Adams v. Hiland et al
MEMORANDUM & ORDER denying 8 Motion to Intervene. Clerk is directed to open documents contained in DN 8 as a new 1983 civil action. Signed by Chief Judge Thomas B. Russell on 4/9/2010. cc:counsel (KJS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT PADUCAH CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:10CV-P16-R JASMINE JAZZ ADAMS A/K/A TIMOTHY D. ROUSE v. CHINA HILAND et al. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Rodney Grimes's motion to intervene in this action. Plaintiff Jasmine Jazz Adams, also known as Timothy D. Rouse, filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Kentucky State Penitentiary Nurse Chanin Hiland, Unit Administrator Jasis Bryon, Dr. Tom Morton, and Nurse Gene Randy. Plaintiff Adams alleged disclosure of personal and confidential medical complaints, denial of daily exercise, and denial of mental health services based on race. On March 18, 2010, Rodney Grimes filed a motion to intervene in this action and attached a proposed complaint (DN 8). He seeks to sue Nurse Chanin Hiland and to add two new Defendants Dr. Steve Hiland and Medical Administrator John Woods. Grimes alleges refusal of medical treatment in January 2010 in violation of the Eighth Amendment and state law. On March 29, 2010, the Court entered Plaintiff Adams's notice of voluntary dismissal of the complaint (DN 9). DEFENDANTS PLAINTIFF
The action has been voluntarily terminated. Further, Grimes's proposed complaint contains claims that are personal to him; names different defendants; and, despite Grimes's assertion to the contrary, does not share "a common question of law or fact" with Adams's claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B). For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to intervene (DN 8) is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to open Grimes's § 1983 complaint and its attachments contained in DN 8 as a new action. Date: April 9, 2010
Plaintiff Adams, pro se Rodney Grimes 4413.005
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?