THOMAS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al

Filing 81

Entry Discussing Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction - The plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction 71 must be denied because the relief sought is outside the scope of th is civil action. The motion for preliminary injunction improperly raises new claims against Dr. Harvey who is not a defendant in this action, and improperly asserts claims based on events occurring after the commencement of this law suit. Nothing in this Entry should be understood to prohibit the plaintiff from initiating a new civil action regarding the claims raised in his motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. (See Entry.) Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 4/2/2013. (RSF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
RALPH THOMAS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
HARRELL WATTS, et al.,
Defendants.

2:11-cv-187-JMS-WGH

Entry Discussing Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
and Preliminary Injunction
I.
On February 5, 2013, the plaintiff filed a document entitled “Motion to
Amend the Complaint.” The title of this document did not reflect the obvious
purpose of the filing which was to seek permission to file the Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction attached to that document. On
February 8, 2013, the Court granted the limited relief actually sought in plaintiff’s
motion, and the clerk was directed to re-docket the attachment. Nothing in the
February 8, 2013, Entry was intended to expand the scope of the operative
complaint filed on April 19, 2012. In addition, given the age of this case, further
amendments to the complaint are not anticipated. To be clear, the April 19, 2012,
Amended Complaint alleges an Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference
against defendants Dr. W. Wilson, A. Ndife, and Harrell Watts in their individual
capacities pursuant to the theory recognized Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal
Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Thomas seeks injunctive relief ordering
medication, treatment and evaluation by an independent doctor for his disabling
pain and severe muscle cramps. Thomas specifically states that his severe muscle
cramp condition is the only issue before the court. Dkt. 51 at 3.
II.
The pending motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction alleges the following: For thirty years the plaintiff has suffered from
acute gout attacks. These attacks were treated with good results until about one
year ago when health services and Dr. Paul Harvey decided to discontinue the

plaintiff’s use of the medication Colchicine; even though it was effective to clear up
the plaintiff’s gout attacks. The existing defendants have filed a lengthy response,
detailing a different version of events that for the following reasons need not be
restated here.
The plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction [71] must be denied because the relief sought is outside the scope of this
civil action. The motion for preliminary injunction improperly raises new claims
against Dr. Harvey who is not a defendant in this action, and improperly asserts
claims based on events occurring after the commencement of this law suit. See
United States v. Kirschenbaum, 156 F.3d 784, 794 (7th Cir. 1998) (explaining that
district court may not enjoin non-parties except as provided in Rule 65(d)).
Nothing in this Entry should be understood to prohibit the plaintiff from
initiating a new civil action regarding the claims raised in his motion for temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________

04/02/2013
Date: __________________
Distribution:
RALPH THOMAS
R18369-001
TERRE HAUTE
U.S. PENITENTIARY
Inmate Mail/Parcels
P.O. BOX 33
TERRE HAUTE, IN 47808
All Electronically Registered Counsel

Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana