IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

RONALD BLOODWORTH,

Plaintiff,

vs. Civil Action 2:10-CV-1122

Judge Marbley

Magistrate Judge King

DEBORA A. TIMMERMAN-COOPER,

WARDEN, et al.

Defendants.

ORDER and

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s letter requesting an

injunction against “prison officials . . . preventing me from mailing

anything to the courts,” Doc. No. 30, and on defendants’ motion to

strike that letter. Doc. No. 31. For the reasons that follow, the

motion to strike is DENIED. It is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s request

for an injunction be DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed the original Complaint on January 3, 2011, alleging

that his constitutional rights were denied him while he was incarcerated

at London Correctional Institution [“LoCI”]. Complaint, Doc. No. 4. 

Named as defendants are various officials at LoCI and the Ohio Department

of Rehabilitation and Correction [“ODRC”]. Id. Plaintiff was thereafter

transferred to Toledo Correctional Institution [“TCI”]. Notice of Change

of Address, Doc. No. 10. 

On July 29, 2011, plaintiff filed the instant letter requesting an

injunction against unidentified prison officials in TCI. On July 11,

August 10, and September 23, 2011, plaintiff filed three amended

complaints, Doc. Nos. 28, 32, 34, the first of which was stricken by this

Court as illegible. All of the tendered amended complaints relate to

Case: 2:10-cv-01122-ALM-NMK Doc #: 35 Filed: 09/29/11 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
plaintiff’s incarceration at LoCI.

Plaintiff alleges in his letter that (1) he attempted to mail from

TCI an amended complaint on July 20, 2011, but that the document was

never mailed; (2) he attempted to mail other complaints to this Court but

that they were returned to him; and (3) “[n]one of [his] court mail is

being mailed out of the institution.” Id. Defendants filed a motion to

strike the letter on the grounds that the letter is not a formal motion

and does not certify that it was served on opposing counsel. Doc. No.

31; see S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.2(c). 

II. DISCUSSION

This Court concludes that plaintiff’s letter requesting an

injunction is properly considered as a motion for a preliminary

injunction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. See Spencer v. Bouchard, 449 F.3d

721, 726 (6th Cir. 2006) (noting “the general practice of liberally

construing pro se prisoners’ filings”). Defendants’ motion to strike is

therefore DENIED.

In evaluating a motion for a preliminary injunction, a court

considers “(1) whether the movant has a ‘strong’ likelihood of success

on the merits; (2) whether the movant would otherwise suffer irreparable

injury; (3) whether issuance of a preliminary injunction would cause

substantial harm to others; and (4) whether the public interest would be

served by issuance of a preliminary injunction.” Sandison v. Mich. High

School Athletic Ass’n, Inc., 64 F.3d 1026, 1030 (6th Cir. 1995).

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is “is to provide security

for performance of a future order which may be entered by the court.” 

De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States , 325 U.S. 212, 219 (1945) A

motion for a preliminary injunction should be denied if the movant cannot

“demonstrate that the relief sought is related to the injury” alleged in

the complaint. Moody v. Bell, No. 1:08-CV-796, 2009 WL 3011505, *4 (S.D.

2

Case: 2:10-cv-01122-ALM-NMK Doc #: 35 Filed: 09/29/11 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Ohio June 26, 2009) (citing Lebron v. Armstrong, 289 F. Supp. 2d 56, 61

(D. Conn. 2003); see also Atakpu v. Lawson, No. 1:05-CV-00524, 2006 WL

3803193, *2 (S.D. Ohio 2006) (holding that the plaintiff’s motion for a

preliminary injunction, requested on the basis of the allegation that the

defendant “subject[ed] him to retaliation and harassment for filing this

cause of action,” was properly denied where the plaintiff had failed to

“establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party’s

motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint”) (internal quotation

marks omitted).

Here, it is clear that the relief requested in plaintiff’s letter

– i.e., relief against unidentified prison officials at TCI – is

unrelated to the claims asserted in the Complaint and each subsequent

amended complaint – i.e., based on alleged misconduct on the part of

officials at LoCI and ODRC. Neither the Complaint nor any of the amended

complaints alleges that officials at LoCI or ODRC have interfered with

plaintiff’s mail at TCI. Moreover, this Court lacks jurisdiction over

officials at TCI, who are not named parties to this action. Plaintiff’s

request for preliminary injunctive relief is therefore without merit.

WHEREUPON defendants’ motion to strike, Doc. No. 31, is DENIED.

It is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s request for an injunction, Doc.

No. 30, be DENIED.

If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and

Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and serve

on all parties objections to the Report and Recommendation, specifically

designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part thereof in

question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 28 U.S.C.

§636(b)(1); F.R. Civ. P. 72(b). Response to objections must be filed

within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. F.R.

Civ. P. 72(b). 

3

Case: 2:10-cv-01122-ALM-NMK Doc #: 35 Filed: 09/29/11 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to

the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de

novo review by the District Judge and of the right to appeal the decision

of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers,

Local 231 etc., 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987); United States v. Walters, 

638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

 s/Norah McCann King Norah McCann King

 United States Magistrate Judge

September 29, 2011

4

Case: 2:10-cv-01122-ALM-NMK Doc #: 35 Filed: 09/29/11 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>