From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hatlen v. Cox

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Nov 19, 2012
3:12-CV-00534-LRH-WGC (D. Nev. Nov. 19, 2012)

Opinion

3:12-CV-00534-LRH-WGC

11-19-2012

KENNETH HATLEN, Plaintiff, v. GREG COX, MARY MARSH, ROSE (fnu), and SGT. SABASKEY, Defendants.


ORDER

This is a civil rights action brought pro se by Kenneth Hatlen, a Nevada prisoner who has recently been transferred from the Northern Nevada Correctional Center to Ely State Prison. Before the Court are three documents filed with the Court in the form of Motions for "Immediate Injunction" (ECF No. 9); for "Protection and Legal Assistance," (ECF No. 10) and for "Injunction" (ECF No. 11). In these various documents, plaintiff alleges that he is being denied brass slips which are required to request postage or other payments from the inmates financial accounts, and this denial prevents him from pursuing this action unless the document can be mailed in a common sized envelope. Motion (ECF No. 9), p. 3. He also asserts that the correctional officers have "shaken down" his cell three times in under thirty days with threats that the cell searches will be repeated. Id. He alleges that the officers have taken his amended complaints and evidentiary documents supporting the allegations, as well as all of his legal materials and research. Id. at 1.

The motions were filed after plaintiff was advised by the Court that the Court did not have jurisdiction to address the motions if they raised claims that are not part of the complaint filed in the action. See Screening Order (ECF No. 7), p. 8. De Beers Consol. Mines v. U.S., 325 U.S. 212, 220, 65 S. Ct. 1130 (1945); Johnson v. Couturier, 572 F.3d 1067, 1084 (9th Cir. 2009). Without a complaint which outlines the same claims as raised in the motion for injunction, the Court cannot intercede. Plaintiff is, therefore, encouraged to use the materials he might otherwise use to file motions similar to those he has recently submitted and prepare and mail an amended complaint. The motions for injunctions must be denied at this time because the Court still has no jurisdiction to hear them.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's various Motions for Preliminary Injunction (ECF Nos. 9, 10 and 11) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may renew his motion for a preliminary injunction at the time he files his amended complaint, if such is warranted.

_________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Hatlen v. Cox

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Nov 19, 2012
3:12-CV-00534-LRH-WGC (D. Nev. Nov. 19, 2012)
Case details for

Hatlen v. Cox

Case Details

Full title:KENNETH HATLEN, Plaintiff, v. GREG COX, MARY MARSH, ROSE (fnu), and SGT…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Date published: Nov 19, 2012

Citations

3:12-CV-00534-LRH-WGC (D. Nev. Nov. 19, 2012)