Opinion
Case No. 08-CV-0574-MJR-DJW.
March 5, 2010
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The matter before the Court is plaintiff William Dale Carter's motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (Doc. 37). Carter, an inmate currently confined at the Robinson Correctional Center ("Robinson") seeks an order from the Court enjoining officer Mullens from "harassing" him while he researches various legal claims at that prison. ( Id.) Officer Mullens is not a defendant in this lawsuit. In fact, there are no named defendants in this action anymore. The complaint, moreover, involves matters which occurred at the Centralia Correctional Center — not at Robinson where plaintiff presently resides (Docs. 1, 12). At this point, it is useful to summarize what has so far transpired in this case.
On August 11, 2008, Carter filed a ten count complaint against several defendants working at the Centralia Correctional Center (Docs. 1, 12). After the Court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9 and 10 were dismissed, and, subsequently, Carter voluntarily dismissed counts 7 and 8 (Docs. 16, 17). Only Count 5 remains. This sole Eighth Amendment claim is against several "John Doe" defendants working at the Centralia Correctional Center. On March 30, 2009 and again on June 17, 2009, the Court directed Carter to identify the John Doe defendants by filing a proper amended complaint and by completing USM-285 forms for each defendant (Docs. 12, 15). Carter has yet to comply with these orders.
Carter's claim for injunctive relief against nonparty Mullens is improper. If Carter seeks redress for any claims he has against Mullens he must file a separate lawsuit against him. See, e.g., Ortiz v. Kilquist, No. 03-cv-11-DRH, 2006 WL 2583713, at *1 (S.D. Ill. Sept. 7, 2006) (Herndon, J.) (denying injunctive relief for an inmate who attempted to "bootstrap [his] request for injunctive relief" against a nonparty in the pending case). Accordingly, Carter's motion for a preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order is DENIED (Doc. 37).
In addition, the Court DIRECTS Carter, for a third time, to file an amended complaint naming the John Doe defendants and complete USM-285 forms for each defendant he names. Carter must comply with this Order by April 2, 2010. Should Carter fail to comply with this order, his case WILL BE DISMISSED involuntarily for failure to prosecute. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).