Opinion
Civil Action 20-611
02-08-2021
THOMAS R. GALLOWAY, JR., Plaintiff, v. JOHN R. WALTON, Warden, Westmorel and County Prison, WESTMORELAND COUNTY PRISON, WESTMORELAND COUNTY COURTS, WESTMORELAND COUNTY DA'S OFFICE, GEORGE LOWTHER, D. Security Warden, ERIC SCWARTZ, D. Warden of Treatment, LT. PALESKI, and LT. BILL Defendant.
Re: ECF Nos. 20 and 21
Nora Barry Fischer District Judge.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MAUREEN P. KELLY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
I. RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Thomas R. Galloway, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), an inmate currently incarcerated at the Westmoreland County Prison (“WCP”), brings this pro se civil rights action arising out of allegations that various WPC officials and employees violated his constitutional and statutory rights by: (1) interfering with the exercise and practice of his faith, (2) exercising deliberate indifference to his serious medical and mental health conditions, and (3) unlawfully confiscating funds from his inmate account for the payment of court-ordered fines and costs. ECF No. 30.
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 20, and Addendum to Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 21, (collectively, the “Motion for Preliminary Injunction”). For the reasons that follow, it is respectfully recommended that the Motion for Preliminary Injunction be denied.
II. REPORT
A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges that he is a pretrial detainee at the WCP and seeks injunctive relief related to: (1) an award of compensatory and punitive damages for each claim set forth in his Amended Complaint; (2) alleged excessively high prices charged for commissary items and telephone usage; (3) the availability of cleaning supplies and disinfectant; (4) delays in mail delivery; (5) deductions from monetary gifts placed in his inmate account to pay “room and board, court costs, [and] fines.” ECF Nos. 21 and 22. Defendants contend that Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to support injunctive relief. ECF Nos. 43 and 45. The Court agrees.
B. LEGAL STANDARD
Preliminary injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy and should issue only in limited circumstances. Ferring Pharm., Inc. v. Watson Pharm., Inc., 765 F.3d 205, 210 (3d Cir. 2014). Four factors inform a court's decision on the issuance of a preliminary injunction: (1) whether the movant has shown a reasonable probability of success on the merits; (2) whether the movant will suffer irreparable harm if denied relief; (3) whether the requested relief will cause greater harm to the nonmovant; and (4) whether an injunction would be in the public interest. Am. Express Travel Related Servs., Inc. v. Sidamon-Eristoff, 669 F.3d 359, 366 (3d Cir. 2012). The first two factors are “most critical” to the court's analysis, and the movant cannot succeed if either of these two factors are not established. Reilly v. City of Harrisburg, 858 F.3d 173, 179 (3d Cir. 2017). If these first two “gateway factors” are met, the court considers the remaining factors and determines whether all four factors, on balance, weigh in favor of granting the requested preliminary relief. Id.
In resolving the instant Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the Court appreciates the “complex and intractable problems of prison administration, ” and thus “a request for injunctive relief in the prison context calls for caution and judicial restraint.” Brathwaite v. Phelps, 602 Fed.Appx. 847, 849 (3d Cir. 2015) (citing Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995)). Further, as relevant to Plaintiff's particular claims, “[t]he purpose of the preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo until the rights of the parties can be fairly and fully litigated and determined by strictly legal proofs and according to the principles of equity.” Scutella v. Erie Cty. Prison, No. 1:19-CV-00168, 2020 WL 1140719, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 9, 2020) (citing Wetzel v. Edwards, 635 F.2d 283, 286 (4th Cir. 1980)). The facts must support a finding that immediate and irreparable injury will result to the movant if preliminary relief is denied. U.S. v. Stazola, 893 F.2d 34, 37 n. 3 (3d Cir. 1990). ECRI v. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 809 F.2d 223, 226 (3d Cir. 1987) (it is not enough to merely show irreparable harm; the plaintiff has the burden of showing immediate irreparable injury, which is more than merely serious or substantial harm and which cannot be redressed with money damages). Absent a showing of immediate, irreparable injury, the Court should deny preliminary injunctive relief. Acierno v. New Castle County, 40 F.3d 645, 655 (3d Cir. 1994).
C. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff does not address the required factors that the Court must consider, and the Court recommends his individual claims for injunctive relief be resolved as follows.
