Opinion
Civil Action 21-1727 Re ECF 50 and 52
12-20-2023
CHRISTOPHER C. YELVERTON, Plaintiff, v. SECRETARY JOHN E. WETZEL; SUPERINTENDENT MICHAEL ZAKEN; DEPUTY STEPHAN BUZ AS; DEPUTY DIALESANDRO; CHCA NICHOLSON; STEPHANIE WOODS; HEX B. RUDZIENSKI; CAPTAIN HINTEMEYER; CAPTAIN R. KENNEDY; LIEUTENANT HAYNES; LIEUTENANT JUAREZ; LIEUTENANT MARTUCCI; LIEUTENANT MCCONAHUE; LIEUTENANT MCCRACKEN; LIEUTENANT NAPOLEON; LIEUTENANT SCHAMP; MAJOR MALANOWSKI; UNIT MANAGER GUYTON; UNIT MANAGER WEEDON; DOCTOR R. SOLOMON; DOCTOR HAMMER; NURSE ASHLEY; NURSE T. TATE; NURSE V. NORVOWSKI; SERGEANT GAGNON; SERGEANT GOULD; SERGEANT HOOVER; SERGEANT IMHOFF; SERGEANT ZACHARIAS; COUNSELOR PERKINS; COUNSELOR SCHETKA; GRIEVANCE COORD. T. SHAWLEY; GRIEVANCE COORD. C. GREENAWALT; GRIEVANCE COORD. M. ANDRETTI; COMMISSARY SUPER. WINTERS; MAILROOM SUPERVISOR L. KOIS; OFFICER ADAMSON; OFFICER ANKROM; OFFICER T. M. DAVIS; OFFICER HUEY; OFFICER JOHNSON; OFFICER JONES; OFFICER C. LEWIS; OFFICER MILLIKEN; OFFICER TEAGARDEN; and OFFICER J. STABILE, Defendants.
Christopher C. Yelverton
Christopher C. Yelverton
W. Scott Hardy District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MAUREEN P. KELLY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons that follow, it is respectfully recommended that Plaintiffs self-styled “Motion to Compel,” ECF No. 50, be construed as a motion for preliminary injunction, and denied. It is further recommended that Plaintiff s Amended Complaint, ECF No. 52, be dismissed, and that he be granted a period of time to file an appropriate amended complaint. Dismissal should be without prejudice to Plaintiff raising his new claims against new defendants in a separate lawsuit, if appropriate.
II. REPORT
A. Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff Christopher C. Yelverton (“Plaintiff') is a state prisoner currently confined at the State Correctional Institution at Albion (“SCI-Albion”) in Albion, Pennsylvania. On November 26, 2021, this Court received Plaintiffs Complaint, without a filing fee or motion for leave to proceed In forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF No. 1. In response to this Court's Deficiency Order, ECF No. 2, Plaintiff submitted an IFP motion, ECF No. 3. Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed IFP on May 10, 2022. ECF No. 10. The Complaint was formally filed on the same day. ECF No. 11.
On May 20, 2022, the undersigned issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that certain of Plaintiffs claims be dismissed. ECF No. 12. On June 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed a self-styled “Motion for Leave to Dismiss Without Prejudice on the Grounds of Protection Against Interference from Defendants,” in which he alleged that interference from prison staff at his former prison - SCI-Greene - had made it impossible for him to effectively litigate this case. ECF No. 14. Out of an abundance of caution, the undersigned terminated the Report and Recommendation of May 20, 2022, stayed and administratively closed this case. ECF No. 17.
Since then, Plaintiff has been transferred from SCI-Greene to SCI-Huntingdon, and then again to SCI-Albion, where he currently is housed. ECF Nos. 21 and 36. While still at SCI-Huntingdon, Plaintiff complained of retaliative interference by prison staff, but he did not move to extend the stay past April 14, 2023. ECF Nos. 29 and 32. Plaintiff also asked this Court to provide relief from the alleged bad acts of staff at SCI-Greene and SCI-Huntingdon. ECF No. 29 at 2. Accordingly, the undersigned lifted the stay and reopened this case on May 1, 2023. ECF No. 34. This Court issued a Renewed Report and Recommendation, which substantially tracked the Report and Recommendation of May 20, 2022, ECF No. 12, on May 1, 2023. ECF No. 35. The Renewed Report and Recommendation remains pending.
