Summary
adopting R&R recommending action's summary dismissal
Summary of this case from Jackson v. ScHnellOpinion
Case No. 19-cv-2612 (JNE/LIB)
03-24-2020
Tony Dejuan Jackson, Plaintiff, & Jail House Lawyer, Other Similarly Situated Prisoners At Stillwater Correctional Facility & Other Similarly Situated Prisoners At Rush City Correctional Facility & All Other Minnesota Correctional Facilities & Contracted Half Way Housing, & Minnesota Association of Community Corrections Act Counties County Jails, Plaintiff, v. Tim Walz, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") by the Honorable Leo I. Brisbois, United States Magistrate Judge, dated February 19, 2020. Plaintiff filed this case on behalf of himself and other similarly situated inmates against public officials, private individuals, public agencies, and private entities. The magistrate judge conducted a pre-service screening of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and recommended that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
Plaintiff objected to the R&R and the Court has reviewed the R&R de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); LR 72.2(b)(3). The complaint and objections rely on generalized allegations and conclusory statements that do not state a claim for relief. Therefore, the Court adopts the R&R and accepts its recommended disposition.
Additionally, on March 19, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order requiring the State of Minnesota to mandate prison population limits and prisoner releases to protect prisoners from the novel coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19). The motion is denied as moot because, with this order, the Court has dismissed this case.
The injury claimed in a party's motion for a preliminary injunction must relate "to the conduct asserted in the complaint." Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). Because Plaintiff's motion is related to the effects of COVID-19, which are not mentioned in his complaint, the Court notes that this case is not an appropriate vehicle for Plaintiff's motion.
Based on the files, records, and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Plaintiff's Complaint [ECF Nos. 1, 2] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. Dated: March 24, 2020
2. Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in the District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs [ECF No. 3] is DENIED AS MOOT.
3. Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel [ECF No. 4] is DENIED AS MOOT.
4. Plaintiff's Motion to Enjoin Exhibits from Previously Filed Civil Cases [ECF No. 5] is DENIED AS MOOT.
5. Plaintiff's Motion Requesting that the Court Except [sic] Newly Produced Direct Evidence [ECF No. 17] is DENIED AS MOOT.
6. Plaintiff's Motion Requesting Emergency Preliminary Injunction Court Orders [ECF No. 20] is DENIED AS MOOT.
s/ Joan N. Ericksen
JOAN N. ERICKSEN
United States District Judge