Opinion
2:22-CV-00926-RAL
08-24-2022
DARREN L. MILLER, Plaintiff v. ERIC ARMEL, SUPERINTENDENT, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; MR. BRIGHT, CHCA, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; AND C/O 1 SHEETZ, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY, Defendants
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN RE: ECF NO. 13
RICHARD A. LANZILLO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. Recommendation
It is respectfully recommended that Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief/temporary restraining order (ECF No. 13) be DENIED.
II. Report
A. Background
Plaintiff Darren L. Miller (“Miller”) filed a Complaint accompanied by a motion seeking injunctive relief without paying the required filing fee or filing a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk of the Court lodged both documents on June 23, 2022. Miller filed a motion seeking in forma pauperis status on July 21, 2022. See ECF No. 4. The Court granted his motion on August 12, 2022, and his complaint and motion for injunctive relief were docketed on August 16, 2022. See ECF Nos. 13, 14. The Complaint, which has yet to be served on the Defendants, asserts that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to Miller's serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment and took adverse actions against him, including seizure and loss of certain legal papers, in retaliation for his having filed one or more lawsuits and in violation of the First Amendment. He also asserts state law claims of assault and battery.
Miller's motion for injunctive relief seeks an order: 1) directing Defendant Bright “to provide the Plaintiff with immediate off-side (sic) indepth (sic) physical therapy,” and 2) directing Defendant Eric Armel to return his “legal property” and “materials” which Miller alleges he needs to prosecute other pending legal matters before this Court. ECF No. 13, p. 1.
B. Standard of Decision
Preliminary injunctive relief is “an extraordinary remedy” and “should be granted only in limited circumstances.” Kos Pharms., Inc. v. Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700, 708 (3d Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). The burden is on the party seeking the TRO to “establish every element in its favor, or the grant of a [TRO] is inappropriate.” P.C. Yonkers, Inc. v. Celebrations the Party & Seasonal Superstore, LLC, 428 F.3d 504, 508 (3d Cir. 2005) (quoting NutraSweet Co. v. Vit-Mar Enters., Inc., 176 F.3d 151, 153 (3d Cir. 1999)). This remedy should be granted only where (1) the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) denial will result in irreparable harm to the plaintiff; (3) granting the injunction will not result in irreparable harm to the defendant; and (4) granting the injunction is in the public interest. Hartmann v. Maybee-Freud, 279 Fed.Appx. 142, 144 (3d Cir. 2008). The movant must also show that the threatened irreparable harm is immediate or imminent. See Cont'l Group Inc. v. Amoco Chem. Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 359 (3d Cir. 1980). These requirements apply to requests for preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders. See, e.g. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).
C. Discussion
The movant's failure to demonstrate either a likelihood of success on the merits or the imminence of irreparable harm warrants the denial of a request for a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order. Acierno v. New Castle Auth., 40 F.3d 645, 653 (3d Cir. 1994); Adams v. Freedom Forge Corp., 204 F.3d 475, 484 (3d Cir. 2000). See also Preacher v. Overmyer, 2019 WL 3213533, at *1 (W.D. Pa. July 17, 2019). Miller's request for an order directing prison officials to send him to an outside physical therapist should be denied because he has not proffered facts to show that he will sustain imminent irreparable harm absent such relief. Miller must point to an imminent risk of irreparable injury that cannot be redressed by a legal or an equitable remedy following trial. See Hynoksi v. Columbia Cnty. Redevelopment Auth., 485 Fed.Appx. 559, 563 (3d Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Miller's Complaint alleges that in July 2019, he “suffered an injury tearing his achilles (sic) tendon while at SCI-Albion.” ECF No. 1, ¶2. His Complaint further alleges that in September 2019, he suffered an unspecified injury “which left him paralyzed in his lower extremities.” Id., ¶3. Miller further alleges that he was transferred to SCI-Fayette, where he was seen and examined by physical therapists who came to the prison each month between March 2020 and October 2020. Id., ¶6. These therapists allegedly determined that the prison was “not equipped to provide the in-depth physical therapy that is required for [his] conditions of paralysis.” Id.
