JOHNSON v. GIFFORD et al
ENTRY AND NOTICE. For the reasons discussed herein, all relief which is sought, or which could be understood as being sought through plaintiff's 9/1/09 filing is DENIED. Nothing in this ruling shall prevent the plaintiff from seeking additional relief which is proper-administrative or judicial-in an appropriate forum. Signed by Judge David Frank Hamilton on 9/3/2009. c/m. (LBK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
MICHAEL KEVIN JOHNSON,
) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) JUDGE PATRICIA J. GIFFORD, et al., ) ) Defendants. )
Entry and Notice A portion of the letter received from the plaintiff in this civil rights action on September 1, 2009, questions the development of the action and inquires in particular into the status of his motion for appointment of counsel. However, the action was resolved in the Judgment entered on the clerk's docket on August 27, 2009. In the Entry accompanying that Judgment the court denied the plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel. Nothing in the letter received on September 1, 2009, suggests that there is any sound basis on which to modify or alter the Judgment. See Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 732 (7th Cir. 1998)(explaining that there are only three valid grounds for a Rule 59(e) motion--newly-discovered evidence, an intervening change in the law, and manifest error of law). The remainder of the letter received from the plaintiff on September 1, 2009, relates the plaintiff's distress with certain treatment he describes as being subjected to at the prison where he is confined. Such concerns may arise from treatment or conditions of confinement which are or which could be actionable, but there is nothing actionable about them in this casebecause (1) the case is closed, Amendola v. Bayer, 907 F.2d 760, 765 n.1 (7th Cir. 1990) ("In this circuit, after a judgment has been entered, a party must have the judgment reopened pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b) and then request leave to amend pursuant to Rule 15(a)."), and (2) the subject matter of the concerns in this latter portion of the letter are not related to either the events described in the complaint or the defendants in the case. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007)( "Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits."; instead, Rule 18 allows joinder of multiple parties only when the allegations against them involve the same conduct or transaction and common questions of fact and law as to all defendants).
Based on the foregoing, therefore, all relief which is sought or which could be understood as being sought through the plaintiff's filing of September 1, 2009, is denied. Nothing in this ruling, however, shall prevent the plaintiff from seeking additional relief which is properadministrative or judicialin an appropriate forum. So ordered. _____________________________________ DAVID F.F. HAMILTON, CHIEF JUDGE DAVID HAMILTON, Chief Judge United States District Court United States District Court Southern District of Indiana
Date: September 3, 2009 Distribution: Michael Kevin Johnson #973475 New Castle Correctional Facility 1000 Van Nuys Road New Castle, IN 47362
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?