Harris v. Corizon et al

Filing 127

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 126 MOTION for Reconsideration re 122 Order of Dismissal (case - Stipulation of Dismissal) filed by Plaintiff Jim Harris, Jr. motion is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 9/28/18. (MRS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
JIM HARRIS, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CORIZON LLC., et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:15-cv-00026-SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s “sworn affidavit in support of
plaintiff[‘s] claim” seeking an “emergency preliminary injunction and temporary
restraining order.” (#126). The Court will treat plaintiff’s “affidavit” as a motion for
injunctive relief.
This case has already reached a settlement (#115, 121) among all remaining
defendants and, further, all defendants were voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff (#122).
The Court notes plaintiff has previously attempted to file an action against his appointed
counsel in this case for legal malpractice in Harris v. Law Office of Kevin J. Dolley, et
al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00059-ACL, which was dismissed for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction. That case involved plaintiff’s apparent dissatisfaction with the settlement
reached in this case. Plaintiff’s alleges new claims of deliberate indifference against a
new set of medical providers. Therefore, plaintiff must file a new action rather than seek
injunctive relief in this case. See De Beers Consolidated Mines v. United States, 325 U.S.
212, 220 (1945) (an injunction should not issue when “it deals with a matter lying wholly
1

outside the issues in the suit”); Atakpu v. Lawson, 2006 WL 3803193 at *2 (S.D. Ohio
Nov. 28, 2006) (detainee’s motion seeking injunctive relief denied as unrelated to his
complaint). Finally, the Court also notes that, according to plaintiff’s motion, he is being
treated by a “Dr. Tippen,” who plaintiff does not suggest has been deliberately indifferent
to his medical needs. Mere disagreement with the treatment being received is inadequate
to state a constitutional violation. See Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1239 (8th Cir.
1997).
The Court finds no reason to reopen this matter pursuant to plaintiff’s motion for
injunctive relief. Plaintiff’s motion will be denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s “sworn affidavit in support of
plaintiff[‘s] claim” seeking an “emergency preliminary injunction and temporary
restraining order” (#126) is DENIED.
So ordered this 28th day of September 2018.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2