Kinchloe v. Sherry

Filing 38

ORDER denying Petitioner's 27 Motion for Judicial Oversight of All Medication and 28 , 29 Motions for Mandatory Injunction. Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (JOwe)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

PAUL KINCHLOE,
Petitioner,

Case Number: 2:07-CV-12460

v.

HONORABLE PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

JERI ANN SHERRY,
Respondent.
/
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JUDICIAL
OVERSIGHT OF ALL MEDICATION (ECF NO. 27), AND
MOTIONS FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION (ECF NO. 28 & 29)
Paul Andrew Kinchloe (Petitioner), a prisoner in the custody of the Michigan
Department of Corrections, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus. This was
Petitioner’s second habeas petition challenging the same conviction. The Court issued an
order transferring the petition to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
because Petitioner had not received authorization to file a successive petition as required
by 28 U.S.C. § 2243(b)(3). The Court of Appeals dismissed the action for want of
prosecution. See In re: Paul Andrew Kinchloe, No. 14-2598 (6th Cir. Feb. 12, 2015)
(ECF No. 22). Now before the Court are three motions filed by Petitioner: “Motion for
Judicial Oversight of All Medication with Security in Camera Examination of When Seal
to Medication is Broken...”; “Motion for Mandatory Injunction Against Michigan
Department of Psychology/Psychiatry ... Barring Any and All Psychological

Evaluation...”; and “Mandatory Inunction Against the MDOC Psych Department...”.
Petitioner’s motions all concern the alleged unethical conduct of prison
psychologists, psychiatrists, and those under the supervision of prison psychologists and
psychiatrists. Petitioner claims that the medical staff is attempting to create a hostile
environment for him, tampering with this medication, and indirectly threatening him. The
allegations raised in these motions and the relief sought are unrelated to the habeas corpus
proceeding and, therefore, the motion is not properly filed in this closed case.
Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion for Judicial Oversight (ECF No. 27), and
Motions for Mandatory Injunction (Dkt. 28 & 29) are DENIED.
SO ORDERED.

s/Paul D. Borman
PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: March 1, 2017
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each
attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on March 1,
2017.

s/Julie Owens Acting on Behalf of Deborah Tofil
Case Manager

2