Opinion
3:24-cv-9-DPM-ERE
02-12-2024
BRAD PAUL SMITH ADC #660448 PLAINTIFF v. THOMAS HURST, et al. DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Pro se plaintiff Brad Paul Smith has filed a motion for court intervention alleging that Defendants are retaliating against him and asking the Court to intervene to make sure he gets requested legal copies and legal material. Doc. 6.
The motion references events that occurred on February 2, 2024, after this lawsuit was filed. And the alleged retaliation has nothing to do with the possible claims before this Court concerning an ongoing risk of physical harm to Mr. Smith's safety.
In an Order filed on February 8, 2024, the Court allowed Mr. Smith to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) despite his status as a three-striker. Doc. 5. The Order explains to Mr. Smith the problems with this current complaint and gives him the opportunity to file an amended complaint. Until Mr. Smith files an amended complaint or the Court screens his current complaint, it is not yet clear what claims are going forward in this case. However, it is clear that Mr. Smith's claims in this case will not involve the type of retaliation he complains of in his pending motion.
Mr. Smith is reminded that this lawsuit is not a forum for him to seek relief for any complaint he has about the circumstances of his imprisonment. He should focus his efforts on curing the problems with his current complaint before the March 11 deadline to do so.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1. Mr. Smith's motion for court intervention (Doc. 6) is DENIED.
2. Mr. Smith is reminded that he has until March 11, 2024, to file an amended complaint.
SO ORDERED.