GARY v. REAGLE et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
LOREN GARY, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:25-cv-01331-JPH-KMB
)
DENNIS REAGLE, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER DENYING PENDING MOTIONS
Plaintiff Loren Gary has filed three motions for a temporary restraining
order (TRO) and/or preliminary injunction,1 dkts. 28, 33, 35, a motion for
declaratory judgment, dkt. 31, and a motion seeking to strike the Medical
Defendants' response to the declaratory judgment motion, dkt. 37. For the
reasons below, the first two TRO motions and the declaratory judgment motions
are DENIED. Dkts. [28], [31], [33], [37]. The more recent TRO motion remains
under advisement.
The first TRO motion seems to want to prevent a staff member at Pendleton
Correctional Facility, Katelyn McCorkle, from handling any of Mr. Gary's legal
mail related to this case. Mr. Gary states that Ms. McCorkle is a "witness/co-
conspirator" in this case. Dkt. 28 at 1. The relief Mr. Gary seeks would be entirely
unrelated to the claims that are proceeding in this action, which are related to
Legionnaire's contamination of the water at Pendleton. Ms. McCorkle, who
1 The third motion is labeled the "fourth" motion, but there is no third motion on the
docket.
Case 1:25-cv-01331-JPH-KMB Document 40 Filed 12/16/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
necessarily would be affected by any such relief, also is not a defendant in this
action. The Court cannot enter injunctions directing non-parties—such as Ms.
McCorkle—to act or refrain from acting, nor can it order injunctive relief that
lacks a nexus to the underlying claims. See Maddox v. Wexford Health Sources,
Inc., 528 F. App'x 669, 672 (7th Cir. 2013) ("An injunction, like any enforcement
action, may be entered only against a litigant, that is, a party that has been
served and is under the jurisdiction of the district court." (cleaned up)); Pacific
Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Medical Center, 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir.
2015) (holding that absent a nexus between underlying claims and request for
injunctive relief, district court has no authority to grant injunctive relief). This
motion is DENIED. Dkt. [28].
The second TRO motion seeks an order against Defendants Danielle
Stasiak 	and 	Centurion 	Health, 	because 	they 	have 	"initiated 	and 	executed
practice policy that denies treatment to the Plaintiff et al. that serves nothing
more than to maliciously and vindictively prolong Plaintiff's pain and suffering."
Dkt. 33. There is no evidence submitted in support of this motion. It is true that
"a 	district court 	may 	grant a 	preliminary 	injunction 	based 	on 	less 	formal
procedures and on less extensive evidence than a trial on the merits." Dexia
Credit Loc. v. Rogan, 602 F.3d 879, 885 (7th Cir. 2010). Still, there must be some
evidence in support before the Court will consider granting the "extraordinary"
remedy of a preliminary injunction. Moreover, it is unclear precisely what relief
Mr. Gary is seeking through this motion, and it is DENIED. Dkt. [33].
Case 1:25-cv-01331-JPH-KMB Document 40 Filed 12/16/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Mr. Gary's declaratory judgment motion states in its entirety, "Plaintiff now
comes pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 57, prays this Court in
Equity grant his Motion for Declaratory Judgment in this action in accordance
with 28 U.S.C.S. §§ 2201." Dkt. 31. The Medical Defendants in this action filed
a response, arguing in part that the motion is deficient under Fed. R. Civ. P.
7(b)(1)(B) because it does not "state with particularity the grounds for seeking
the order." Dkt. 34. Mr. Gary's motion to strike this response states, "Plaintiff
moves to strike the Defendant(s) motion of opposition as it violates the Plaintiff's
Constitutional rights of which are absolute." Dkt. 37. The Court agrees that Mr.
Gary's declaratory judgment motion does not adequately state upon what
grounds it would be appropriate to issue a declaratory judgment at this stage of
the proceedings. Moreover, his motion to strike is equally vague as to how the
Medical Defendants' opposition to his motion violates his constitutional rights.
The motions for declaratory judgment and motion to strike the response in
opposition to that motion are DENIED. Dkts. [31], [37].
As noted, the third (fourth) TRO motion remains under advisement at this
time. The Court notes, however, that the motion refers to some or all of
the Defendants as "corpulant [sic] swine headed individuals . . . ." Dkt. 35 at 3.
Such descriptive language is inappropriate and does nothing to further the
Court's resolution of the issues presented. The Court warns Mr. Gary that any
future filings using such language may be stricken and/or summarily denied.
Case 1:25-cv-01331-JPH-KMB Document 40 Filed 12/16/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
SO ORDERED.
Distribution:
All ECF-registered counsel of record via email
LOREN GARY
251375
PENDLETON - CF
PENDLETON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Inmate Mail/Parcels
4490 West Reformatory Road
PENDLETON, IN 46064
Michael J. Bently
BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP
One Jackson Place
188 E Capitol Street
Suite 1000
Jackson, MS 39201
Date: 12/16/2025
Case 1:25-cv-01331-JPH-KMB Document 40 Filed 12/16/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>