`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
`TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
`
`
`TIMOTHY GREENLEE,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`No. 2:23-cv-00127-JPH-MG
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`v.
`
`
`FRANK VANIHEL,
`KEVIN GILLMORE,
`DICK BROWN,
`JACK HENDRIX,
`MATTHEW LEOHR,
`ANDREA STROUP,
`DANIEL BEDWELL,
`JERRY SNYDER,
`RANDALL PURCELL,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE
`
`This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Timothy Greenlee's motion
`
`requesting emergency assistance. Dkt. 9. He asks the Court to notify authorities
`
`at the Indiana Department of Correction ("IDOC") about various events that are
`
`occurring at Miami Correctional Facility ("Miami")—where he is currently
`
`incarcerated—so that they can be investigated. Among other things, he explains
`
`that he needs protection from gangs at Miami and complains that he is unable
`
`to make outgoing calls because his tablet does not work.
`
`
`
`Mr. Greenleee's motion, dkt. [9], is denied. The Court does not have the
`
`authority to initiate investigations. If Mr. Greenlee has complaints about his
`
`treatment at Miami, his recourse is to the remedies available to him through
`
`IDOC's grievance process. To the extent that Mr. Greenlee is asking the Court to
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00127-JPH-MG Document 11 Filed 06/20/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 39
`
`take some affirmative action to stop the events that are occurring at Miami, he
`
`is effectively asking for a preliminary injunction. But this lawsuit relates to the
`
`time he spent in the supermax secured housing unit at Wabash Valley
`
`Correctional Facility, see dkt. 1, and he is currently complaining about
`
`conditions at Miami and the actions of individuals who are not defendants.
`
`As a result, the Court cannot grant any injunctive relief in connection with
`
`the issues described in his current motion. See Benisek v. Lamone, 138 S. Ct.
`
`1942, 1945 (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." (cleaned up)); 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."); Pacific
`
`Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Medical Center, 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir.
`
`2015) (holding that absent a nexus between underlying claims and request for
`
`injunctive relief, district court has no authority to grant injunctive relief); Maddox
`
`v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 528 F. App'x 669, 672 (7th Cir. 2013) ("An
`
`injunction, like any 'enforcement action,' may be entered only against a litigant,
`
`that is, a party that has been served and is under the jurisdiction of the district
`
`court") (quoting Lake Shore Asset Mgmt., Ltd. v. Commodity Futures Trading
`
`Comm'n, 511 F.3d 762, 767 (7th Cir. 2007)). Mr. Greenlee must pursue claims
`
`related to conditions at Miami by exhausting his available administrative
`
`remedies and, if necessary, filing a separate lawsuit.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00127-JPH-MG Document 11 Filed 06/20/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 40
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`Distribution:
`
`TIMOTHY GREENLEE
`INDIANA STATE REFORMATORY
`MIAMI - CF
`MIAMI CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
`Inmate Mail/Parcels
`3038 West 850 South
`Bunker Hill, IN 46914-9810
`
`3
`
`Date: 6/20/2023
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
