Jones v. Lindamood

Filing 200

ORDER: Having thoroughly reviewed the R&R, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's analysis. It appears that Petitioner is now in receipt of his legal file. Accordingly, the Court rules as follows: 1. The R&R (Doc. No. 188 ) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED; and 2. Petitioner's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), Preliminary Injunction or Alternatively for a Subpoena (Doc. No. 150 ) is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Chief Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 4/1/2020. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail.) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(mg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
CEDRIC JONES,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
v.
GRADY PERRY, Warden,

Respondent.

No. 3:16-cv-02631

ORDER
Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc.
No. 188) recommending that Petitioner’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO),
Preliminary Injunction or Alternatively for a Subpoena (Doc. No. 150) be denied as moot. No
timely objections to the R&R have been filed.
In his Motion (Doc. No. 150), Petitioner asks the Court to intervene in a dispute between
Petitioner and his post-conviction counsel over the return of Petitioner’s legal file. Petitioner states
that he “will suffer irreparable injury if this motion is not granted before the deadline she [his
attorney] gave to dispose of his files (October 1, 2019).” (Doc. No. 150 at 1). Counsel’s letter to
Petitioner (attached to Doc. No. 151) makes clear that counsel has not refused to return Petitioner’s
legal file to him outright; instead, counsel states that “it is impossible to mail/deliver that size of
legal documents.” (Doc. No. 151, Attach. 1 at 2). In the same letter, Counsel asks Petitioner to
provide the name of a friend or family member, and counsel “will gladly deliver these boxes to”
that person. (Id. at 3). Petitioner states that he “has been unable to locate anyone in Nashville to
pick up his legal boxes and that he has made a diligent effort to have [the files] given to him while

in the court with Judge Blackburn and counsel Smith, but both refuse[] to use State funding to send
him his legal files.” (Doc. No. 151 at 4) (emphasis in original).
By Order entered on September 9, 2019, the Court questioned why it would be
“impossible” to mail Petitioner’s legal file to him whereas it is possible for counsel to mail
Petitioner’s legal file to Petitioner’s friend or family member. (Doc. No. 152 at 2). The Court noted
that there may be facility restrictions as to how many files/boxes Petitioner can possess in his cell;
however, such restrictions do not make the mailing of Petitioner’s file “impossible.” (Id. at 2 n.2).
The Court then referred Petitioner’s Motion to the Magistrate Judge. (Id. at 2).
Having thoroughly reviewed the R&R, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s
analysis. It appears that Petitioner is now in receipt of his legal file. Accordingly, the Court rules
as follows:
1.

The R&R (Doc. No. 188) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED; and

2.

Petitioner’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), Preliminary

Injunction or Alternatively for a Subpoena (Doc. No. 150) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________________
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2