordering religious diets. Dkt. 33. They do not address the requests for different
medication or an MRI.1 See id. IDOC Defendants' response indicates that Mr.
Levels currently receives a kosher diet; a four-legged cane and bottom-bunk pass
have been prescribed to him; and Mr. Levels has active prescriptions for Tylenol
and meloxicam. Dkt. 37-1. IDOC Defendants argue that Mr. Levels does not meet
the threshold requirement for injunctive relief because his complaint focuses on
1 Indeed, in addition to not addressing Mr. Levels' requests that were relevant to them,
Centurion Defendants offered no legal argument. Their response consisted solely of an
affidavit from a doctor regarding who is responsible for providing religious diets. Dkt.
33-1. The Court is able to rule on the pending motions, however, because the IDOC
Defendants provided the necessary evidence related to Mr. Levels' medical care.
Centurion Defendants must take better care to address all arguments presented in
a pro se plaintiff's motions.
Case 1:25-cv-00892-JPH-TAB Document 62 Filed 12/22/25 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
past events, not ongoing harm, and Mr. Levels continues to receive a religious
diet and medical care. Dkt. 37. Mr. Levels did not file a reply.
i. 	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). To obtain a preliminary injunction a 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 [his] claims." Speech First, Inc. v. Killen, 968 F.3d
628, 637 (7th Cir. 2020). If the 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] preliminary injunction is an exercise of a very far-reaching power,
never to be indulged in except in a case clearly demanding it." Orr v. Shicker, 953
F.3d 490. 501 (7th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up).
Further, because Mr. Levels is incarcerated, any request for preliminary
injunctive relief must comply with the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"). The
PLRA provides: "Preliminary injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no
further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary
relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct that harm." 18
U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). "This section of the PLRA enforces a point repeatedly made
by the Supreme Court in cases challenging prison conditions: '[P]rison officials
have broad administrative and discretionary authority over the institutions they
Case 1:25-cv-00892-JPH-TAB Document 62 Filed 12/22/25 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
manage.'" Westerfer v. Neal, 682 F.3d 679, 683 (7th Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewitt
v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 467 (1983)); see also Rasho v. Jeffreys, 22 F.4th 703,
713 (7th Cir. Jan. 12, 2022) (reversing district court's order imposing permanent
injunction because mandating that prison hire a minimum number of mental
health 	professionals 	"impermissibly 	strips 	[prison] 	officials 	of 	the 	flexibility
necessary to adopt and implement policies that balance prison resources, safety
concerns, and inmate health.").
ii. 	Discussion
As an initial matter, because Mr. Levels is now housed at Westville, any
request for injunctive relief against Sgt. Ruble, a correctional officer employed at
Plainfield, is denied as moot. Lehn v. Holmes, 364 F.3d 862, 871 (7th Cir. 2004)
("[W]hen a prisoner seeks injunctive relief for a condition specific to a particular
prison is transferred out of that prison, the need for relief, and hence the
prisoner's claim, become moot.").
Next, Mr. Levels' request that the Court order an injunction to maintain
his 	order 	that 	he 	receive 	a 	religious 	diet 	is 	denied 	as 	unnecessary. 	The
undisputed record reflects that Mr. Levels receives a Kosher diet.2 Dkt. 37-1 at
1. There is no indication that Mr. Levels will be removed from his religious diet.
This leaves Mr. Levels' request for a Halal nutrition drink, stronger pain
medication, and an MRI, which are related to his Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference claims.
2 The settlement that Mr. Level previously entered into required that he be provided a
"kosher or halal diet[.]" Dkt. 2-2 at 1.
Case 1:25-cv-00892-JPH-TAB Document 62 Filed 12/22/25 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
To prevail on an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference medical claim,
a plaintiff must demonstrate two elements: (1) he suffered from an objectively
serious medical condition; and (2) the defendant knew about the plaintiff's
condition 	and 	the 	substantial 	risk 	of 	harm 	it 	posed 	but 	disregarded 	that
risk. Pittman ex rel. Hamilton v. County of Madison, Ill., 746 F.3d 766, 775 (7th
Cir. 2014).
A prisoner may show deliberate indifference by establishing that his
medical providers have chosen "an 'easier and less efficacious treatment' without
exercising professional judgment." Petties v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722, 730 (7th Cir.
2016) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 n.10 (1976)). However,
prisoners cannot dictate their care, Harper v. Santos, 847 F.3d 923, 927 (7th Cir.
2017), and disagreements between a prisoner and his medical provider, or even
amongst medical providers, alone does not establish an Eighth Amendment
violation, Pyles v. Fahim, 771 F.3d 403, 409 (7th Cir. 2014).
Mr. Levels' request for a Halal nutrition drink, stronger pain medication,
and an MRI are denied because he has not shown that he will suffer irreparable
harm absent Court intervention. Irreparable harm is "harm that 'cannot be
repaired' and for which money compensation is inadequate." Orr, 953 F.3d at
502 (quoting Graham v. Med. Mut. of Ohio, 130 F.3d 293, 296 (7th Cir. 1997)).
The plaintiff must show "that he will likely suffer irreparable harm absent
obtaining preliminary injunctive relief." Id. (cleaned up). Mr. Levels' pleadings
focus on the physical harm he suffered in the spring of 2025 due to his lack of
mobility devices that prevented him from going to the dining hall to get his halal
Case 1:25-cv-00892-JPH-TAB Document 62 Filed 12/22/25 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
meals. As a result, he lost weight. However, Mr. Levels has produced no evidence
indicating that he currently has a medical need for a nutritional supplement.
