Ashley v. Mollenhauer et al, No. 2:2012cv00468 - Document 40 (N.D. Ind. 2013)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 39 the request contained with Plaintiff's Injunctive and Declaratory Relief Claims. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul R Cherry on 9/3/2013. (cc: Ashley) (rmn)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION JOHN D. ASHLEY, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL MOLLENHAUER, Sheriff, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Cause No.: 2:12-CV-468-PRC OPINION and ORDER This matter is before the Court on a the motion contained within Injunctive and Declaratory Relief Claims [DE 39] filed by Plaintiff John D. Ashley, a pro se prisoner, on August 30, 2013. Plaintiff asks to have his injunctive and declaratory relief claims reinstated because he anticipates being transferred to the LaPorte County Work Release Center no later than October 2014. Only his monetary damages claim survived the 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915A screening. The injunctive and declaratory relief claims were dismissed because he had not pled facts from which it could be reasonably inferred that he was likely to return to the LaPorte County Jail. This case is about conditions at the LaPorte County Jail, not the LaPorte County Work Release Center. Ashley believes that he will soon be transferred to the Work Release Center, but that is not a basis for adding an injunctive or declaratory relief claim related to the Jail. In addition, given that Ashley is proceeding on a claim for compensatory damages, it would be superfluous to add a claim for declaratory relief because an action for declaratory relief is merely a substitute for a more traditional action for damages or injunctive relief . . . . Missouri v. Cuffley, 112 F.3d 1332, 1335 (8th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES the request contained within Plaintiff s Injunctive and Declaratory Relief Claims [DE 39]. SO ORDERED this 3rd day of September , 2013. s/ Paul R. Cherry MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT cc: John D. Ashley, Plaintiff pro se 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
