YOUNGBLOOD v. ALA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, 2:15cv214-MHT. (2015)
Court: District Court, M.D. Alabama
Number: infdco20150821a48
Visitors: 19
Filed: Aug. 03, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 03, 2015
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER MYRON H. THOMPSON , District Judge . Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed this lawsuit challenging the defendants' refusal to forward money from his prison account to the United States Patent Office to pay the required filing fee for an application he filed for a patent. This cause is before the court on the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the court's order (doc. no. 24) adopting the recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER MYRON H. THOMPSON , District Judge . Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed this lawsuit challenging the defendants' refusal to forward money from his prison account to the United States Patent Office to pay the required filing fee for an application he filed for a patent. This cause is before the court on the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the court's order (doc. no. 24) adopting the recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge ..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
MYRON H. THOMPSON, District Judge.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed this lawsuit challenging the defendants' refusal to forward money from his prison account to the United States Patent Office to pay the required filing fee for an application he filed for a patent. This cause is before the court on the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the court's order (doc. no. 24) adopting the recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (doc. no. 20) and denying plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (doc. no. 1). While prisoners may not engage in business activity under prison regulations, "the submission of a patent application does not involve a business activity in all circumstances." Tormasi v. Hayman, 443 F. App'x 742, 745 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Jerry-El v. Beard, 419 Fed. Appx. 260, 263 (3d Cir. 2011) ("it does not appear that exercising [the] right [to register a copyright] necessarily constitutes engaging in a business activity.")) Nevertheless, as the plaintiff has not made the showing required for issuance of a preliminary injunction, his motion was properly denied.
***
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (doc. no. 28), as supplemented (doc. no. 29), is denied.
Source: Leagle
