United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
J. Tarnow United States District Judge.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
STRIKE GUAJARDO (DKT. 126) AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION AND EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND (DKT.
STEPHANIE DAWKINS DAVIS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
an inmate currently in the custody of the Michigan Department
of Corrections, brings this action, pro se, under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, claiming a violation of his rights under
the United States Constitution. (Dkt. 1). On February 10,
2016, this case was referred to the undersigned for all
pretrial purposes. (Dkt. 46). On November 27, 2017, plaintiff
filed a motion to amend by striking, without prejudice,
defendant Nicholas Guajardo from his amended complaint. (Dkt.
126). On January 8, 2018, plaintiff filed a “second
notice of retaliation, request for preliminary injunction,
and motion for extension of time to respond to any and all
deadlines”. (Dkt. 133). Defendant Jindal responded
(Dkt. 145), and MDOC defendants responded (Dkt. 147).
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
motion to strike defendant Guajardo from his complaint,
plaintiff states that he is without the means to find a
correct address for Guajardo and that he does not want to
burden this Court further. (Dkt. 126, at p. 1). This motion
comes after this Court ordered plaintiff to provide a correct
address for Guajardo so that he may be served with the
summons and complaint. (Dkt. 123). Plaintiff requests that
Guajardo be stricken from his complaint without prejudice so
that he may name Guajardo as a defendant when he has the
correct address. (Dkt. 126, at p. 2).
motion for a preliminary injunction and extension of time to
respond to all deadlines, plaintiff details instances of
retaliation he has suffered from Librarians Platte and Loomis
and Hearing Officer Harris at Carson City Correctional
Facility for filing a grievance against Platte. (Dkt. 133, Pg
ID 1238-39). According to plaintiff, in retaliation for
filing the grievance, Loomis threatened plaintiff and Harris
confiscated plaintiff's legal materials after a legal
property hearing. (Id. at Pg ID 1239). Plaintiff
requests injunctive relief in the form of being allowed to
forward his legal documents to this Court to ensure they will
be preserved. (Id. at Pg ID 1240). According to
plaintiff, there is a reasonable likelihood of success on
this claim and he will suffer irreparable injury because he
cannot afford an attorney to get back the legal items the
above-named individuals confiscated. (Id.).
Plaintiff further requests a six-month extension of time to
respond to all Court orders or court rule deadlines due to
the above-named individuals' actions. (Id.).
response, defendant Jindal argues that the alleged
retaliatory conduct took place at Carson City Correctional
Facility, but that Jindal's last contact with plaintiff
was at Gus Harrison Correctional Facility before plaintiff
was transferred on January 21, 2014. (Dkt. 145, at p. 1-2).
Jindal states that she has no personal knowledge of the
allegations in plaintiff's motion for preliminary
MDOC defendants argue the same in their response. Defendants
assert that plaintiff's allegations of retaliatory
conduct involve individuals at Carson City, not Gus Harrison,
the site of the events detailed in plaintiff's complaint.
(Dkt. 147, at p. 2). The defendants assert that they do not
have any involvement in the allegations plaintiff makes in
his motion. The defendants point out, as does Jindal, that
plaintiff was transferred from Gus Harrison in January 2014.
None of the named defendants are named in his motion for
preliminary injunction. (Id.). The defendants
therefore ask that plaintiff's motion be denied.
ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Motion to Strike Guajardo (Dkt. 126)
undersigned construes plaintiff's motion to amend the
complaint to strike Guajardo without prejudice as a motion to
dismiss Guajardo without prejudice. In light of
plaintiff's unopposed request, the undersigned recommends
that plaintiff's motion to strike Guajardo be
GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Extension of Time
defendants are correct that plaintiff's motion for an
injunction should be denied because the allegations in
plaintiff's motion are not against the defendants, nor do
they relate to the factual bases of the complaint. This court
has held that an injunction “should not issue when it
deals with a matter lying wholly outside the issues in the
suit.” Corsetti v. Hackel, 2012 WL 4955275
(E.D. Mich. Sept. 26, 2012) (internal quotation marks
omitted). A motion for preliminary injunctive relief is not
the proper method for plaintiff “to use in an attempt
to address other issues unrelated to his original
complaint.” Hendr ...