Ryan Christopher Cheatham v. Tim Easley, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Kansas denied Plaintiff Ryan Christopher Cheatham’s motion seeking a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, mandamus relief, other relief, and potentially appointment of counsel. The court found that the requested injunctive relief was insufficiently specific and unsupported by sufficiently detailed facts, declined to forward the motion as a writ of mandamus, and denied appointment of counsel without prejudice.

Holdings

1. The motion did not warrant injunctive relief because it failed to identify with sufficient specificity the acts or parties to be restrained, did not comply with Local Rule 7.1(a)(1), and did not make a clear showing of entitlement to the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction.
2. The motion for appointment of counsel was denied without prejudice because there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a civil case, appointment is discretionary, and Plaintiff had not shown sufficient merit or other circumstances warranting a request for volunteer counsel.
3. The district court declined to forward the motion to another court as a writ of mandamus because it would not act as Plaintiff's advocate or submit a mandamus request on his behalf.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff was entitled to a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction based on his allegations concerning legal mail, access to the courts, and retaliation.
2. Whether the court should appoint or request volunteer counsel for Plaintiff in this civil action.
3. Whether the district court should forward Plaintiff's motion to a higher court as a petition for a writ of mandamus.

Disposition

other