STUDNICKA V. PROFIT ET AL

Filing 15

ENTRY Discussing Selected Matters - The plaintiff;'s request to proceed in forma pauperis 2 is granted to the extent consistent with the ruling of the transferor court on May 19, 2011. No additional or different ruling is warranted at this ti me.The plaintiff's statment 10 seeks injunctive relief associated with the manner in which the BOP maintians custody of the plaintiff. The plaintiffs filing of August 4, 2011 11 , shall be re-docketed as the amended complaint and shall serve as the operative pleading setting forth his claims.The amended complaint will be screened as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The plaintiff shall have through September 15, 2011, in which to supplement the amended complaint, but is warned that unintelligible materials filed for this or any other purpose will be disregarded. Any request in any filing not specifically addressed in this Entry is denied. Proceedings are stayed except as directed above with respect to the plaintiffs opportunity to supplement the amended complaint and the courts screening of the amended complaint Signed by Judge Jane Magnus- Stinson on 8/31/2011.(copy to plaintiff via US mail)(VS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SEAN A. STUDNICKA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DENNIS PROFIT, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:11-cv-214-JMS-WGH

Entry Discussing Selected Matters
I.
Sean A. Studnicka is an inmate in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons
(“BOP”). He is currently confined at the Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in
Springfield, Missouri. His complaint filed under the theory set forth in Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), was transferred to this court and has
been docketed as shown above.
II.
The plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis [2] is granted to the extent
consistent with the ruling of the transferor court on May 19, 2011. No additional or
different ruling is warranted at this time.
III.
The plaintiff’s statement [10] seeks injunctive relief associated with the manner in
which the BOP maintains custody of the plaintiff. That request [10] is denied because
this court does not have personal jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s custodian and lacks
jurisdiction to order the relief which is sought. Lehn v. Holmes, 364 F.3d 862, 871 (7th
Cir. 2004)("[W]hen a prisoner who seeks injunctive relief for a condition specific to a
particular prison is transferred out of that prison, the need for relief . . . become[s]
moot."); Higgason v. Farley, 83 F.3d 862, 871 (7th Cir. 1996) (same).

IV.
The plaintiff’s filing of August 4, 2011 [11], shall be re-docketed as the
amended complaint and shall serve as the operative pleading setting forth his claims.
The amended complaint will be screened as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
The plaintiff shall have through September 15, 2011, in which to supplement the
amended complaint, but is warned that unintelligible materials filed for this or any other
purpose will be disregarded.
Any request in any filing not specifically addressed in this Entry is denied.
Proceedings are stayed except as directed above with respect to the plaintiff’s
opportunity to supplement the amended complaint and the court’s screening of the
amended complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

_______________________________

08/31/2011
Date: __________________
Distribution:
Sean Allen Studnicka
32868-048
Medical Center for Federal Prisoners
P.O. 4000
Springfield, MD 65801

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