On August 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint m Order to Cure Deficiencies.” ECF No. 42. This was denied on August 21, 2023, because Plaintiff did not attach a proposed amended complaint to his motion. ECF No. 43. Plaintiff was given an extension of time to submit an amended complaint if he wished to do so. Id.
On October 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed correspondence entitled “Declaration In-Truth,” in which Petitioner complained of interference with his mail by staff at SCI-Albion. ECF No. 46. Plaintiff also stated that he had attempted to file an amended complaint, but that it never was sent by prison officials. Id. at 4. This correspondence was not particularly clear, but this Court interpreted it as a motion for extension of time, and Judge Hardy granted the same on October 19, 2023. ECF No. 47. On October 25, 2023, this Court received an email from the Department of Corrections indicating that the Order at ECF No. 47 had been rejected by mailroom staff and returned because Plaintiff refused to accept it. See Staff Note dated October 25, 2023. Judge Hardy sent a second order on October 25, 2023, setting a date-certain for Plaintiff to submit an amended complaint. ECF No. 48. That, too, was returned on November 14, 2023, because Plaintiff refused to accept it. ECF No. 51.
In the meantime, on November 13, 2023, Plaintiff submitted the instant “Motion to Compel.” ECF No. 50. In the motion, Petitioner asserts that his “Declaration In-Truth” should have been interpreted as a motion for an injunction. Id. at 2. He asks for “injunctive relief in the form of RECORDING all interactions between Plaintiff and SCI-ALBION security officials during distribution of his Privileged Mail and filings of Outgoing Privileged Mail[.]” M
Finally, Petitioner filed a putative Amended Complaint on December 7, 2023. ECF No. 52. The Amended Complaint provides only scant allegations of fact that relate to transactions or occurrences that gave rise to the initial Complaint. Id. at 2-3. The bulk of the Amended Complaint concerns unrelated alleged acts or omissions by individuals who were not named in the initial Complaint. Id. at 3-10. Only six individuals are named in the Amended Complaint - compared to the multitude named in the initial Complaint. Of those three named, only Defendant Stabile was named in the initial Complaint. Plaintiff s allegation against Defendant Stabile in the Amended Complaint relates to an alleged assault on September 8, 2021 - which post-dates the allegations in the initial Complaint. Id. at 3.
B. Legal Analysis
1. Preliminary Injunction
“[T]he grant of injunctive relief is an ‘extraordinary remedy which should be granted only in limited circumstances.'” AT&T v. Winback & Conserve Program, Inc., 42 F.3d 1421,1426-27 (3d Cir. 1994) (quoting Frank's GMC Truck Center, Inc, v. General Motors Corp., 847 F.2d 100, 102 (3d Cir. 1988)). A party seeking a preliminary injunction must show: “(1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that it will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is denied; (3) that granting preliminary relief will not result in even greater harm to the nonmoving party; and (4) that the public interest favors such relief.” Ball v. Beard, 396 Fed.Appx. 826, 827 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Kos Pharm., Inc, v. Andrx Corp, 369 F.3d 700, 708 (3d Cir. 2004)). “In order to support a preliminary injunction, plaintiff must show both a likelihood of success on the merits and a probability of irreparable harm.” Id. at 90-91. It “frequently is observed that a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (emphasis deleted).
Here, for the reasons stated in the Renewed Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of his underlying lawsuit. ECF No. 35. That alone is fatal to Plaintiff's request for preliminary injunctive relief.
For the reasons stated a Part II.B.2, infra, the putative Amended Complaint, ECF No. 52, is improper, and should be dismissed. The undersigned expresses no opinion on the merits of any forthcoming amended complaint, other than that amendment as set forth in the Renewed Report and Recommendation would not necessarily be futile.
