Opinion
Case No. 1:19-cv-90
03-06-2020
TERRENCE SELDON, Plaintiff v. JOHN E. WETZEL, et al, Defendants
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER UNITED STATED DISTRICT JUDGE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [ECF NO. 63]
I. Recommendation
It is hereby recommended that the motion for preliminary injunction filed by Plaintiff Terrence Seldon be DENIED.
II. Report
A. Background
Plaintiff Terrence Seldon, an inmate incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Forest (SCI-Forest), initiated this pro se civil rights action on March 29, 2019, by filing a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 1] and a civil complaint. In his complaint, Plaintiff complains about his exposure to second-hand cigarette smoke while incarcerated at SCI-Forest and the medical issues arising from that exposure. ECF No. 3.
Since initiating this action, Plaintiff has repeatedly filed letters, motions, and requests for injunctive relief related to matters that fall well outside of the scope of this lawsuit. On April 15, 2019, April 19, 2019, and May 6, 2019, the Court received letters from Plaintiff complaining of retaliatory threats from prison staff, lack of law library access, and unidentified sexual harassment. ECF Nos. 9, 10, 11. Plaintiff did not seek any relief. Because none of those complaints had any connection to the underlying issue in this lawsuit - exposure to second-hand smoke - the undersigned issued the following Order:
[I]t is immediately apparent that the issues raised in [Plaintiff's filings] have no connection to the legal claims raised in the underlying complaint. Because the purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to prevent irreparable injury pending the resolution of the underlying claims on their merits, "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, 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 Fed. Appx. 836, 837 (3d Cir. 2010)). A request for injunctive relief must, therefore, 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) (citing De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945)). To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking judicial intervention with respect to matters falling well outside of the complaint, that request - if, in fact, that is what Plaintiff is requesting - must be denied. If Plaintiff believes that he is suffering retaliation, experiencing sexual harassment, being denied access to the law library, or being subjected to mistreatment in any other way unrelated to the medical claims asserted in this civil action, Plaintiff must assert those unrelated claims - including any request for injunctive relief - in a new, separate lawsuit.ECF No. 12.
On June 6, 2019, Plaintiff filed another "motion in the form of a letter." ECF No. 14. Plaintiff again asserted that he was being harassed and retaliated against for filing this lawsuit. He requested an order directing Defendants to stop harassing him, depriving him of law library time, retaliating against him for filing complaints, and displaying deliberate indifference to his medical needs. Id. The Court denied that motion, again noting that Plaintiff was seeking relief that had no bearing on the underlying claims in this action, and again instructing Plaintiff to assert those unrelated claims - including any request for injunctive relief - in a new, separate lawsuit. ECF No. 15.
On June 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed another "motion in the form of a letter" raising the same complaints of harassment and retaliation. ECF No. 16. The Court again denied his motion, stating: "As the Court has explained to Mr. Seldon on several occasions, if he believes he is suffering from retaliation, he must file a new , separate lawsuit alleging those claims." ECF No. 20. The Court also instructed the Clerk to send Plaintiff a Pro Se Packet to assist him with filing his lawsuit. Id.
The Court's suggestion to initiate a second lawsuit presupposes that Plaintiff has exhausted any available administrative remedies.
On July 15, 2019, Plaintiff sent a letter to the Court explaining that he mailed a second complaint on June 7, 2019, but "ha[d] not heard anything back." ECF No. 22. He later wrote to the Clerk of Court and asked to withdraw that complaint. Id. It is unclear what happened to that filing.
In subsequent filings, Plaintiff suggests that his attempt to file a separate lawsuit was either rejected or never received by the clerk's office. Whether or not this is the case, the Court notes that Plaintiff has filed at least thirteen documents since then in which he attempts to raise the same allegations that could be properly asserted by refiling the missing complaint. See ECF Nos. 16, 20, 21, 39, 52, 53, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 71.
On October 10, 2019, Plaintiff wrote another letter to the Court complaining of additional retaliation. ECF No. 52. Plaintiff suggested that his prior attempt to file a complaint concerning the alleged retaliation may not have reached the Court. Id.
On October 24, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction. ECF No. 53. In addition to continuing to complain of retaliation, Plaintiff alleged, for the first time, that he was suffering from "extreme pain in [his] right side" and that medical staff at SCI-Forest would not provide treatment. Id. Plaintiff speculated that his pain might stem from potential kidney and liver issues. He also mentioned leg and foot pain. Id.
Although Plaintiff's allegations, like his claims of retaliation, were wholly disconnected from the underlying issues in this case, the undersigned, out of an abundance of caution, held a hearing on November 4, 2019, at which Plaintiff and Health Care Administrator Kim Smith each offered testimony on the record. ECF No. 55. Smith described to the Court the medical care that had already been provided to Plaintiff for his pain and offered Plaintiff an opportunity to try a different medication to treat that pain. Based on Smith's evidence, as well as Plaintiff's apparent satisfaction with her offer of a different medication, the Court denied the motion for preliminary injunction as moot. Id.
