Opinion
Case No. 03-3310-JAR.
November 20, 2004
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Plaintiff Gordon E. Strope, a.k.a. Michael Lee Strope, proceeding pro se is an inmate in the Lansing Correctional Facility (LCF). This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff's "Request for Emergency Intervention, Assistance, and Injunctive Relief" (Doc. 77) filed on October 22, 2004. On November 4, 2004, plaintiff filed his "2nd Request for Emergency Intervention" (Doc. 79). Plaintiff complains that his prison cell is cold and seeks an injunction ordering LCF to turn on the heat. The Court has reviewed the parties' filings and for the reasons stated below, plaintiff's request is denied.
The function of a preliminary injunction is to maintain the status quo and avert irreparable harm until a trial on the merits of a suit may be had. Thus, for a preliminary injunction to issue, the moving party must necessarily establish "a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint." Stated differently, "a plaintiff must provide clear proof that he [or she] will probably prevail when the merits are tried, so to this extent there is a relationship between temporary and permanent relief." The denial of a request for a preliminary injunction is therefore appropriate when the motion is based upon new assertions that are entirely different from the claim raised and the relief requested in the complaint.
SCFC ILC, Inc. v. Visa USA, Inc., 936 F.2d 1096, 1098-99 (10th Cir. 1991).
Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994).
Penn v. San Juan Hospital, Inc., 528 F.2d 1181 (10th Cir. 1975).
See Devose, 42 F.3d at 471.
Plaintiff filed the instant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit alleging the violation of his constitutional rights based upon: (1) retaliatory action due to his failure to provide information concerning the escape of another prisoner; (2) the use of excessive force to restrain him; (3) interference with his adherence to a kosher diet; and (4) the seizure of books and a letter. Plaintiff did not include in his complaint a conditions of confinement claim regarding the temperature or conditions of his cell at LCF. While this allegation might form the basis for a new lawsuit, it is wholly unrelated to plaintiff's original complaint. Plaintiff's request for relief is therefore denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that plaintiff's Request for Emergency Intervention, Assistance, and Injunctive Relief (Doc. 77) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED BY THE COURT that plaintiff's 2nd Request for Emergency Intervention (Doc. 79) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.