Anderson v. Hobbs et al

Filing 110

ORDER denying 51 Motion for Relief; denying 54 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 55 Motion to Compel; denying 72 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 75 Motion for Joinder; denying 77 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 94 Motion for Leave to File; denying 96 Motion for Leave to File; denying 101 Motion for Leave to File; denying 102 Motion to Extend Time; denying 104 Motion for Leave to File; denying 105 Motion for Declaratory Judgment; denying 105 Motion for Relief; denying 106 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Chief Judge J. Leon Holmes on 2/23/12. (kpr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
JAMES KEN ANDERSON,
ADC #99355
v.

PLAINTIFF

NO. 5:11CV00258 JLH/BD

RAY HOBBS, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

James Ken Anderson has filed two motions for preliminary injunctive relief, a motion for
leave to file an amended motion for preliminary injunctive relief, seven motions for leave to file a
motion for permissive joinder of parties or a supplemental complaint, and a motion for declaratory
and injunctive relief. Anderson’s pattern of filing excessive, duplicative motions is an abuse of the
judicial process.
Due to the number of confusing, duplicative motions he has filed, it is unclear what parties
or claims Anderson seeks to add to this lawsuit. It is clear, however, that Anderson has not come
forward with any evidence to indicate that he faces immediate danger or irreparable harm; rather,
the evidence supports the defendants’ position that Anderson’s medical needs have been, and are
being, regularly monitored. Without the threat of irreparable harm, the Court cannot issue a
preliminary injunction. Mid-Am. Real Estate Co. v. Iowa Realty Co., 406 F.3d 969, 977 (8th Cir.
2005). Therefore, the aforementioned motions are DENIED. Documents #51, #54, #72, #75, #77,
#94, #96, #101, #104, #105, #106.
If Anderson still seeks to add a new party or an additional claim, he may file one motion to
amend and attach his proposed amended complaint, within fourteen days. He must not attach any
evidence to either his motion or his proposed amended complaint. The proposed amended complaint
must include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that [he] is entitled to relief.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The Court will only permit the addition of a new claim or a new defendant if the
new claim or new defendant is directly related to the claims already raised in this lawsuit.
If Anderson attempts to file more than a single proposed motion to amend or additional
motions for joinder, the Clerk of the Court is directed to reject those proposed filings. And if
Anderson continues this pattern of excessive filings, he risks having this lawsuit dismissed.
Anderson’s motion for an extension of time is DENIED as moot. Document #102.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of February, 2012.

___________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2