UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

David Easley, Case No. 3:22-cv-1397

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

Jori Anderson, et al.,

Defendants.

On March 18, 2025, Plaintiff David Easley filed a “Motion for TRO/injunction,” asserting that, on February 13, 2025, he was sprayed with mace and shot with an air rifle because he refused to talk with a mental health case worker to be assessed. (Doc. No. 50). Easley does not specify what relief he seeks. A party seeking temporary injunctive relief “must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party’s motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.” Colvin v. Caruso,

(6th Cir. 2010) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Easley did not make any attempt to connect the alleged incident on February 13, 2025, to the allegations in his complaint filed over two and a half years ago. Easley offers “no grounds to seek an injunction pertaining to allegedly impermissible conduct not mentioned in his original complaint.”

Therefore, I deny his motion. (Doc. No. 50).

So Ordered. s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick United States District Judge