Opinion
Civil Action 21-cv-72J
11-01-2022
ISAAC NARANJO, Plaintiff, v. M.M. IVICIC, D. J. CLOSE, and M.J. PYO, Defendants.
Christy Criswell Wiegand, District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
RE: ECF No. 88
MAUREEN P. KELLY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRAT JUDGE
I. RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Isaac Naranjo (“Plaintiff'), an inmate incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Greene (“SCI-Greene”), brings this pro se action alleging the violation of his First Amendment rights. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have confined him in administrative custody at the State Correctional Institution at Houtzdale (“SCI-Houtzdale”) since November 19, 2020, in retaliation for filing a lawsuit and grievances regarding the conditions of his confinement at SCI - Rockview. ECF Nos. 28 and 63.
Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. ECF No. 88. For the reasons that follow, it is respectfully recommended that this Motion be denied.
II. REPORT
A. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff initiated this action on April 19, 2021. ECF No. 1. He subsequently filed his Amended Complaint on September 24, 2021. ECF No. 28. In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he was transferred to SCI - Houtzdale on November 19, 2020, after filing a lawsuit regarding the conditions of his confinement at the State Correctional Institution at Rockview (“SCI- Rockview”). ECF No. 28 ¶¶ 10-16. At the time of his transfer, he was placed in the Restricted Housing Unit (“RHU”) as a continuation of disciplinary measures imposed at SCI - Rockview. After complaining about his placement, Plaintiff met with the Program Review Committee, staffed by Defendants M.M. Ivicic (“Ivicic”) and D.J. Close (“Close”). They informed him that he was being held in administrative custody due to the lack of bed space in general population. Id. ¶¶ 1821. Plaintiff alleges that over the next days and weeks, he complained about his continued administrative custody status. In response, Ivicic and Close notified him that his status was the result of filing the SCI - Rockview lawsuit and grievances against DOC staff, and he would only be moved if he stopped filing grievances and dropped his lawsuit. Id. ¶¶ 32, 33. Plaintiff claims that Defendants continued to refuse his requests to be moved to general population through April 2021 because he filed a lawsuit and grievances. Id. ¶¶ 32-34.
Well over a year later, on July 22,2022, Plaintiff filed the pending Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. ECF No. 88. In the motion, Plaintiff claims that during the summer of 2022, SCI - Houtzdale prison officials McDowell and Link conspired to fabricate an incident between Plaintiff and PSS Keith (“Keith”) in order to falsely justify his transfer to a new facility. Id. at 13. Plaintiff believes this was done in retaliation for his filing this lawsuit. Id. at 4. As relief, he requests an order requiring Defendants to “stop the retaliatory transfer process immediately” and to produce a “DC-141 part 1” indicating that an incident occurred between Plaintiff and Keith, or any other staff member, that would warrant his transfer. Id. at 5-6.
In support, Plaintiff argues that he will face “irreparable harm” to his First Amendment rights if he is transferred for retaliatory purposes. He also argues that the balance of hardships weighs in his favor, and he is likely to succeed on the merits, because an inmate cannot be transferred in retaliation. Finally, he argues that granting his relief serves the public interest because the public has an interest in prison officials obeying the law. Id. at 4-5.
On August 9, 2022, Defendants filed a Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. ECF No. 97. Defendants assert that Plaintiffs transfer was prompted by a necessary safety separation with a staff member. Id. Plaintiff filed a reply reiterating his contention that the proposed transfer was retaliatory. ECF No. 108.
Upon initial review, the Court determined that supplemental briefing would facilitate resolution of Plaintiff s motion. Accordingly, Defendants were ordered to submit a supplemental brief to address: (1) whether Plaintiff is being transferred to another facility; (2) if so, when this is scheduled to occur; and (3) the reason for that transfer. ECF No. 118. The Court ordered Defendants to include appropriate evidentiary support, such as affidavits or documents related to the transfer, and Plaintiff was granted permission to file a brief in response. Id.
