Opinion
5:21-cv-00090 (TBR)
06-06-2022
JEROME EARL FRANKLIN, Plaintiff, v. CHRISTIAN COUNTY FISCAL COURT, et. al., Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THOMAS B. RUSSELL, SENIOR JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff Jerome Earl Franklin's pro se Motion for Request of Resolution (Mot.), Dkt. 22. Defendants have collectively filed a response, (Resp.), Dkt. 23. Plaintiff's motion is essentially an offer of settlement. Plaintiff “offer[s] a resolution” to this lawsuit if certain “listed items” are “agreed to.” Mot. at 3-5. Defendants respond that many of these requests are “beyond the[ir] control, ” that “Jail policy and procedure were followed as they relate to the Plaintiff, ” that “Plaintiff at various times was seen by mental health professionals, ” and that “Jail management addresses Jail issues appropriately.” Resp. at 1-2. In short, Defendants state that they either cannot or will not agree to Plaintiff's requests. See id. Because at this time Defendants are unwilling to provide Franklin with the relief he seeks, the motion is denied.
For the above stated reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Jerome Earl Franklin's Motion for Request of Resolution (Mot.), Dkt. 22, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED