Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jenkins v. Bass

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division

December 2, 2019

SHERMYKAEL JENKINS, SR., Plaintiff,
v.
T. BASS, D. VILA, FNU MARTINEZ, RUSSELL MORIN, FNU ROZANSKI, FNU CHASE, FNU RIVERA, FNU BOCK, FNU SPARKS, FNU TURCIOS and LEE COUNTY C.O.R.E. BLDG., Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER [1]

          SHERIPOLSTER CHAPPELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the before the Court on the following motions:

         1. Plaintiff Shermykael Jenkins' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Injunctive Relief, and Miscellaneous Relief (Doc. 8);

         2. Plaintiff Shermykael Jenkins' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Injunctive Relief, and Issuance of a Subpoena (Doc. 17);

         3. Plaintiff Shermykael Jenkins' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Injunctive Relief, and Restraining Order (Doc. 19);

         4. Plaintiff Shermykael Jenkins' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Injunctive Relief, and Issuance of a Subpoena (Doc. 21);

         5. Plaintiff Shermykael Jenkins' Motion for Injunctive Relief (Doc. 24);

         6. Plaintiff Shermykael Jenkins' Motion for Injunctive Relief (Doc. 25).

         No responses have been filed to the various motions and the time to do so has expired.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff is currently an inmate housed in the Lee County, Florida, Jail. Plaintiff filed six Motions moving for a wide range of relief from TROs, injunctions, subpoenas, and administrative relief from punishments imposed by Lee County Sheriff's Deputies detailed to the Lee County Jail/CORE Center Operations. In his First Motion for a TRO (Doc. 8), Plaintiff complains that he is being punished by having his use of the Kiosk restricted to two days a week.

         In his Second Motion (Doc. 17), Plaintiff states that he is required to eat a Management Loaf for his meals as a disciplinary action. Plaintiff complains that he has a fast metabolism and is entitled to a double-portion meal and that he has been unconstitutionally restricted to eating Management Loaf. (Doc. 17 at 2). Plaintiff also moves the Court to issue a subpoena for his balance statement for his prisoner financial records.

         Plaintiff filed a Third Motion for a TRO in which he continues to claim that he should not be placed on a restricted diet nor served Management Loaf. (Doc. 19 at 2). He also claims that Deputies arranged for other inmates to throw feces against the wall and then blamed Plaintiff for making the mess. (Doc. 19 at 2). Plaintiff says these actions were taken in retaliation but does not specify what action caused the retaliatory conduct.

         In his Fourth Motion (Doc. 21), Plaintiff states that his was placed on a restricted diet from his normal double portion with “deliberate indifference.” (Doc. 21 at 1). Plaintiff insist that due to his high metabolism he is entitled to double portion meals to maintain his weight. Plaintiff claims Deputies lied on his records to show that he has not lost weight, so they can maintain his management diet. (Doc. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.