Smith v. Frame

Filing 31

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 4/17/2018. 26 Plaintiff's Motion for Adequate Law Library Access DENIED. Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint ACCEPTED for filing; Plaintiff will continue to proceed on the single claim identified in 21 the Court's 3/5/2018 Screening Order. See Order. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Virgil M. Smith at Waupun Correctional Institution) (jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
VIRGIL M. SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
BAILEY FRAME,

Case No. 17-CV-1745-JPS-JPS

ORDER
Defendant.

The Court addresses two issues pending in this matter. First is
Plaintiff’s March 14, 2018 motion seeking “adequate” law library access.
(Docket #26). Plaintiff claims that his institution is not providing him with
sufficient law library time for him to effectively litigate this matter. He asks
that the Court enjoin the warden of the prison to give him additional time.
Requests for injunctive relief must deal with the same subject matter as the
claim(s) at issue in a case. See Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir.
1994) (“[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.”). “[A] District Court does not
have jurisdiction to award a preliminary injunction for an injury unrelated
to any cause of action found in the complaint.” Johnson v. City of Rock Island,
Ill., No. 4:11-CV-4058-SLD-JAG, 2012 WL 5425605, at *2 (C.D. Ill. Nov. 6,
2012) (citing Stewart v. U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 762 F.2d 193,
198 (2nd Cir. 1985)). Plaintiff was allowed to proceed on a First Amendment
claim that he was denied one emergency phone call to a family member in
May 2017. (Docket #21). Law library access has nothing to do with the claim.
Plaintiff’s motion must be denied.

The second issue is Plaintiff’s submission of a proposed Third
Amended Complaint on April 5, 2018. (Docket #29). The Court must screen
this complaint as it has done with each of Plaintiff’s prior pleadings. 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A. Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint is
not accompanied by an explanation of the change(s) he has made to his
pleading. Upon its own review, the Court cannot find a meaningful
difference between this document and his Second Amended Complaint, as
least with respect to the Court’s duty to identify his cognizable claims. As
the Court explained in its March 5, 2018 screening order, Plaintiff may
proceed only on a claim pursuant to his First Amendment freedom of
association, but not a claim stemming from his freedom of speech. (Docket
#21 at 1–2). Plaintiff will continue to proceed on the single claim identified
in that screening order. Id. at 2.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for adequate law library
access (Docket #26) be and the same is hereby DENIED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Third Amended
Complaint be and the same is hereby ACCEPTED for filing, and Plaintiff
will continue to proceed on the single claim identified in the Court’s March
5, 2018 screening order (Docket #21 at 2).
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 17th day of April, 2018.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
J. P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 2 of 2