Saunders v. Vinton et al

Filing 28

ORDER denying 8 Motion for preliminary injunction ; denying 27 Motion for leave to conduct depositions at court. Signed by Judge Warren W. Eginton on 11/16/12. (Ladd-Smith, I.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

RANDALL SAUNDERS,
Plaintiff,
v.
BLAIR VINTON, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No: 3:12cv581(WWE)

RULING AND ORDER
The plaintiff has filed motions for preliminary injunctive
relief and for leave to depose the defendants at the district
court rather than at the correctional facility where he is
confined.

For the reasons that follow, both motions will be

denied.
I.

Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. #8]
The plaintiff alleges that he has been transferred from the

Enfield Correctional Institution to the Brooklyn Correctional
Institution.

His transfer followed incidents of loss of

materials he considers legal work product.

The plaintiff states

that he now is housed in a gymnasium, rather than in a cell with
a desk and storage for his legal materials, and no longer has a
prison job.
A preliminary injunction is designed “‘to preserve the
status quo and prevent irreparable harm until the court has an
opportunity to rule on the lawsuit’s merits.’”

Lebron v.

Armstrong, 289 F. Supp. 2d 56, 60 (D. Conn. 2003) (quoting Devose

v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam)).
To prevail on his motion, the plaintiff must establish a
relationship between the injury claimed in his motion and the
actions giving rise to his complaint.
The only claim in the amended complaint is that the
defendants withheld the plaintiff’s state habeas appellate file
for several months and interfered with delivery of materials the
plaintiff considered legal correspondence.

This motion concerns

the plaintiff’s transfer and conditions of confinement.

As these

claims are not included in the complaint, the relief requested in
this motion is not related to the claims in this case.

The

motion for preliminary injunctive relief should be denied.
In addition, before the court can validly enter an
injunction against a person, the court must have in personam
jurisdiction over him.

See Doctor’s Assocs., Inc. v. Reinert &

Duree, P.C., 191 F.3d 297, 302 (2d Cir. 1999).

No defendant is

identified as working at Brooklyn Correctional Institution.
Thus, there is no person over whom the court has jurisdiction who
can be ordered to provide the requested relief.
II.

Motion for Leave to Conduct Depositions at Court [Doc. #27]
The plaintiff next seeks leave of court to conduct

depositions of the defendants at the court rather than at the
correctional facility.

Although the plaintiff has been granted

permission to file his action in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915

2

does not authorize payment or advancement of discovery expenses
by the court.

See Morgan v. Murphy, No. 3:10cv1361(JCH), 2011 WL

2681148, at *1 (D. Conn. July 8, 2011)(citing cases); Tajeddini
v. Gulch, 942 F. Supp. 772, 782 (D. Conn. 1996) (denying
plaintiff’s motion to depose defendants because plaintiff did not
indicate how he would pay deposition expenses and in forma
pauperis status does not require advancement of funds by the
court for deposition expenses).

The plaintiff does not indicate

that he has sufficient funds to pay deposition expenses or the
cost of transporting him to the district court should his motion
be granted.

Absent confirmation of sufficient funds, the

plaintiff’s motion should be denied.
III. Conclusion
The plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunction [Doc. #8]
and for leave to conduct depositions at court [Doc. #27] are
DENIED.
SO ORDERED at Bridgeport, Connecticut, this 16th day of
November, 2012.
/s/
Warren W. Eginton
Senior United States District Judge

3