Thereafter, Plaintiff sent several letters - and at least one motion - to United States District Judge Susan Paradise Baxter requesting that she intervene in this action and grant relief on Plaintiff's unrelated claims of retaliation and insufficient law library time. ECF Nos. 57, 58, 59, 60.
On January 22, 2020, and February 25, 2020, Plaintiff sent letters to the Court complaining that a nurse practitioner at the prison, Sutherland, was ignoring his requests for additional treatment for the pain in his side. ECF Nos. 61, 71. On February 7, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant preliminary injunction motion seeking an order directing Defendant Sutherland to respond to his sick call slips and provide treatment for the alleged pain in his side. ECF No. 63.
B. Analysis
A party seeking preliminary injunctive relief has the burden of demonstrating: (1) a reasonable probability of success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm if the injunction is denied; (3) that the issuance of an injunction will not result in greater harm to the non-moving party; and (4) that the public interest would best be served by granting the injunction. Council of Alternative Political Parties v. Hooks, 121 F.3d 876, 879 (3d Cir. 1997); Opticians Ass'n of America v. Independent Opticians of America, 920 F.2d 187, 191-92 (3d Cir. 1990). In the prison context, a request for injunctive relief "must always be viewed with great caution because 'judicial restraint is especially called for in dealing with the complex and intractable problems of prison administration.'" Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995) (quoting Rogers v. Scurr, 676 F.2d 1211, 1214 (8th Cir. 1982)).
Critically, because the purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to prevent irreparable injury pending the resolution of the underlying claims on their merits, "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, 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 Fed. Appx. 836, 837 (3d Cir. 2010)). A request for injunctive relief must, therefore, 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) (citing De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945)).
As Plaintiff has repeatedly and consistently been reminded, the claims that he continues to raise in his letters, motions, and other correspondence have no connection to the underlying issue presented in his pleading: his exposure to second-hand cigarette smoke at SCI-Forest. The same is true of his allegation that he is experiencing pain in his side. 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." Stewart v. Verano, 2015 WL 1636124, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 8, 2015) (citing Raupp v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 2006 WL 3332089, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 16, 2006) (adopting the Report and Recommendation of then-Magistrate Judge Baxter)).
The court's decision in Stewart emphasizes this point. In Stewart, the lone allegation in the plaintiff's complaint was that the prison had failed to adequately treat his hepatitis C infection. Id. at *1. In the course of litigating that claim, the plaintiff filed a motion for injunctive relief based on allegations that prison staff members had improperly deprived him of necessary legal materials. Id. The court denied the motion, explaining:
[I]t is clear that the Court lacks the authority to grant Stewart's requested injunctive relief. The alleged deprivation of his legal materials by staff at SCI-Greene is entirely unrelated to Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims against officials at SCI-Coal Township. To the extent that the nature of his accommodations interferes with his ability to adequately prepare litigation papers in a timely fashion, a more appropriate remedy would be to request an extension of time whenever more time is needed to comply with a case management deadline. See generally Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b).Id. at *2.
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reiterated this principle in Ball v. Famiglio, 396 Fed. Appx. 836, 838 (3d Cir. 2010). In Ball, the plaintiff's amended complaint alleged that prison officials had displayed deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs by denying her dental care, a cane and wheelchair, physical therapy and sick calls, eyeglasses, and medications. Id. at 837. She later filed a preliminary injunction motion alleging that an unidentified corrections officer had assaulted her and that her cell had been searched and property confiscated. Id. Reviewing the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction motion, the Third Circuit began by noting that "most of the relief [plaintiff] requests is completely unrelated to the allegations contained in her amended complaint." Id. at 838. Because there was no "relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint," the Court held that the district court had appropriate denied injunctive relief. Id. (quoting Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994) (affirming denial of injunction sought on the basis of "new allegations of mistreatment that are entirely different from the claim raised and the relief requested in [plaintiff's] inadequate medical treatment lawsuit")); see also Raupp, 2006 WL 3332089, at *2 (denying injunctive relief in a habeas action because plaintiff's complaint that the prison would not let inmates visit the law library or meet with counsel was "unrelated to the underlying petition for writ of habeas corpus").
As in Ball, Stewart, and Raupp, Plaintiff's allegation that medical personnel failed to provide adequate treatment for the pain in his side (and, more broadly, his recurrent allegations of retaliation and mistreatment) have no connection to his underlying complaint. In the absence of a relationship between Plaintiff's requested relief and his underlying pleading, Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction should be denied.
In spite of this disconnect, the Court, mindful of Plaintiff's pro se status, has attempted to resolve this issue in several ways: by instructing him to file a separate lawsuit; by providing a Pro Se Packet to enable him to properly assert his claims; and by holding an evidentiary hearing to address the precise medical concern at issue in the current motion. Plaintiff has repeatedly rejected the Court's guidance and declined file a separate lawsuit with respect to any of the alleged violations.
C. Notice
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).
/s/ Richard A. Lanzillo
RICHARD A. LANZILLO
United States Magistrate Judge Dated: March 6, 2020