Moreover, the allegations in the Motion for Extension of Time do not arise out of the same transaction as those in the Complaint - and instead relate to an entirely new set of occurrences involving different people, at a different prison, which allegedly took place more than two years after the facts underlying the Complaint. Compare ECF Nos. 46 and 50 with ECF No. 11. The other mail that Plaintiff alleges was delayed and tampered with by prison staff was incoming mail from another case, likely in state court. ECF No. 46 at 3 (“On 9/25/23 Plaintiff discovered his ‘purchased “Privileged Mail property” addressed to him by the “FIRST DISTRICT JUDICIAL COURT REPORTERS and INTERPRETERS ADMINISTRATION,” had in-truth been pre- opened, manipulate and tampered with by the SCI-ALBION administration[,]”) and does not relate to the present matter. See also id. at 5-6 (referencing the withholding of transcripts in Docket No. CP-51-CR-4942-2014 for 10 days). Accordingly, there is no basis to join these new putative defendants to the present lawsuit. Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a)(2). See also Washington v. Folino, No. 11-1046, 2013 WL 980608, at * 1 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 13, 2013) (“The claims in Plaintiffs Complaint do not arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences, and do not have a question of law or fact common to all Defendants. Therefore, they are inappropriate for joinder under Rule 20.”).
Instead, if Plaintiff wishes to bring a claim against any individual at SCI-Albion for the alleged mishandling of his mail, he will have to do so in a separate lawsuit.
Plaintiff also has not demonstrated a probability of irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted. Plaintiff does not allege that he does not receive the Orders of this Court; instead, he refuses the accept them because he believes that they were opened outside of his presence. ECF No. 46 at 3. This is exacerbated by Plaintiffs apparent refusal to accept deliveries of Judge Hardy's Orders of October 19 and 25, 2023. ECF Nos. 47, 48, and 51; Staff Note dated October 25, 2023.
It also appears that Plaintiff is aware that his proposed amended complaint was not mailed in September, and that he was not charged for mailing it. ECF No. 46 at 3. While Plaintiff alleges that he emailed a “Private Civil Complaint/ Grievance” to his mother on September 28, 2023, it is unclear whether that refers to a proposed amended complaint. Id. at 5. Plaintiff admits that he knows this Court's mailing address. Id. at 8. There is no other indication on the docket that Plaintiff has attempted to submit a proposed amended complaint prior to the filing of the Amended Complaint on December 7, 2023. ECF No. 52. Moreover, in the event that Judge Hardy should adopt the Renewed Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 35, Plaintiff will have a period of time to file an amended complaint that is consistent with Judge Hardy's order.
While the frustration caused by the prison's alleged failure to mail an amended complaint in September is understandable, Plaintiff has not explained why he cannot (and did not) try to mail it again before December. This Court has been liberal in the extensions of time that it has granted Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to assert that he will suffer an irreparable injury in the injunction that he seeks is not granted.
Because Plaintiff cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits or a probability of irreparable harm, the preliminary injunction that Plaintiff seeks in his “Motion to Compel” at ECF No. 50 should be denied.
2. The Amended Complaint of December 7,2023 (ECF No. 52)
Similar to the “Motion to Compel,” ECF No. 50, and the Declaration of Truth, ECF No. 46, the bulk of the factual allegations in Plaintiffs Amended Complaint are asserted against individuals who are not named in the initial Complaint, and appear unrelated to the facts and claims raised in the initial Complaint. Additionally, given the sparsity of the allegations relating to the initial Complaint, it is unclear whether Plaintiff wishes the Amended Complaint to replace to initial Complaint, or to supplement it.
Plaintiffs new claims in the Amended Complaint run afoul of Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires for the joining of defendants:
(A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and
(B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). See also Washington, 2013 WL 980608, at *1.
In light of the content of the Amended Complaint, the same should be dismissed. Plaintiff should be given a period of time to file a new amended complaint which includes each and every claim that he wishes to make related to the facts underlying the initial Complaint, which explicitly names each and every defendant that he wishes to sue, makes factual allegations as to what these defendants did (or did not do) that harmed Plaintiff, and which otherwise complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs initial Complaint provides an example of proper formatting.
Dismissal should be without prejudice to Plaintiff raising his new claims against new defendants in a separate lawsuit, if appropriate.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, it is respectfully recommended that Plaintiff s “Motion to Compel,” ECF No. 50, be construed as a motion for preliminary injunction and denied. It is further recommended that Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, ECF No. 52, be dismissed, and that he be granted a period of time to file an appropriate amended complaint, as set forth above. Dismissal should be without prejudice to Plaintiff raising his new claims against new defendants in a separate lawsuit, if appropriate.
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 days thereafter in accordance with Local Civil Rule 72.D.2.
Hon. W. Scott Hardy United States District Judge