Weeks v. Barkman et al
ORDER by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 2/17/2021, re: 59 Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.(sphil, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Case No. 20-cv-00544-PAB-NYW
GEORGE LOWRY WEEKS,
PA DYER, and
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s Motion Requesting a Preliminary
Injunction [Docket No. 59].
On February 26, 2020, plaintiff filed his complaint. Docket No. 1. On May 7,
2020, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, bringing a single claim for deliberate
indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment. See Docket No. 13 at 4-5.
Specifically, plaintiff alleges that he has a compression fracture in his back and that,
since his arrival at FCI Englewood in Englewood, Colorado, defendants have failed to
properly treat his back condition and resulting pain. See id.
On January 29, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction. See
Docket No. 59. He argues (1) that he was subject to excessive force by “CO” Ward, (2)
retaliation by Lt. Cooper and Lt. Marrero, (3) failure to treat a wrist injury by EMT Duck,
EMT Williamson, and defendant Barkman, and (4) mishandling of his legal papers.
See id. at 1-5.
“A preliminary injunction is . . . appropriate to grant intermediate relief of the
same character as that which may be granted finally.” Hicks v. Jones, 332 F. App’x
505, 508 (10th Cir. 2009) (unpublished) (emphasis added) (quoting De Beers Consol.
Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945)). Here, plaintiff requests relief based
on unrelated actions not alleged in his complaint and, therefore, is not “of the same
character” of the relief which his complaint seeks. See id. While plaintiff’s complaint
seeks compensatory damages and medical expenses as a result of defendants’ failure
to treat his back issues, see Docket Nos. 13, 21, 1 his motion for preliminary injunction
seeks “a preliminary injunction against FCI Englewood” regarding excessive force,
retaliation, medical issues regarding his wrist, and mishandling of his legal papers. See
Docket No. 59 at 1-5. As a result, the relief requested in plaintiff’s motion for
preliminary inunction is “on  matter[s] lying wholly outside the issues in [his] suit.”
Hicks, 332 F. App’x at 508 (quoting De Beers, 325 U.S. at 220). Therefore, plaintiff’s
motion will be denied.2
Plaintiff’s complaint is contained at three different places in the docket, see
Docket No. 23, and his relief is found at Docket No. 21.
The Court also notes that plaintiff seeks relief against several defendants not
named or served in this action, further preventing him from securing a preliminary
injunction against those defendants.
For the foregoing reasons, it is
ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion Requesting a Preliminary Injunction [Docket
No. 59] is DENIED.
DATED February 17, 2021.
BY THE COURT:
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
Chief United States District 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?