Willis v. Griffin et al
ORDER directing the Plaintiff within 14 days to file, if he chooses, a Response which addresses the substance of 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Corey Rayner. After that time has elapsed, the Court will rule on the pleadings as they stan d; to the extend Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel, that request is denied; and if Plaintiff seeks preliminary injunctive relief, he must file a separate motion explaining precisely what relief he seeks and what evidence supports granting such relief. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 10/06/2014. (kcs)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
COREY RAYNER, Sergeant,
Arkansas Department of Correction
On August 13, 2014 Defendant Corey Rayner filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 30). On September 8, 2014, Plaintiff sought an extension of time to
file a response to that motion. Doc. 35. The Court granted Plaintiff’s request for an
extension on September 12, 2014, giving him thirty days from that date to file a
response. Doc. 37.
Plaintiff filed his response in opposition to Defendant Rayner’s motion on
September 19, 2014. Doc. 38. Pursuant to that response, Plaintiff objects to the
pending motion for summary judgment on the grounds that he is “unable to read and
understand the proceedings” and requires counsel. Id. at 1. He also requests an
injunction and temporary restraining order due to his alleged placement with a violent
cell-mate. Id. at 2. Plaintiff’s response makes no attempt to address the substance of
Defendant Rayner’s motion for summary judgment.
The Court, as it has previously, declines to appoint counsel for Plaintiff.1
Plaintiff has not provided a sufficient reason for the Court to reconsider its previous
denials. Despite his protestations to the contrary, Plaintiff has proven, thus far, capable
of litigating his own claims.
To the extent Plaintiff seeks preliminary injunctive relief, he must file a separate
motion which explains precisely what relief he seeks and what arguments or evidence
support that requested relief. Moreover, Plaintiff is cautioned that any motion for
preliminary injunctive relief must establish a relationship between the injury claimed
in the motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint. See Devose v. Herrington, 42
F.3d 470 (8th Cir. 1994). In other words, if Plaintiff intends to seek injunctive relief
it must concern the failure to protect claims in the immediate action. To the extent
Plaintiff has new, unrelated concerns about his safety he should file a separate action.2
As it stands, the Court has insufficient information to address Plaintiff’s request for
Based on the foregoing, the Court will provide Plaintiff with a final opportunity
to respond to the substance of Defendant Rayner’s motion for summary judgment. If
The Court has previously denied appointment of counsel on four separate occasions. Docs.
3, 8, 28, 37.
While Plaintiff does allege that he currently feels threatened by his cell-mate, it is unclear
whether he is still being housed with the same inmate whose assault forms the basis of this action.
Plaintiff chooses to submit an additional response, it should be filed within fourteen
(14) days of this Order’s entry. Plaintiff should refer to the Court’s previous Order
(Doc. 33) in crafting that response.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
Plaintiff shall have fourteen (14) days from the entry of this Order to
file, if he chooses, a Response which addresses the substance of Defendant Rayner’s
Motion for Summary Judgment. After that time has elapsed, the Court will rule on the
pleadings as they stand.
To the extent Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel, that request is
If Plaintiff seeks preliminary injunctive relief, he must file a separate
motion explaining precisely what relief he seeks and what evidence supports granting
Dated this 6th day of October, 2014.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?