Brown v. Cooper et al

Filing 31

ORDER denying 30 Motion for Preliminary Injunction(Written Opinion) Signed by Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson on 6/12/2018. (TMM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

JAMES N. BROWN, JR.,

Civ. No. 18-219 (DSD/BRT)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

ASSOCIATE WARDEN G. COOPER,
KEN HYLE, ASST. DIRECTOR,
SARA REVELL, REGIONAL
DIRECTOR,
KATHLEEN KENNEY, GEN.
COUNSEL,
L. LARIVA, WARDEN,
L. JANSSEN, R.N.,
C. ORUM, UNIT MANAGER,
R. WOLTMAN, CASE MANAGER,
FNU SANSON,
A. COSSETTE, UNIT MANAGER
D. HOLBUS, LIEUTENANT,
C. STROMBERG,
FNU HARE, LIEUTENANT,
PETER ARROYO,
CHARLES SLATER, MD,
SHEILA HADAWAY, MD,
MISBAH BAQIR, M.B.B.S.,
MAYO CLINIC,
Defendants.

Pro se Plaintiff James N. Brown, Jr. filed a motion for an order directing the
Bureau of Prisons to “release all restriction immediately” on his trust fund account and

that this case be joined with Civil Case No. 18-404 (D. Minn.) “to become one filing
fee.” (Doc. No. 30 at 2.) Plaintiff complains that the Bureau of Prisons is taking too much
of his money to satisfy the filing fees for his cases, making it more difficult to litigate
those cases. (See id.) 1
This action cannot be joined with Case No. 18-404. As one court explained:
[A] plaintiff cannot normally seek to join in one lawsuit a multitude of
claims against a host of different defendants, relating to events arising out
of a series of different occurrences or transactions. In other words, ‘Claim
A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against
Defendant 2.’ George v. Smith, 507 F3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).
‘Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits, . . .
[in part] to ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees––for the Prison
Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 the number of frivolous suits or appeals
that any prisoner may file without prepayment of the required fees.’ Id.
Taylor v. Miller, No. 4:15-CV-285-RWS, 2015 WL 3476918, at *2 (E.D. Mo. June 2,
2015). This lawsuit raises claims related to the treatment of Plaintiff’s ongoing health
issues. Case No. 18-404, on the other hand, is related to the confiscation of photographs,
and the defendants are entirely different. Therefore, Plaintiff cannot avoid paying two
filing fees by joining these unrelated lawsuits.
Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. No. 30) is DENIED.
s/ Becky R. Thorson
BECKY R. THORSON
United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: June 12, 2018

1

Plaintiff labeled this motion a motion for a preliminary injunction. Since this
motion does not address the merits of Plaintiff’s claims, the Court will treat it as a nondispositive motion. Plaintiff previously filed another motion for preliminary injunction
(Doc. No. 7) that is still pending and awaiting response from the defendants.
2