Additionally, the evidence reflects that Mr. Levels continues to receive
medical care related to his knee injury. Mr. Levels has been issued a bottom
bunk pass and a four-legged cane, and he receives Tylenol and meloxicam. Dkt.
37-1 at 4−5. Mr. Levels wants stronger pain medication. But "[t]he Eighth
Amendment does not guarantee a patient his preferred medication or a pain-free
recovery." Weightman v. O'Brien, No. 24-1543, 2025 WL 487214, at *3 (7th Cir.
Feb. 13, 2025) (citing Arce v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 75 F.4th 673, 681
(7th Cir. 2023)). Further, "an inmate is not entitled to demand specific care, and
medical professionals may choose from a range of acceptable courses based on
prevailing standards in the field." Walker v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 940
F.3d 954, 965 (7th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).
Mr. Levels has presented no cogent argument that Medical Defendants are being
deliberately indifferent by denying him stronger pain medication or diagnostic
testing. Accordingly, he has not shown he will suffer irreparable harm. See Ill.
Republican Party v. Pritzker, 973 F.3d 760, 763 (7th Cir. 2020) ("[A]n applicant
for preliminary relief bears a significant burden[.]").
For these reasons, Mr. Levels' motions for preliminary injunction relief,
dkts. [4] and [12], are denied.
Case 1:25-cv-00892-JPH-TAB Document 62 Filed 12/22/25 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
II. 	Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
On August 7, 2025, Mr. Levels filed a motion for temporary emergency
restraining order in which he requested that the Court order that he not be
transferred from Plainfield to Westville. Dkt. 25. In the motion, he alleges that
he was transferred to Westville in part so that he could pursue an associates
degree through Holy Cross College. He alleges that seeking knowledge is an
important aspect of his Muslim faith. Id. at 1. He does not want to be returned
to Plainfield due to the lack of a proper kosher kitchen. Id.
Mr. Levels provides no evidence that IDOC defendants have any intention
or immediate plan to return him to Plainfield after his recent transfer to Westville.
His recently filed motions reflect that he is still housed at Westville. Thus, the
motion 	to 	prevent 	his 	transfer 	back 	to 	Plainfield, 	dkt. 	[25], 	is 	denied 	as
speculative.
III. 	Motion for Mandatory Judicial Notice
Mr. Levels' motion for mandatory judicial notice, which requested that the
Court take judicial notice of the grievances he filed in this matter, dkt. [39], is
denied as moot. To the extent that Mr. Levels also requests that the Court take
judicial notice of facts related to his religious diet or health, his motion is denied.
Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence permits the Court to take judicial
notice, either sua sponte or by motion of a party, of any adjudicative fact "that is
not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the
trial 	court's 	territorial 	jurisdiction; 	or 	(2) 	can 	be 	accurately 	and 	readily
determined from sources whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned."
Case 1:25-cv-00892-JPH-TAB Document 62 Filed 12/22/25 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
Fed. R. Evid. 201. The exhibits that Mr. Levels wants the Court to judicially
notice are not beyond reasonable dispute. See Mays v. Dart, 974 F.3d 810, 824
(7th Cir. 2020) (noting that reports made by public entities may still be subject
to dispute with respect to author's credibility, authenticity of document, and
other issues); see also Rowe v. Gibson, 798 F.3d 622, 629 (7th Cir. 2015) ("There
is a high standard for taking judicial notice of a fact, and a low standard for
allowing evidence to be presented in the conventional way[.]"). Further, Mr.
Levels should not submit exhibits that are not in support of a specific motion,
such as a motion for summary judgment. The Court's docket is not a repository
for documents related to the case.
IV. 	Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Defendants asserted and then withdrew the affirmative defense that Mr.
Levels failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Dkts. 54, 55.
After Defendants withdrew their exhaustion defense, Mr. Levels filed a
motion for partial summary judgment arguing the merits of his claims. Dkt. 56.
This motion, dkt. [56], is denied without prejudice as premature. Now that
Defendants have withdrawn their exhaustion defense, the Court will issue a
merits scheduling order that governs discovery and the filing of dispositive
motions. Mr. Levels may renew his motion for summary judgment pursuant to
the scheduling order. Defendants' motion to stay the summary judgment briefing
deadline, dkt. [60], is denied as moot.
Case 1:25-cv-00892-JPH-TAB Document 62 Filed 12/22/25 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
V. 	Conclusion
In summary, the motions for preliminary injunction, dkts. [4] and [12], are
denied, the motion for temporary restraining order, dkt. [25], and the motion for
the court to take judicial notice, dkt. [39], are denied.
The 	motion 	for 	summary 	judgment, 	dkt. 	[56], 	is 	denied 	without
prejudice, and the motion to stay summary judgment briefing, dkt. [60], is
denied as moot. A pretrial scheduling order will be issued by separate order.
SO ORDERED.
Distribution:
REKO D. LEVELS, JR.
294584
WESTVILLE - CF
WESTVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only
All Electronically Registered Counsel
Date: 12/22/2025
Case 1:25-cv-00892-JPH-TAB Document 62 Filed 12/22/25 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>