THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Plaintiff's "Motion for Help," Doc. No. 60, which the Court construes as a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff is currently confined at Lawton Correctional Facility ("LCF") located in Lawton, Oklahoma. In the present Motion, liberally construed, Plaintiff requests an Order from this Court directing LCF officials and/or staff to provide him assistance in the law library, provide him with medical care, and prohibiting them from carrying out their alleged threats to dispose of various personal items belonging to Plaintiff.
As this Court has repeatedly explained to Plaintiff, a preliminary injunction grants intermediate relief of the same character as that which may be finally granted. De Beers Consol. Mines, Ltd. v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945); see also Little v. Jones, 607 F.3d 1245, 1251 (10th Cir. 2010) ("[T]he movant must establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint." (quotations omitted)). By this lawsuit, Plaintiff asserts a retaliation claim against Defendant alleging that in 2013 while he was incarcerated at James Crabtree Correctional Center, she falsely accused him of misconduct because Plaintiff had reported to prison officials that Defendant's friend and coworker had sexually harassed him. This is the sixth motion in which Plaintiff has clearly sought relief unrelated to the basis of his lawsuit. The Court cannot properly issue a preliminary injunction when, as here, Plaintiff seeks relief beyond the claims of the Complaint. See Farris v. Frazier, No. CIV-12-1099, 2014 WL 3749142, at *15-16 (W.D. Okla. July 29, 2014); see also Stouffer v. Eulberg, No. CIV-09-320-C, 2010 WL 567998, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 11, 2010) ("When the movant seeks intermediate relief beyond the claims in the complaint, the court is powerless to enter a preliminary injunction.").
Moreover, LCF staff and officials are not parties to this lawsuit. For preliminary injunctive relief to be binding against a nonparty, the movant must show that the nonparty is "in active concert or participation with" a party or a party's "officers, agents, servants, employees," or "attorneys." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2); Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). Plaintiff presents no factual allegations to establish LCF or LCF officials are engaged in the requisite active concert or participation with Defendant Grice. Plaintiff thus has not shown that he is entitled to a preliminary injunction against such nonparties.
Based on the foregoing findings, it is recommended that Plaintiff's "Motion for Help" (Doc. No. 60) be DENIED. Plaintiff is advised of his right to file an objection to this Third Supplemental Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court by August 22 , 2018, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. The failure to timely object to this Third Supplemental Report and Recommendation would waive appellate review of the recommended ruling. Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656 (10th Cir. 1991); cf. Marshall v. Chater, 75 F.3d 1421, 1426 (10th Cir. 1996) ("Issues raised for the first time in objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation are deemed waived.").
This Third Supplemental Report and Recommendation does not dispose of all issues referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge in the captioned matter.
Dated this 2 day of August, 2018.
GARY M. PURCELL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE