Wolfe v. Streck

S.D. Ohio

Wolfe v. Streck

DecidedMarch 28, 2025

Docket3:24-cv-00164

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Wolfe v. Streck, (S.D. Ohio 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

JASON WOLFE, : Case No. 3:24-cv-164 : Plaintiff, : : District Judge Thomas M. Rose vs. : Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers : ROB STRECK, : : Defendant. : : ORDER

This case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Letter to Judge/Motions Included.” (Doc. 18). Plaintiff’s filing follows several extensions of time to comply with the Court’s June 3, 2024 Order to file a corrected complaint. (Doc. 3). Most recently, on February 5, 2025, in an Order detailing the procedural history of this case (Doc. 17), the Court granted Plaintiff until March 17, 2025 to file his corrected complaint. To aid Plaintiff, he was provided with a blank copy of the form civil rights complaint that prisoners regularly use in this Court. (See Doc. 17, at PageID 102). Plaintiff was previously provided with a blank copy of the form complaint in June 2024. (See Doc. 3, at PageID 37). In his most recent filing, Plaintiff asserts that he has been unable to comply with the March 17, 2025 filing deadline due to various alleged circumstances at the prison. The Court understands Plaintiff to be seeking additional time to file a corrected complaint. Plaintiff is hereby GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to file a corrected complaint that includes a caption and names a defendant or defendants. If Plaintiff does not, this case shall be dismissed for want of prosecution. If Plaintiff believes that he has new claims to assert concerning his conditions of confinement, he may include those in the corrected complaint to be screened by the Court as required by law. See 28 U.S.C. §1915A(a); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). To the extent that Plaintiff seeks relief in document 18 other than an extension of time (see Doc. 18, at PageID 107), it is DENIED. The Court cannot adjudicate a motion for injunctive relief absent a properly filed complaint. See, e.g., Powell v. Rios, 241 F. App’x 500,

505 n.4 (10th Cir. 2007) (“[O]nly a properly filed ‘complaint’ can commence a civil action. Absent a properly filed complaint, a court lacks power to issue preliminary injunctive relief.”) (citations omitted). IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 28, 2025 s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS United States Magistrate Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

JASON WOLFE, : Case No. 3:24-cv-164 : Plaintiff, : : District Judge Thomas M. Rose vs. : Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers : ROB STRECK, : : Defendant. : : ORDER

This case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Letter to Judge/Motions Included.” (Doc. 18). Plaintiff’s filing follows several extensions of time to comply with the Court’s June 3, 2024 Order to file a corrected complaint. (Doc. 3). Most recently, on February 5, 2025, in an Order detailing the procedural history of this case (Doc. 17), the Court granted Plaintiff until March 17, 2025 to file his corrected complaint. To aid Plaintiff, he was provided with a blank copy of the form civil rights complaint that prisoners regularly use in this Court. (See Doc. 17, at PageID 102). Plaintiff was previously provided with a blank copy of the form complaint in June 2024. (See Doc. 3, at PageID 37). In his most recent filing, Plaintiff asserts that he has been unable to comply with the March 17, 2025 filing deadline due to various alleged circumstances at the prison. The Court understands Plaintiff to be seeking additional time to file a corrected complaint. Plaintiff is hereby GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to file a corrected complaint that includes a caption and names a defendant or defendants. If Plaintiff does not, this case shall be dismissed for want of prosecution. If Plaintiff believes that he has new claims to assert concerning his conditions of confinement, he may include those in the corrected complaint to be screened by the Court as required by law. See 28 U.S.C. §1915A(a); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). To the extent that Plaintiff seeks relief in document 18 other than an extension of time (see Doc. 18, at PageID 107), it is DENIED. The Court cannot adjudicate a motion for injunctive relief absent a properly filed complaint. See, e.g., Powell v. Rios, 241 F. App’x 500,

505 n.4 (10th Cir. 2007) (“[O]nly a properly filed ‘complaint’ can commence a civil action. Absent a properly filed complaint, a court lacks power to issue preliminary injunctive relief.”) (citations omitted). IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 28, 2025 s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Wolfe v. Streck, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wolfe-v-streck-ohsd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack