UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

QUINTIN J. MAYWEATHER-BROWN, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. CAUSE NO. 3:14-CV-2089-JD-MGG 

STEFFANY BIGGLER, JHON PERRY, 

DR. MATTHEWS, RN ROBBIN, and 

GARY YODER, 

 Defendants. 

OPINION AND ORDER 

 Quintin J. Mayweather-Brown, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a motion (ECF 

313) for preliminary injunction asserting prison medical staff made incomplete, 

inaccurate, and false representations in his medical records while he was housed at the 

Elkhart County Jail, and seeking an order that the Defendants be prevented from using 

them in this action. 

“[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that 

should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of 

persuasion.” Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997). To obtain a preliminary 

injunction, the moving party must show: (1) he will suffer irreparable harm before the 

final resolution of his claims; (2) available remedies at law are inadequate; and (3) he 

has a likelihood of success on the merits. See BBL, Inc. v. City of Angola, 809 F.3d 317, 

323–24 (7th Cir. 2015). The court then “weighs the competing harms to the parties if an 

injunction is granted or denied and also considers the public interest.” Korte v. Sebelius, 
2 

735 F.3d 654, 665 (7th Cir. 2013). Furthermore, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 

injunctive relief must be “narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to remedy 

the constitutional violation, and must use the least intrusive means to correct the 

violation of the federal right.” Westefer v. Neal, 682 F.3d 679, 681 (7th Cir. 2012). 

The PLRA circumscribes the scope of the court’s authority to enter an 

injunction in the corrections context. Where prison conditions are found to 

violate federal rights, remedial injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, 

extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal 

right, and use the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation 

of the Federal right. This section of the PLRA enforces a point repeatedly 

made by the Supreme Court in cases challenging prison conditions: Prison 

officials have broad administrative and discretionary authority over the 

institutions they manage. 

Westefer, 682 F.3d at 683 (quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted). 

 In moving for injunctive relief, Mayweather-Brown asserts that, while he was 

housed at the Elkhart County Jail from March 20, 2014, through January 19, 2016, 

Health Services Administrator Robin Yohn and the prison’s medical staff repeatedly 

made “incomplete, inaccurate, and false representations” about the severity of his 

mental illness in his medical records. (ECF 313 at 1, 3.) He asserts that Yohn, Captain 

John Perry, the Jail’s Commanding Officer, and Dr. Josh Mathew, a psychiatrist 

employed by Correct Care Solutions, knew he suffered from a mental illness, but 

refused to send him to the state psychiatric hospital or administer “involuntary 

psychotropic medication to stabilize him.” (Id. at 3.) Instead, he claims they simply 

chose to keep him at the Elkhart County Jail without appropriate medical treatment 

where he continued to engage in acts of self-harm, subjecting him to cruel and unusual 

punishment. (Id.) 
3 

 Furthermore, Mayweather-Brown argues that defense counsel in this case used 

his medical records as a “weapon” against him by submitting them in support of a 

motion for summary judgment. (Id. at 3.) He claims that these inaccurate and false 

medical records do not tell the truth about his condition because they misrepresent the 

reality and severity of his mental illness. (Id. at 3-6.) Thus, Mayweather-Brown seeks 

injunctive relief against the continued use of “inaccurate, incomplete, or flat out 

subjective and/or biased medical records.” (Id. at 7.) He asks that the court order the 

Defendants to identify and correct the false and incomplete records, expunge that 

information from his records, enter a judgment of $6,500.00 against the Defendants, and 

sanction defense counsel. (Id.) 

Mayweather-Brown’s motion will be denied. First, the court has already granted 

the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether he received 

constitutionally adequate medical care while he was housed at the Elkhart County Jail. 

(ECF 298.) In other words, the court found Mayweather-Brown’s medical care to be 

objectively reasonable. Thus, the instant motion appears to be an attempt to relitigate 

issues already decided by this court. Furthermore, Mayweather-Brown has not 

produced any evidence to support his claim that Yohn and the prison’s medical staff 

either altered or falsified his medical records by omitting relevant medical information 

or incorporating inaccurate information about his mental illness. Whether a motion for 

preliminary injunction or a motion to strike, the relief he seeks is unwarranted. As 

noted by the court in its summary judgment order, the medical records constitute 
4 

evidence that support the fact that Mayweather-Brown received constitutionally 

adequate medical care while he was housed at the Elkhart County Jail. 

For these reasons, the motion for preliminary injunction (ECF 313) is DENIED. 

 SO ORDERED on December 16, 2019 

 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 

JUDGE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT