Bingham v. Garland et al

Filing 40

ORDERED that the Plaintiff's motion 39 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any future improper filings by Plaintiff in this case will not be considered and will be stricken from the record in this matter. The Clerk is instructed to send a copy of this Order to the Warden at Marion Correctional Institution. Signed by Chief Judge Martin Reidinger on 11/10/2020. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(thh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:19-cv-00139-MR
DUSTIN LAMAR BINGHAM,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
)
FNU GARLAND, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s letter. [Doc. 39].
Pro se Plaintiff Dustin Lamar Bingham (“Plaintiff”) is currently
incarcerated at Marion Correctional Institution in Marion, North Carolina.
Plaintiff filed a Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants on
April 26, 2019 based on alleged violations of the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth
Amendments while Plaintiff was housed at Mountain View Correctional
Institution. [Doc. 1]. On November 26, 2019, the Court allowed Plaintiff’s
Complaint to proceed on his Eighth Amendment claim only. [Doc. 17]. The
dispositive motions deadline is November 18, 2020.
Order].

[10/20/2020 Text

Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s letter in which he requests “a court
order to be shipped to another Institution [b]ecause correctional officers are
going up to Mtn. View Correctional to help out due to covid-19 & they are
coming back harassing [Plaintiff] about [his] lawsuit.” [Doc. 39]. Plaintiff
claims these officers are threatening to spit in Plaintiff’s food and to hurt
Plaintiff’s family. [Id.]. Plaintiff states that he believes his life is in danger
and that the Warden at Marion is not taking Plaintiff’s concerns seriously.
[Id.].
Plaintiff’s letter, which the Court will construe as a motion for injunctive
relief, is not well taken. First, all documents filed with this Court must include
the case number at the top of the document. Second, all requests for relief
must be filed in the form of a motion, not a letter, and should never be
directed to the Clerk or to the Judge assigned to the case. Third, the relief
Plaintiff requests relates not to the instant lawsuit, but to allegations of
retaliation by officers at his current place of incarceration, Marion, for Plaintiff
having filed this lawsuit against officers at Mountain View. As such, it is not
within the purview of this Court to order the relief sought by Plaintiff under
these circumstances. Plaintiff may, of course, file a new action under § 1983
based on the retaliation he alleges in his letter.

2

Plaintiff is advised that any future improper filings in this case will not
be considered and will be stricken from the record in this matter.

ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s motion [Doc. 39] is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any future improper filings by Plaintiff
in this case will not be considered and will be stricken from the record in this
matter.
The Clerk is instructed to send a copy of this Order to the Warden at
Marion Correctional Institution.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: November 10, 2020

3