Defendants submitted their supplemental response on September 15, 2022, and state that Plaintiff was transferred to the State Correctional Institution at Phoenix (“SCI - Phoenix”) on August 30, 2022. ECF Nos. 125, 147. As requested, Defendants have provided evidentiary support for in camera review documenting the reasons for Plaintiffs transfer, including instances of harassment Plaintiff directed at a staff member. Defendants state these incidents supported the decision of prison officials decision to separate Plaintiff by transferring him to a different facility. Thus, the transfer was not retaliatory and was conducted for legitimate penological reasons. ECF Nos. 125, 147.
Plaintiff has since been transferred to the State Correctional Institution at Greene (“SCI - Greene”). ECF No. 130.
B. LEGAL STANDARD
Plaintiff purports to seek a temporary restraining order. Because Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and Defendants have been provided with notice and an opportunity to brief this issue prior to the issuance of an order, the Court will consider the Motion as a request for a preliminary injunction. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(a)(1), (b); Story v. Wetzel, Civ. A. No. 15-1241, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18169, at *3 n.l (W.D. Pa. Feb. 9, 2017).
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 as to 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.
Because of the “complex and intractable problems of prison administration,” a request for injunctive relief in the prison context must be viewed with “great caution.” Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995); see also Rush v. Correctional Med. Servs., Inc., 287 Fed.Appx. 142, 144 (3d Cir. 2008). This is particularly so where the requested relief “is directed not merely at preserving the status quo but... at providing mandatory relief, the burden on the moving party is particularly heavy.” Punnett v. Carter, 621 F.2d 578, 582 (3d Cir. 1980); see also United States v. Price, 688 F.2d 204,212 (3d Cir. 1982) (“Mandatory injunctions should be used sparingly.”) Thus, the Court must consider requests for mandatory injunctive relief in the prison context with “great caution” and “judicial restraint.” Goff, 60 F.3d at 520.
In addition to the factors the Court is to consider before issuing preliminary injunctive relief, the movant's request must be sought for its proper purpose, which is to maintain the status quo to avoid the likelihood of irreparable injury before a decision on the merits of the complaint can be rendered. See, e.g., Winter v. Natural Resources Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). By contrast, injunctive relief is not an appropriate means by which to raise and litigate new claims, either against a named defendant or a third party. Moreover, there must be “a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.” Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994) (finding that because plaintiffs motion raised issues different from those presented in his complaint, his allegations could not provide the basis for a preliminary injunction); see also Ball v. Famiglio, 396 Fed.Appx. 836, 837 (3d Cir. 2010).
C. DISCUSSION
The allegations that Plaintiff raises in his Motion for Temporary Restraining Order are premised upon new claims of misconduct based on events that only recently occurred at SCI -Houtzdale against individuals who are not parties to this action. Thus, Plaintiffs motion is not a proper motion for preliminary injunctive relief.
As discussed above, Plaintiff cannot amend or supplement his complaint by filing a motion for preliminary injunctive relief and raising new claims in it. These same claims were the subject of a Motion to Amend Complaint. ECF No. 135. The Court determined that amendment was improper because the “proposed claim involves a discrete series of events involving different, additional defendants.... [thus the] proposed supplement would unduly delay the resolutions of this case and unfairly prejudice defendants.” Id. at 3. Thus, the events at issue are not the subject of the pending litigation.
Nor can Plaintiff employ the pending motion to avoid the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. To that end, if Plaintiff wants to pursue claims based upon the allegations he raises in his motion, he is reminded that under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), he must first fully exhaust all available administrative remedies before pursuing a civil rights complaint concerning prison conditions.
Finally, Plaintiff cannot use a motion for injunctive relief in an attempt to make the Court the overseer of the day-to-day management of the prison system, including housing decisions made for the safety of inmates and staff.
Accordingly, Plaintiff s Motion for Injunction should be denied because it improperly seeks immediate injunctive relief on impermissible and inappropriate bases.
D. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully recommended that the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, ECF No. 88, be denied.
In accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Local Rule 72.D.2, the parties are permitted to file written objections in accordance with the schedule established in the docket entry reflecting the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Objections are to be submitted to the Clerk of Court, United States District Court, 700 Grant Street, Room 3110, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. Failure to timely file objections will waive the right to appeal. Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187,193 n. 7 (3d Cir. 2011). Any party opposing objections may file their response to the objections within fourteen (14) days thereafter in accordance with Local Civil Rule 72.D.2.