Opinion
23-10090
11-14-2023
TORAN PETERSON, Plaintiff, v. CORBY, Defendant.
Honorable Mark A. Goldsmith
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(ECF NO. 17)
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD, United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff Toran Peterson, a prisoner proceeding pro se, sues Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) officer Corby under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he used excessive force in two incidents in July and August 2022. ECF No. 1. The Honorable Mark A. Goldsmith referred the case to the undersigned for all pretrial matters under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). ECF No. 8.
Peterson, now housed at Ionia Maximum Correctional Facility (ICF), moves for emergency injunctive relief-seeking video footage and a transfer to a different security classification-related to a June 2023 incident. ECF No. 17. Peterson's requests for relief are wholly unrelated to the 2022 claims in his complaint. And Peterson does not even claim that Corby-the only defendant in this case-was involved in the new issues.
“Courts consistently deny motions for preliminary injunctions where the requested relief is unrelated to the conduct alleged in the complaint.” Worth v. Wamsley, No. 2:17-CV-43, 2017 WL 1227672, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 4, 2017), adopted, 2018 WL 1315017 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 14, 2018) (collecting cases); see also Colvin v. Caruso, 605 F.3d 282, 300 (6th Cir. 2010) (“A party moving for preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.”). The Court thus recommends that Peterson's emergency motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 17) be DENIED.
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES ABOUT OBJECTIONS
Within 14 days of being served with this report and recommendation, any party may serve and file specific written objections to this Court's findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). If a party fails to timely file specific objections, any further appeal is waived. Howard v. Secretary of HHS, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991). And only the specific objections to this report and recommendation are preserved for appeal; all other objections are waived. Willis v. Secretary of HHS, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991).
Each objection must be labeled as “Objection #1,” “Objection #2,” etc., and must specify precisely the provision of this report and recommendation to which it pertains. Within 14 days after service of objections, any non-objecting party must file a response to the objections, specifically addressing each issue raised in the objections in the same order and labeled as “Response to Objection #1,” “Response to Objection #2,” etc. The response must be concise and proportionate in length and complexity to the objections, but there is otherwise no page limitation. If the Court determines that any objections lack merit, it may rule without awaiting the response.