USA v. Burk

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JOHNNYLEE PRESTON BURK,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:19-cr-00117-JMK-MMS
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
REQUEST FOR INJUCTIVE
RELIEF
Before the Court at Dockets 311 and 332 are Defendant Johnnylee Preston Burk’s
pro se “Defendants Request for Injunction to Allow Filing of Patent” and “Supplemental Request
for Injunction Allowing Patent Filing,” (collectively, the “Motions”) respectively. 	Defendant
requests injunctive relief from this Court directing the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) to
allow him to file numerous provisional patents with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
(“USPTO”). No response from the Government is necessary.
Mr. Burk does not cite to any legal authority for his requests, nor any basis for why
the federal District Court adjudicating his criminal matter would have jurisdiction over a civil
patent matter unrelated to the underlying litigation. 	“A preliminary injunction is always
appropriate to grant intermediate relief of the same character as that which may be granted
finally.”1 	Here, the injunctive relief requested by Mr. Burk “deals with a matter lying wholly
1 De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945).
Case 3:19-cr-00117-SLG-MMS Document 373 Filed 04/12/22 Page 1 of 2

United States v. Burk 	Case No. 3:19-cr-00117-JMK
Order Denying Motion for Injunctive Relief 	Page 2
outside the issues in the suit.”2 Further, Mr. Burk cannot seek injunctive relief against a non-party
on a matter unrelated to the litigation.3 This Court cannot order DOC to act when it is not a party
to or otherwise involved in any way the underlying litigation. Accordingly, Mr. Burk’s Motions
must be denied.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Mr. Burk’s Motions at Dockets 311 and 332 are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of April, 2022, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Joshua M. Kindred
JOSHUA M. KINDRED
United States District Judge
2 Id.
3 Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltime Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969).
Case 3:19-cr-00117-SLG-MMS Document 373 Filed 04/12/22 Page 2 of 2