1. Commissary, Telephone Access, Mail and Cleaning Supplies
Plaintiff requests injunctive relief to reduce allegedly higher than normal prices charged for WCP commissary items and telephone access, as well as mail delivery and cleaning supply availability issues. These claims, individually and collectively, do not warrant the Court's exercise of its authority to issue the extraordinary relief requested.
First, as to Plaintiff's commissary and telephone pricing claims, courts have consistently held that prisoners have no constitutional right to purchase products at a certain price or at a price comparable to that offered at a retail store. See Allah v. Beasely, No. 3:18-CV-2047, 2019 WL 4511693, at *5 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 19, 2019) (citing McCall v. Keefe Supply Co., 71 Fed.Appx. 779, 780 (10th Cir. 2003) (claim that prisoner was overcharged for commissary goods failed to state a constitutional claim); French v. Butterworth, 614 F.2d 23, 24 (1st Cir. 1980) (prisoners do not have constitutionally protected right to purchase commissary items at or near cost); Bullock v. Cohen, No. 17-271, 2018 WL 2411604, at * 7 (D.N.J. May 29, 2018) (same)).
Second, the purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to prevent irreparable injury pending the resolution of the underlying claims on their merits. Thus, “the injury claimed in the motion for preliminary injunctive relief must relate to the conduct alleged and permanent relief sought in the plaintiff's complaint.” James v. Varano, No. 1:14-CV-01951, 2017 WL 895569, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 7, 2017). In other words, “there must be a connection between the underlying complaint and the relief requested in the motion for a preliminary injunction.” Id. (citing Ball v. Famiglio, 396 F. App'x. 836, 837 (3d Cir. 2010)). A request for injunctive relief must be dismissed if “the injunction in question is not of the same character and deals with a matter lying wholly outside the issues in the suit.” Kaimowitz v. Orlando, Fla., 122 F.3d 41, 43 (11th Cir. 1997), amended on reh'g, 131 F.3d 950 (11th Cir. 1997)(citing De Beers Consol. Mines v. U.S., 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945)); and see Brathwaite v. Phelps, 602 Fed.Appx. at 849; Jones v. Secretary Pennsylvania Dept. of Corr., 589 Fed.Appx. 591, 594 (3d Cir. 2014) (same).
“This is not an arbitrary distinction or a technicality; rather, the Court completely ‘lacks jurisdiction over claims raised in a motion for injunctive relief' where those matters are ‘unrelated to the underlying complaint.'” Seldon v. Wetzel, No. 1:19-CV-90, 2020 WL 1495303, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 6, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:19-CV-90, 2020 WL 1493547 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 27, 2020) (internal citations omitted)).
Plaintiff's operative Amended Complaint asserts claims related to the exercise and practice of his faith, alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical and mental health conditions, and the confiscation of funds from his inmate account for the payment of court-ordered fines and costs. Therefore, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks judicial intervention for matters falling well outside the Amended Complaint and related to the items identified above, his request should be denied. Such claims - including any request for injunctive relief - must be asserted in a new, separate lawsuit.
2. Demand for Monetary Relief and Inmate Account Issues
Plaintiff also seeks a preliminary injunction awarding monetary damages for the claims asserted in his Amended Complaint and to prevent reductions from gifts deposited in his inmate account to pay court-imposed fines and expenses related to his incarceration.
The “availability of adequate monetary damages belies a claim of irreparable injury.” Frank's GMC Truck Ctr., Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 847 F.2d 100, 102 (3d Cir. 1988); see also In re Arthur Treacher's Franchisee Litig., 689 F.2d 1137, 1145 (3d Cir. 1982) (“[W]e have never upheld an injunction where the claimed injury constituted a loss of money, a loss capable of recoupment in a proper action at law.”). See also Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 90 (1974) (“The possibility that adequate compensatory or other corrective relief will be available at a later date, in the ordinary course of litigation, weighs heavily against a claim of irreparable harm.”). Plaintiff's claims regarding alleged improprieties in the assessment of court costs and incarceration-related room and board fees may be redressed, if at all, through an award of monetary damages. Thus, injunctive relief is not warranted or authorized under applicable law.
D. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully recommended that the Court deny Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 20, and the Addendum to Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 21.
In accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rule 72.C.2 of the Local Rules of Court, the parties are allowed fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order to file an appeal to the District Judge which includes the basis for objection to this Order. Any appeal is to be submitted to the Clerk of Court, United States District Court, 700 Grant Street, Room 3110, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. Failure to file a timely appeal will constitute a waiver of any appellate rights.