Bloodworth v. Timmerman-Cooper et al

Filing 35

ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 30 Plaintiff's Request for an Injunction: The Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that plaintiff's request for an injunction be DENIED. Defendants' 31 motion to strike is DENIED. Objections to R&R due within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 9/29/2011. (er1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

RONALD BLOODWORTH,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Civil Action 2:10-CV-1122
Judge Marbley
Magistrate Judge King

DEBORA A. TIMMERMAN-COOPER,
WARDEN, et al.
Defendants.
ORDER and
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s letter requesting an
injunction against “prison officials . . . preventing me from mailing
anything to the courts,”
strike that letter.

Doc. No. 30, and on defendants’ motion to

Doc. No. 31.

motion to strike is DENIED.

For the reasons that follow, the

It is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s request

for an injunction be DENIED.
I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed the original Complaint on January 3, 2011, alleging

that his constitutional rights were denied him while he was incarcerated
at London Correctional Institution [“LoCI”].

Complaint, Doc. No. 4.

Named as defendants are various officials at LoCI and the Ohio Department
of Rehabilitation and Correction [“ODRC”]. Id. Plaintiff was thereafter
transferred to Toledo Correctional Institution [“TCI”].

Notice of Change

of Address, Doc. No. 10.
On July 29, 2011, plaintiff filed the instant letter requesting an
injunction against unidentified prison officials in TCI.
August

10,

and

September

23,

On July 11,

2011, plaintiff filed three amended

complaints, Doc. Nos. 28, 32, 34, the first of which was stricken by this
Court as illegible.

All of the tendered amended complaints relate to

plaintiff’s incarceration at LoCI.
Plaintiff alleges in his letter that (1) he attempted to mail from
TCI an amended complaint on July 20, 2011, but that the document was
never mailed; (2) he attempted to mail other complaints to this Court but
that they were returned to him; and (3) “[n]one of [his] court mail is
being mailed out of the institution.”

Id.

Defendants filed a motion to

strike the letter on the grounds that the letter is not a formal motion
and does not certify that it was served on opposing counsel.

Doc. No.

31; see S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.2(c).
II.

DISCUSSION
This

injunction

Court
is

concludes

properly

that

plaintiff’s

letter

requesting

an

considered as a motion for a preliminary

injunction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65.

See Spencer v. Bouchard, 449 F.3d

721, 726 (6th Cir. 2006) (noting “the general practice of liberally
construing pro se prisoners’ filings”).

Defendants’ motion to strike is

therefore DENIED.
In evaluating a motion for a preliminary injunction, a court
considers “(1) whether the movant has a ‘strong’ likelihood of success
on the merits; (2) whether the movant would otherwise suffer irreparable
injury; (3) whether issuance of a preliminary injunction would cause
substantial harm to others; and (4) whether the public interest would be
served by issuance of a preliminary injunction.”

Sandison v. Mich. High

School Athletic Ass’n, Inc., 64 F.3d 1026, 1030 (6th Cir. 1995).
The purpose of a preliminary injunction is “is to provide security
for performance of a future order which may be entered by the court.”
De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States , 325 U.S. 212, 219 (1945) A
motion for a preliminary injunction should be denied if the movant cannot
“demonstrate that the relief sought is related to the injury” alleged in
the complaint.

Moody v. Bell, No. 1:08-CV-796, 2009 WL 3011505, *4 (S.D.

2

Ohio June 26, 2009) (citing Lebron v. Armstrong, 289 F. Supp. 2d 56, 61
(D. Conn. 2003); see also Atakpu v. Lawson, No. 1:05-CV-00524, 2006 WL
3803193, *2 (S.D. Ohio 2006) (holding that the plaintiff’s motion for a
preliminary injunction, requested on the basis of the allegation that the
defendant “subject[ed] him to retaliation and harassment for filing this
cause of action,” was properly denied where the plaintiff had failed to
“establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party’s
motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint”) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Here, it is clear that the relief requested in plaintiff’s letter
–

i.e.,

relief

against

unidentified

prison

officials

at

TCI

–

is

unrelated to the claims asserted in the Complaint and each subsequent
amended complaint – i.e., based on alleged misconduct on the part of
officials at LoCI and ODRC.

Neither the Complaint nor any of the amended

complaints alleges that officials at LoCI or ODRC have interfered with
plaintiff’s mail at TCI.

Moreover, this Court lacks jurisdiction over

officials at TCI, who are not named parties to this action.

Plaintiff’s

request for preliminary injunctive relief is therefore without merit.
WHEREUPON defendants’ motion to strike, Doc. No. 31, is DENIED.
It is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s request for an injunction, Doc.
No. 30, be DENIED.
If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and
Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and serve
on all parties objections to the Report and Recommendation, specifically
designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part thereof in
question, as well as the basis for objection thereto.
§636(b)(1); F.R. Civ. P. 72(b).

28 U.S.C.

Response to objections must be filed

within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof.
Civ. P. 72(b).

3

F.R.

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to
the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de
novo review by the District Judge and of the right to appeal the decision
of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers,
Local 231 etc., 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987); United States v. Walters,
638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

s/Norah McCann King
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge
September 29, 2011

4