UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION

JASON B. BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v. CAUSE NO. 3:20-CV-652-RLM-MGG

INDIANA STATE OF, et al.,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER Jason B. Brown is incarcerated at the Putnamville Correctional Facility. He filed a complaint against the State of Indiana and the Indiana Department of Correction. He complains of defamation, harassment, and theft of personal data and cell phone records. Simultaneously with his complaint, he filed an emergency motion for a preliminary injunction asking that he be transported to the Jay County Jail or let out of the prison altogether. He claims he is in a life- threatening emergency and needs a vibrator immediately removed from his nasal cavity. While the Court hasn’t yet screened Mr. Brown’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, it’s clear on the face of both filings that the emergency motion is unrelated to the matters raised in the complaint. Plaintiffs may bring multiple unrelated claims against a single party, but unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits. George v. Smith,

(7th Cir. 2007) (“[M]ultiple claims against a single party are fine but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2. Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits . . . .”). Consequently, Mr. Brown’s motion for an emergency relief has no chance of success on the merits in this case, which is a necessary prerequisite for any motion asking for a preliminary injunction. See BBL, Inc. v. City of Angola,

, 323–24 (7th Cir. 2015) (“To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party must show: (1) he will suffer irreparable harm before the final resolution of his claims; (2) available remedies at law are inadequate; and (3) he has a likelihood of success on the merits.”). For these reasons, the Court DENIES Mr. Brown’s emergency motion (ECF 3). SO ORDERED on August 6, 2020 s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT