Davis v. Inch

M.D. Florida

Davis v. Inch

DecidedJanuary 24, 2022

Docket3:17-cv-00820

StatusUnknown

This text of Davis v. Inch (Davis v. Inch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davis v. Inch, (M.D. Fla. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

MARK DAVIS, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 3:17-cv-820-MMH-PDB

MARK S. INCH, in his official capacity as an employee of the Florida Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the notices filed by Joseph Jordan, a named Plaintiff in this action. See Notices (Docs. 116, 122, 128, 133, 138), filed November 22, 2021, through January 13, 2022. In these Notices, Jordan asserts that Florida Department of Corrections (FDC) staff members have retaliated against him due to his role as a named Plaintiff in this case, and that one staff member in particular has continued to harass him for reporting the alleged retaliation. Jordan asks the Court to “instruct the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to investigate these matters,” see December 30, 2021 -1- Notice (Doc. 138) at 1-2, or to otherwise “empower someone outside of the FDC to investigate these instances,” see January 13, 2022 Notice (Doc. 138) at 4. To the extent Jordan asks the Court to instruct the FBI to investigate his complaints, Jordan is advised that such relief is unavailable as the Court lacks the authority to compel the FBI to initiate an investigation. See Piskanin

v. John Doe, 349 F. App’x 689, 691 (38d Cir. 2009); Leisure v. FBI of Columbus, Qhio, 2 F. App’x 488, 490 (6th Cir. 2001); Jafree v. Barber, 689 F.2d 640, 643 (7th Cir. 1982). Nevertheless, the Court has confirmed that Class Counsel are

aware of Jordan’s complaints and are taking his allegations of retaliation seriously. Class Counsel have assured the Court that they are monitoring the ongoing investigation into Jordan’s complaints and will bring the matter to the attention of the Court if necessary. The Court will take no further action at this time. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, on January 24, 2022.

United States District Judge

Ie11 Copies to: Counsel of Record Joseph Jordan 2.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

MARK DAVIS, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 3:17-cv-820-MMH-PDB

MARK S. INCH, in his official capacity as an employee of the Florida Department of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the notices filed by Joseph Jordan, a named Plaintiff in this action. See Notices (Docs. 116, 122, 128, 133, 138), filed November 22, 2021, through January 13, 2022. In these Notices, Jordan asserts that Florida Department of Corrections (FDC) staff members have retaliated against him due to his role as a named Plaintiff in this case, and that one staff member in particular has continued to harass him for reporting the alleged retaliation. Jordan asks the Court to “instruct the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to investigate these matters,” see December 30, 2021 -1- Notice (Doc. 138) at 1-2, or to otherwise “empower someone outside of the FDC to investigate these instances,” see January 13, 2022 Notice (Doc. 138) at 4. To the extent Jordan asks the Court to instruct the FBI to investigate his complaints, Jordan is advised that such relief is unavailable as the Court lacks the authority to compel the FBI to initiate an investigation. See Piskanin

v. John Doe, 349 F. App’x 689, 691 (38d Cir. 2009); Leisure v. FBI of Columbus, Qhio, 2 F. App’x 488, 490 (6th Cir. 2001); Jafree v. Barber, 689 F.2d 640, 643 (7th Cir. 1982). Nevertheless, the Court has confirmed that Class Counsel are

aware of Jordan’s complaints and are taking his allegations of retaliation seriously. Class Counsel have assured the Court that they are monitoring the ongoing investigation into Jordan’s complaints and will bring the matter to the attention of the Court if necessary. The Court will take no further action at this time. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, on January 24, 2022.

United States District Judge

Ie11 Copies to: Counsel of Record Joseph Jordan 2.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Davis v. Inch, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-inch-flmd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack