Boyd v. Shannan-Sharpe et al

Filing 55

ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 2/26/16 denying 46 Motion for Permanent Injunction. (cc: all counsel, via USPS to plaintiff) (dm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
DEMETRIUS M. BOYD,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 15-cv-832

JONI SHANNON-SHARPE, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
Plaintiff is a Wisconsin state prisoner who is representing himself. On August 19,
2015, I allowed plaintiff to proceed on claims arising in connection with the decision to
place plaintiff in indefinite administrative segregation. (Docket #13.) On January 14, 2016,
plaintiff filed a motion for prospective relief based on assertions that “staff” at his institution
were retaliating against him because of various lawsuits that he is currently pursuing.
(Docket #46.) That motion is now fully briefed and ready for a decision.
Plaintiff’s claims of retaliation are vague and far-reaching, but they mostly focus on
his assertion that he is being denied access to paper, envelopes, and stamps and
therefore is unable to adequately litigate multiple pending lawsuits, including this one.
Defendants explain that plaintiff has been allowed to possess the amount of supplies
permitted under prison rules and has been ordered to dispose only of supplies that are in
excess of the permitted limits. Plaintiff asks that I order institution staff to give him all of
his writing supplies and that I limit defendants’ (and certain non-parties’) contact with
plaintiff’s legal documents while this lawsuit is pending.

Injunctive relief is appropriate only if it seeks relief of the same character sought in
the underlying suit and deals with a matter presented in that underlying suit. See Devose
v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) ("[A] party moving for a
preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed
in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.") (citations omitted); Alston
v. City of Madison, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106317, 2 (W.D. Wis. Aug. 4, 2014) ("[T]he
general rule is that a plaintiff may not obtain injunctive relief on issues that do not relate to
the claims asserted in the complaint.").
Plaintiff’s motion is based on assertions of mistreatment that are different from the
claims he raises and the relief he requests in his complaint. If plaintiff believes that he has
new claims (e.g., an access-to-the-courts claim) against these or other defendants based
on events that occurred after he filed the complaint in this case, he may raise those claims
in a separate lawsuit. The only claims before me are the claims that plaintiff made in his
amended complaint against the named defendants.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for injunctions (Docket #46)
is DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 26th day of February, 2016.
s/ Lynn Adelman
_______________________
LYNN ADELMAN
District Judge

2