Miller acknowledges that he has received physical therapy services within the prison. While he asserts that therapists have told him that his paralysis of unspecified origin can be more effectively treated at an off-site facility, he does not identify any therapies or treatments not available to him in the prison or how these therapies or treatments are necessary to avoid irreparable harm to him. He asserts that outside physical therapy services could potentially cure his paralysis.. ECF No. 13, p. 1. But, again, he offers no support or explanation regarding this conclusory assertion. The purpose of a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction is to maintain the status quo and prevent imminent irreparable harm pending a decision on the . merits of the case. Acierno, 40 F.3d at 653. Here, the conclusory allegations of Miller's motion appear calculated to obtain an expedited outcome of his case, which is not an appropriate basis for seeking this extraordinary remedy. Id. Miller's allegation that prison officials' failure to send him to off-site physical therapy may “possibly” result in harm in the indefinite future is insufficient to establish a “clear showing of irreparable injury.” Hohe v. Casey, 868 F.2d 69, 72 (3d Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). See also Moneyham v. Potter, 2015 WL 1198080, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 16, 2015) (irreparable harm alleged must be actual and imminent, not merely speculative) (citing Campbell Soup Co. v. ConAgra, Inc., 977 F.2d 86, 91 (3d Cir. 1992)).
Miller's request for an order directing the return of legal papers also should be denied. He has not identified any claim he is at risk of losing while he awaits a decision on the merits, and any deprivation of his personal property, if proven, may be compensated through money damages. See e.g., Alston v. Pennsylvania State Univ., 2015 WL 136334, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 9, 2015). He states no facts to support a conclusion that he faces the type of imminent or irreparable harm that could justify relief without the Defendants' opportunity to respond. See Preacher, 2019 WL 3213533, at *2.
Miller claims his inability to access his legal materials hinders his prosecution of two other cases pending before this Court: Miller v. Hartwell, No. 1:19-cv-339 and Miller v. Knight, No. 1:20-cv-234. See ECF No. 13, p. 1. Discovery is not due to close in the Hartwell case until February 1,2023, and a review of the docket in that case reveals no pending deadlines for dispositive motions or other matters which would require Miller's immediate review of any of the legal materials vaguely described in his Complaint or motion.
Further, a review of the docket in the Knight case reveals that Miller participated in a status conference with the Court on April 1, 2022, during which he specifically acknowledged that all legal materials had been returned to him on March 24, 2022. See ECF No. 43 (minute entry). It was further noted that the Department of Corrections officials granted Miller an exemption to retain legal materials more than the allowable limit. Id. And, in any event, the Knight case was closed on the Court's docket on July 1, 2022, because Miller failed to file an amended pleading within the time allowed. Thus, the Knight case is the only other potentially active case Miller has pending before this Court, and Miller acknowledged in that case that he has received all his legal materials. Miller's motion likewise does not allege a real or immediate threat that his legal materials will be confiscated in the future. See, e.g, Tillery v. Hayman, 2008 WL 5416392, at *3 (D.N.J. Dec. 22, 2008). Having offered only bare, conclusory allegations to support his request for equitable relief, Miller's motion must fail. See Young v Medden, 214 Fed.Appx. 45, 47 (3d Cir. 2007) (upholding denial of TRO were prisoner provided no evidence, outside of his allegations, to support his claim of wrongdoing). See also Hammonds v. Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections, 2019 WL 3843085, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 15, 2019) (citing Young).
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully recommended that Plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 13) be denied.
IV. Notice Regarding Objections
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, the parties must seek review by the district court by filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Any party opposing the Objections shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the Objections to respond thereto. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Extensions of time will not be granted. Failure to file timely objections may constitute a waiver of appellate rights. See Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011); Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2007).