Odom v. Pheral et al
Filing
63
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER denying 41 Motion to Compel; denying 42 Motion to Compel; denying 51 Motion to serve defendants ; denying 52 Motion for facility transfer ; denying 56 Motion to submit; denying 58 Motion to relate. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 4/19/2013. cc:counsel (KJA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT PADUCAH
GLENN D. ODOM, II
PLAINTIFF
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12CV-P73-R
GARY PHERAL et al.
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court are six motions filed by Plaintiff (DNs 41, 42, 51, 52, 56, and 58).
Motions to Compel
Plaintiff has filed two motions to compel (DNs 41 & 42). In these motions Plaintiff
requests the Court to order Skyla Grief to make copies of the exhibits he intends to include as
attachments to his amended complaint in this action.
As the amended complaint and exhibits have already been filed in this action, the motions
to compel, DNs 41 & 42, are DENIED as being moot.
Emergency Motion to Serve Defendants
Plaintiff has filed an “Emergency Motion To Serve Summons And Complaint Upon
Defendants” (DN 51). In this motion Plaintiff requests the Court to order service on Defendants
Service on Defendants is not appropriate until the Court completes its initial review of this action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997).
The service on Defendants will be addressed by the Court in its order addressing initial review of
this action.
For this reason, Plaintiff’s motion to serve Defendants, DN 51, is DENIED.
Emergency Motion for a Facility Transfer
Plaintiff has also filed an “Emergency Motion For A Facility Transfer” (DN 52). In it he
requests the Court to order his transfer out of the Kentucky State Penitentiary to another
Kentucky Department of Corrections facility because he is the “target of retaliation, harassment,
and torment from all defendants for filing civil complaints.” Plaintiff has no constitutional right
to placement in a particular institution, thus his request for a transfer must be denied. See Dancy
v. George, Civil Action No. 07-CV-97-GFVT, 2007 WL 2251926, at *2 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 2, 2007)
(denying transfer request, in part, because “[w]ell-settled law establishes that prisoners have no
inherent constitutional right to placement in any particular prison; transfers to any particular
prison; any particular security classification; or housing assignment”); Rouse v. Simpson, No.
5:08CV-P123-R, 2009 WL 5103628, at *4 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 17, 2009) (finding that plaintiff’s
request for an injunction directing his transfer to another institution must be denied because the
law is clear that “a prisoner has no right to be incarcerated in a particular institution or a
particular part of an institution”). Only in extreme situations would a federal court have the
authority to order a State to transfer a prisoner, and then, usually, it would be in the discretion of
the State to select another appropriate facility. See Walker v. Lockhart, 713 F.2d 1378, 1383 (8th
Cir. 1983); Streeter v. Hopper, 618 F.2d 1178, 1182 (5th Cir. 1980); Moore v. Schuetzle, 486 F.
Supp. 2d 969, 981 (D.N.D. 2007). Plaintiff has not presented an extreme situation such that this
Court would order a transfer.
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for a facility transfer, DN 52, is DENIED.
2
Motion to Submit for Ruling
Plaintiff has filed a motion to submit for ruling (DN 56) in which he requests this Court
to enter a ruling on his pending motions. Plaintiff has filed a lengthy complaint and voluminous
attachments in this case along with numerous motions. The Court has recently addressed these
motions and performed its initial review of this action.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to submit for a ruling, DN 56, is DENIED as being moot.
Motion to Relate
Plaintiff has filed a motion to relate, DN 58, in which he requests this Court to
consolidate this case with “Odom v. Smith.” Plaintiff states that Odom v. Smith “has not been
given a case number yet and Odom v. Smith is, basically, an add on to the above case number only challenging mailroom retaliation and excessive misconduct.” Plaintiff fails to provide any
documents for this Court to review to make a determination regarding his request.
For this reason, Plaintiff’s motion to relate, DN 58, is DENIED.
Date:
April 19, 2013
cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
Defendants
General Counsel, Justice & Public Safety Cabinet, Office of Legal Counsel
4413.003
3
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?