JENNINGS v. MILLER

S.D. Indiana

JENNINGS v. MILLER

DecidedSeptember 30, 2024

Docket2:23-cv-00459

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

JENNINGS v. MILLER, (S.D. Ind. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

QUINTON LEE JENNINGS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 2:23-cv-00459-JPH-MG ) DALTON Aramark Supervisor Employee, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER Quinton Jennings' motion requesting a Court order that he be provided access to the law library, dkt. [50], is DENIED. Mr. Jennings' motion, dkt. [55], is GRANTED insofar as the clerk is directed to strike the second amended complaint, dkt. 53. This Court only has authority to resolve the cases and controversies presented to it, U.S. Const., art. 3, § 2, and can only grant injunctive relief related to the claims pending in those cases and controversies. See Benisek v. Lamone, 585 U.S. 155, 161 (2018) ("[T]he purpose of a preliminary injunction is merely to preserve the relative positions of the parties until a trial on the merits can be held.") (internal quotations omitted); DeBeers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945) ("A preliminary injunction is always appropriate to grant intermediate relief of the same character as that which may be granted finally."). This action concerns an incident in which Mr. Jennings was injured in the kitchen at a prison where he is no longer incarcerated. Dkt. 1. It has no relationship to law library policies or procedures at his new prison. If Mr. Jennings wishes to seek judicial relief related to law library access, he must raise his claims in a new case after pursuing whatever relief is available through the prison's administrative process. Mr. Jennings has filed two amended complaints that are nearly identical, and subsequently filed a motion to disregard the amended complaint filed via mail. The clerk is directed to strike the second filed amended complaint, dkt. [53]. The Court will screen the amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A in a separate order. SO ORDERED.

Date: 9/30/2024 Sjamnu Pataick Hanbor James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Southern District of Indiana Distribution: QUINTON LEE JENNINGS 121974 MIAMI - CF MIAMI CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Electronic Service Participant — Court Only All electronically registered counsel

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

QUINTON LEE JENNINGS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 2:23-cv-00459-JPH-MG ) DALTON Aramark Supervisor Employee, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER Quinton Jennings' motion requesting a Court order that he be provided access to the law library, dkt. [50], is DENIED. Mr. Jennings' motion, dkt. [55], is GRANTED insofar as the clerk is directed to strike the second amended complaint, dkt. 53. This Court only has authority to resolve the cases and controversies presented to it, U.S. Const., art. 3, § 2, and can only grant injunctive relief related to the claims pending in those cases and controversies. See Benisek v. Lamone, 585 U.S. 155, 161 (2018) ("[T]he purpose of a preliminary injunction is merely to preserve the relative positions of the parties until a trial on the merits can be held.") (internal quotations omitted); DeBeers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945) ("A preliminary injunction is always appropriate to grant intermediate relief of the same character as that which may be granted finally."). This action concerns an incident in which Mr. Jennings was injured in the kitchen at a prison where he is no longer incarcerated. Dkt. 1. It has no relationship to law library policies or procedures at his new prison. If Mr. Jennings wishes to seek judicial relief related to law library access, he must raise his claims in a new case after pursuing whatever relief is available through the prison's administrative process. Mr. Jennings has filed two amended complaints that are nearly identical, and subsequently filed a motion to disregard the amended complaint filed via mail. The clerk is directed to strike the second filed amended complaint, dkt. [53]. The Court will screen the amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A in a separate order. SO ORDERED.

Date: 9/30/2024 Sjamnu Pataick Hanbor James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Southern District of Indiana Distribution: QUINTON LEE JENNINGS 121974 MIAMI - CF MIAMI CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Electronic Service Participant — Court Only All electronically registered counsel

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

JENNINGS v. MILLER, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jennings-v-miller-insd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack