Brown v. Mohr et al

Filing 274

ORDER denying 269 Plaintiff's Motion For An Order Of Protection and Motion For An Order To The Defendants To Send Their Motion For Summary Judgment By Certified Mail is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington on 5-6-19. (slo1)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
Steven S. Brown,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Director Mohr, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 2:13-cv-006
District Judge George C. Smith
Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington

ORDER
This case is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion For An Order Of Protection
and Motion For An Order To The Defendants To Send Their Motion For Summary
Judgment By Certified Mail (Doc. #269), Defendants’ Memorandum In Opposition to
both Motions (Doc. #271), and Defendants’ Notice of Filing Exhibits (Doc. #273).
Plaintiff seeks an Order compelling Defendants and the Clerk of Courts to send
him by certified mail a copy of their Motion For Summary Judgment. Defendants have
established in their Memorandum and Exhibits that Plaintiff received a copy of their
Motion For Summary Judgment and attached Exhibits on April 29, 2019. Although
Plaintiff notes that he did not receive the Exhibits, the record shows otherwise. See Doc.
# 271, PageID #5218; Doc. #273, Exhibits A and B. Defendants’ counsel, moreover,
acted promptly and thoroughly to effect service of Defendants’ Motion and Exhibits,
once he learned that Plaintiff had been transferred to the Mansfield Correctional

Institution. Plaintiff is not entitled to receive additional copies of documents he already
possesses. Further, his Motion For An Order To Defendants is moot.
Plaintiff also asks the Court to instruct Defendants to, from now on, send all his
legal mail by certified mail. He is not entitled to this instruction because he is effectively
requesting injunctive relief well before he has shown a strong likelihood of success on his
claims. See Tumblebus Inc. v. Cranmer, 399 F.3d 754, 760 (6th Cir. 2005).
Plaintiff’s next request—that defendants be ordered to accept his telephone calls
and JPay emails—is denied since it lacks support in law. And Plaintiff’s final request—
that the Court order all his “legal evidence be protected from further destruction by the
Defendants”—is superfluous because Defendants have an ongoing obligation not to
destroy Plaintiff’s legal mail and is premature because it puts the cart (the requested
remedy) before the horse (proof establishing his remaining allegations and claims).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
Plaintiff’s Motion For An Order Of Protection and Motion For An Order To The
Defendants To Send Their Motion For Summary Judgment By Certified Mail (Doc.
#269) is DENIED.

May 6, 2019

s/Sharon L. Ovington
Sharon L. Ovington
United States Magistrate Judge

2