Plunkett v. United States Department of Justice
Plunkett v. United States Department of Justice
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
STEPHEN CHRISTOPHER PLUNKETT,
Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 21-1232 (JEB) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Stephen Plunkett, a prisoner in Georgia, filed this action under the
Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act, seeking documents relating to his criminal
case. See ECF No. 1 (Complaint) at 1. While the Government continues processing his request
and releasing documents, see, e.g., ECF No. 13 (Status Report), Plunkett now moves for a
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. See ECF No. 14 (TRO/PI Mot.).
More specifically, he asks the Court to enjoin “Defendants, and their privies, from transferring,
harassing, torturing, and communicating with Plaintiff without express authorization of this
Court.” Id. at 1. He also “seeks discovery in this action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure Rule 26 and in camera inspection of all of Defendants’ components’ files concerning
or relating to Plaintiff in any way.” Id.
His Motion has two dispositive flaws. First, his initial injunctive request regarding
harassment and communication has nothing to do with his underlying suit. In other words, these
actions and proposed relief are not encompassed in his Complaint. Scott v. Schedler,
826 F.3d 207, 214(5th Cir. 2016) (an “injunction may not encompass more conduct than was requested or
1 exceed the legal basis of the lawsuit”); Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Doe,
810 F.3d 631, 633(9th Cir. 2015) (“When a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the
complaint, the court does not have the authority to issue an injunction.”). Second, to the extent
he seeks discovery or in camera inspection, he has not shown how he is being irreparably
harmed without this relief. Absent such harm, preliminary relief is unavailable. E.g., Sherley v.
Sebelius,
644 F.3d 388, 392–93 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
The Court accordingly ORDERS that the Motion is DENIED.
/s/ James E. Boasberg JAMES E. BOASBERG United States District Judge
Date: February 22, 2022
2
Reference
- Status
- Published