Steven George Bodnar v. Bryan English, et al.

Summary

The court denied Steven George Bodnar’s requests for an extension, stay, subpoenas, appointed counsel, an amended-complaint form, and various forms of injunctive or investigative relief. The court denied preliminary injunctive relief, concluding that Bodnar had not shown a reasonable likelihood of success or likely irreparable harm concerning his safety at the correctional facility. The court also clarified that the defendant need not respond to the amended complaint until it has been screened.

Holdings

1. Bodnar was not entitled to a preliminary injunction because he failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success on his Eighth Amendment claim and failed to show likely irreparable harm. Housing him in a single-person cell with a staff escort whenever he was outside his cell, pending transfer, satisfied the Eighth Amendment's requirement that prison officials take reasonable measures to ensure inmate safety.
2. The motions were denied because discovery had not yet commenced, the requested information appeared to be within the defendant's possession or control, and the subpoena request was premature and impermissibly vague.
3. The motion for appointed counsel was denied because Bodnar had not demonstrated a reasonable effort to obtain counsel and the court could not yet evaluate the case's difficulty or his ability to litigate it before screening the amended complaint. He could renew the request after making the specified efforts and after screening.
4. The motion for an amended-complaint form was denied because the clerk's office had no such form and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) permitted Bodnar to amend once as a matter of course at that stage without court approval.
5. The motion to file perjury charges was denied because a private citizen has no judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another and no constitutional right to compel a police investigation.
6. The defendant was not required to respond to the amended complaint until the court screened it and ordered a response to any claims allowed to proceed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Bodnar was entitled to a preliminary injunction requiring additional protection from attacks by other inmates.
2. Whether Bodnar's motion for appointment of counsel should be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).
3. Whether Bodnar's requests for a stay, subpoenas, or court orders compelling production of evidence were premature or otherwise deficient.
4. Whether Bodnar required leave or a court form to file an amended complaint at this stage.
5. Whether a private litigant may compel a criminal investigation or prosecution of an alleged perjurer.
6. Whether the defendant was required to answer the amended complaint before it was screened.

Disposition

other