Muehl v. Thurmer et al

Filing 41

ORDER denying 40 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Chief Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 6/23/09. (elc),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN --------------------------------------------MICHAEL MUEHL, P la i n t i f f , v. BEL IND A SCHRUBBE, Health Service Manager; M AR Y SLINGER, Registered Nurse; FR AN JENNINGS, Registered Nurse; G AIL WALTZ, Registered Nurse; C H A R L E N E REITZ, Registered Nurse; and D efendan ts. --------------------------------------------In this case, plaintiff Michael Muehl is proceeding on his claims that defendants S ch r u b b e , Slinger, Reitz and Jennings failed to provide him appropriate care for a MRSA infection and that defendants Reitz, Waltz and Schrubbe failed to provide him appropriate care for his wounds after he cut himself. On June 9, 2009, I denied plaintiff's motion for prelim inary injunctive relief because it was outside the scope of the claims raised in this law suit. Now, he moves for reconsideration of the order. In his motion, plaintiff states that he is in imminent danger from himself. He co n tin ues to allege that, while incarcerated at the Green Bay Correctional Institution, prison 1 OR DER 0 9 - cv -1 6 - b b c

staff ignore him when he makes threats about committing suicide and then fail to stop him fro m attempting suicide. However, as I stated previously, the defendants in this case do not w o r k at the Green Bay Correctional Institution and do not have control over the conditions of that prison. As I told plaintiff in te June 9 order, if he believes that Green Bay

C o rrectio nal Institution officials are failing to protect him from harming himself, he will have to file a new and separate lawsuit raising that claim against the individuals he believes are responsible for the alleged unconstitutional acts, and he may renew his request for prelim inary injunctive relief in that case. Plaintiff says he does not have time to complete the grievance process before he files a new lawsuit, which he is required to do under 42 U.S.C. § 1977e(a). On the other hand, filing a grievance may get him the protection he seeks more quickly than he could receive it from this court. In any event, I cannot allow plaintiff to seek a form of relief that is

un related to the claims in this suit and that defendants have no authority to provide.

2

OR DER IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, dkt. #40, is DENIED. E n tered this 23 r d day of June, 2009. B Y THE COURT: /s/ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ B AR B AR A B. CRABB D istrict Judge

3