Brian Greer v. Ron Neal et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION BRIAN GREER, Plaintiff, v. CAUSE NO. 3:26cv197 DRL-SJF RON NEAL et al., Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER Brian Greer, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction because he has “extreme burning pain, red rashes all over his body, itching, and welts[.]” ECF 4 at 2. “[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). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).

Unlike when evaluating the allegations in a complaint to determine whether they state a claim for permanent injunctive relief, in assessing the merits of a claim for a preliminary injunction, the court does not have to simply “accept [the plaintiff’s] allegations as true” or “give him the benefit of all reasonable inferences in his favor, as would be the case in evaluating a motion to dismiss on the pleadings.” Doe v. Univ. of S.

Indiana, 43 F.4th 784, 791 (7th Cir. 2022). Instead, the court assesses the merits as “they are likely to be decided after more complete discovery and litigation.” Id. Mr. Greer wants the court to order Warden Ron Neal to stop “[u]sing the current ‘All Temp Laundry Detergent’ and ‘Chlorine Bleach’ on the plaintiff’s clothing, and … substitute said detergent with a Hypo-Allergenic detergent, and/or provide plaintiff with Hypo-Allergenic detergent so that he may wash his own clothing.” ECF 4 at 1. In his affidavit, he affirms that the “medical department has finally concluded that the laundry detergent is the cause of the problem.” Id. at 3. With his complaint, Mr. Greer attaches 74 pages of exhibits, including several medical records. ECF 2-1. None of them shows that a healthcare provider has concluded that his rashes are caused by laundry detergent. One says he told a nurse he believed it was the cause and she told him to talk to Lt. McCormick about alternative washing options. Id. at 33. Test results on February 4, 2026 diagnosed him with spongiotic dermatitis, which can have many causes. Id. at 73.

Allergic reactions play a central role in many cases. Exposure to certain medications or foods can provoke an immune response, leading to the characteristic skin inflammation. Similarly, irritants such as chemicals, harsh soaps, cosmetic ingredients, and even metals found in jewelry may cause outbreaks. Fungal infections are another potential trigger, especially in individuals who have a compromised skin barrier. Additionally, hormonal changes can influence the onset of this condition, as fluctuating hormones can affect the skin’s response to irritants and allergens.

Moreover, lifestyle factors like stress and environmental changes are also key contributors. Stress, for instance, weakens the immune system, making the skin more susceptible to flare-ups. Temperature shifts, particularly extreme cold or heat, as well as excessive sweating, can worsen symptoms by irritating already sensitive skin.

Indiana University School of Medicine, Dermatology, Know about Spongiotic Dermatitis: Itchy Patches of Skin, (Feb. 18, 2026), https://dermatrials.medicine.iu.edu/blogs/what-is- spongiotic-dermatitis. Mr. Greer’s lab report explains “a hypersensitivity phenomenon is not favored though a medication-related reaction still remains plausible.” Id. It is understandable why he believes changing his laundry detergent is a reasonable option, but he has not clearly shown that is the cause of his skin problems.

“Mandatory preliminary injunctions – those requiring an affirmative act by the defendant – are ordinarily cautiously viewed and sparingly issued [because] review of a preliminary injunction is even more searching when the injunction is mandatory rather than prohibitory in nature.” Mays v. Dart, 974 F.3d 810, 818 (7th Cir. 2020) (quotations omitted). A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish he is likely to succeed on the merits. “A strong showing . . . normally includes a demonstration of how the applicant proposes to prove the key elements of its case.” Illinois Republican Party v. Pritzker, 973 F.3d 760, 763 (7th Cir. 2020) (quotations omitted). Mr. Greer has not made such a showing.

For these reasons the preliminary injunction motion (ECF 4) is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

February 19, 2026 s/ Damon R. Leichty Judge, United States District Court