The opinion of the court was delivered by: Scullin, Senior Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff commenced this action on January 27, 2005. See Dkt. No. 1. In his pro se complaint, Plaintiff alleges that, while he was incarcerated at Upstate Correctional Facility, Defendants denied him due process, subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment, retaliated against him for filing grievances, and interfered with his access to the courts. See id.
Currently before the Court are Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief, see Dkt. No. 45, and his motion "for relief of deposition by defendants," see Dkt. No. 49.
A. Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief
Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief is directed to the defendants in his "Western District [case,] Docket No. # 06-CV-0543." See Dkt. No. 45 at 1. In his motion, Plaintiff alleges that, when he was transferred from Auburn Correctional Facility to Southport Correctional Facility, he did not receive one of his property bags, which contained documents for his "actively pending" cases. See id. at 2. Plaintiff also asserts that he is missing personal property, including family pictures and personal correspondence. See id. at 9. Plaintiff contends that he cannot pursue his pending legal claims unless the missing property bag is returned to him. See id. at 5. Finally, Plaintiff claims that, when he went to pick up his delivered property bags at the draft room at Southport Correctional Facility, the staff assaulted him. See id. at 9.
Plaintiff seeks an Order (1) directing the return of his missing property bag, including both his legal and personal property; and (2) directing that the correctional employees at Southport Correctional Facility "cease" their assaults.*fn1 See id.
Defendants oppose the motion for injunctive relief on the grounds that (1) the allegations included in the motion are not related to the allegations in Plaintiff's underlying complaint and
(2) Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against persons who are not parties to this action. See Dkt. No. 48
The standard that a court must apply in considering a motion for injunctive relief is well-settled in this Circuit. As the Second Circuit noted in Covino v. Patrissi, 967 F.2d 73 (2d Cir. 1992), the movant "must show (1) irreparable harm and (2) either (a) likelihood of success on the merits or (b) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly toward the party seeking the injunctive relief." Id. at 77 (citation omitted); see also Roucchio v. LeFevre, 850 F. Supp. 143, 144 (N.D.N.Y. 1994) (citation omitted).
As a preliminary matter, the relief that a plaintiff seeks by way of injunction must relate to the allegations contained in the underlying complaint. See Allen v. Brown, No. 96-CV-1599, 1998 WL 214418, *4 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 1998) (adopting a magistrate judge's recommendation that the court deny a request for injunctive relief because the allegations in the application were unrelated to claims asserted in the complaint and, thus, the plaintiff had "failed to establish either a likelihood of succeeding on the merits of his underlying claim, or sufficiently serious questions going to the merits of such claim and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly toward" the plaintiff (citations omitted)).
In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that, while he was incarcerated at Upstate Correctional Facility, the Upstate Defendants denied him due process, subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment, retaliated against him for filing grievances, and interfered with his access to the courts. In his motion for injunctive relief, Plaintiff, for the first time, claims that the staff at either Auburn Correctional Facility or Southport Correctional Facility took his legal documents and personal property and that the staff at Southport Correctional Facility assaulted him. Clearly, the allegations that form the basis for Plaintiff's current motion, all of which arise from events that occurred at Auburn Correctional Facility or Southport Correctional Facility, are not related to the allegations contained in his complaint, all of which arise from events that occurred at Upstate Correctional Facility.
In sum, because Plaintiff's allegations in support of his motion for injunctive relief are unrelated to the allegations contained in his complaint, he has failed to establish either a likelihood of success on the merits of his underlying claims or sufficiently serious questions going to the merits of those claims and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in his favor. ...