From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Pinkney

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio
May 12, 2022
1:18-cv-00163 (N.D. Ohio May. 12, 2022)

Opinion

1:18-cv-00163

05-12-2022

DARRYL SMITH, Plaintiff, v. CLIFFORD PINKNEY, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE:

Plaintiff Darryl Smith seeks leave to file a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against prison officials at Mansfield Correctional Institution.

Doc. 122.

In October 2018, this Court entered a permanent injunction imposing filing restrictions on Plaintiff Smith. The Court found that Plaintiff Smith had “a clear pattern of Smith bringing frivolous suits against government officials, including agency officials, prison personnel, and law enforcement, when he is incarcerated.”

Doc. 100 at 7.

Id. at 6.

The permanent injunction requires Plaintiff Smith to serve his request for leave to file on “any defendant or party that would be adversely affected by the proposed action.” The injunction states that these defendants or parties “will have an opportunity to respond before this Court determines whether to grant leave.”

Id. at 8.

Id.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Smith to serve his request for leave to file on Mansfield Correctional Institution and proposed Defendants McConahay, Kennard, and Booth.

The proposed Defendants will have 28 days to file any objection to Plaintiff Smith's request for leave to file a complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Smith v. Pinkney

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio
May 12, 2022
1:18-cv-00163 (N.D. Ohio May. 12, 2022)
Case details for

Smith v. Pinkney

Case Details

Full title:DARRYL SMITH, Plaintiff, v. CLIFFORD PINKNEY, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Ohio

Date published: May 12, 2022

Citations

1:18-cv-00163 (N.D. Ohio May. 12, 2022)