Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-cv-02307
03-01-2019
CHRISTOPHER ALSOP, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al., Defendants.
(MARIANI, J.)
() REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a prisoner civil rights action. The plaintiff, Christopher Alsop, is a federal inmate incarcerated at FCI Cumberland, located in Allegheny County, Maryland. At the time of filing, however, he was incarcerated at FCI Allenwood Low, located in Union County, Pennsylvania.
I. BACKGROUND
In his complaint, the plaintiff has asserted the violation of his Eighth Amendment rights pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). He claims that the defendants—the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"); Leonard Daniels, MD; Catherine Gore, FNP/BC; Bret Brocious, Health Services Administrator; D.K. White, Warden; and various unidentified "John" or "Jane Doe" individuals—were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. He alleges that he suffers from severe varicose veins, but the defendants have failed to provide him with specific medical treatment recommended by outside medical providers: vascular surgery to "strip" his varicose veins and repair leaky venous valves. He claims that the defendants have denied or refused to endorse his requests for a transfer to a correctional institution with less hazardous terrain for an inmate who experiences difficulty walking. He claims that they have refused to authorize him to use a cane or wheelchair, thereby exposing him to injury due to enhanced fall risk, and one of the defendants actually took away a pair of crutches he had been using. He further claims that the defendants' conduct has violated his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act ("Section 504"), 29 U.S.C. § 794. For relief, he seeks injunctive relief and an award of compensatory and punitive damages.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Preliminary injunctive relief is extraordinary in nature and should issue in only limited circumstances. See Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Winback & Conserve Program, Inc., 42 F.3d 1421, 1426-27 (3d Cir. 1994). Moreover, issuance of such relief is at the discretion of the trial judge. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Chamberlain, 145 F. Supp. 2d 621, 625 (M.D. Pa. 2001). In determining whether to grant a motion seeking preliminary injunctive relief, courts in the Third Circuit consider the following four factors: "(1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm resulting from a denial of the relief; (3) the harm to the non-moving party if relief is granted; and (4) the public interest." United States v. Bell, 238 F. Supp. 2d 696, 699 (M.D. Pa. 2003). It is the moving party who bears the burden of satisfying these factors. Bell, 238 F. Supp. 2d at 699; Dole, 604 F. Supp. at 512. "Only if the movant produces evidence sufficient to convince the trial judge that all four factors favor preliminary relief should the injunction issue." Opticians Ass'n of Am. V. Indep. Opticians of Am., 920 F.2d 187, 192 (3d Cir. 1990).
III. DISCUSSION
Alsop has filed several motions for preliminary injunctive relief.
The first motion (Doc. 14) seeks an order directing the defendants to perform an MRI on his right shoulder, which he injured in a May 2018 fall, and to schedule his shoulder for an evaluation by a "qualified orthopedic specialist."
The second motion (Doc. 29) seeks an order directing the defendants to: (1) return certain legal documents confiscated from him as a result of a search of his "cube" on July 12, 2018; (2) allow him to view security camera footage of prison officials searching his cube and seizing his legal papers; (3) give him unlimited access to his legal materials; (4) give him eight to ten hours per week of access to the prison law library; (5) give him access to the commissary to buy two pens per month for legal work, or allow him to use a working typewriter in the law library; (6) give him access to the commissary to buy a book of stamps each week; (7) give him direct access to a photocopier to make service copies of his litigation papers and enjoin the prison staff from making extra copies of any of his sensitive legal materials; and (8) allow him to take showers and give him access to clean clothes.
The third motion (Doc. 57) is couched as a Rule 15(a) motion for leave to amend the first motion, seeking to add to his request an order directing the defendants to perform a concurrent MRI on his right leg, which had been painful and weakened since undergoing vascular surgery on it in June 2018. But Rule 15(a) permits amendment of a pleading, Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), and a motion is not a pleading for purposes of Rule 15(a). See United States v. 64.88 Acres of Land, 25 F.R.D. 88, 90-91 (W.D. Pa. 1960). Compare Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b) with Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a). Instead of allowing an amendment to his original motion for a preliminary injunction, we will liberally construe this motion as a free-standing motion for a preliminary injunctive order directing the defendants to perform an MRI of the plaintiff's right leg at the same time they perform the previously requested MRI of his right shoulder. See generally Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 244-46 (3d Cir. 2013) (discussing a court's obligation to liberally construe pro se pleadings and other submissions, particularly when dealing with imprisoned pro se litigants).
The fourth motion (Doc. 58) is actually a photocopy of the first motion (Doc. 14), submitted together with the third motion and docketed by the Clerk as a separate motion for a preliminary injunction.
A. The Second Motion
In his second motion for preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. 29), Alsop originally sought multifaceted relief, requesting eight different types of relief. In his reply brief (Doc. 62), however, he has conceded that six of these eight items on his "wish list" (#3 through #8) are now moot because he has been transferred away from FCI Allenwood Low to a new facility. He contends, however, that items #1 and #2—the return of his legal materials and an opportunity to view security camera footage—remain live issues despite his transfer.
As the Third Circuit has held, "there must be a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint." Ball v. Famiglio, 396 Fed. App'x 836, 837 (3d Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, "a court may not grant an injunction when the issues raised in the motion are entirely different from those raised in the complaint." Jones v. Taylor, No. 3:12cv487, 2013 WL 1899852, at *2 (M.D. Pa. May 7, 2013) (citing De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220-23 (1945)); see also Kaimowitz v. Orlando, Fla., 122 F.3d 41, 43 (11th Cir. 1997) ("A district court should not issue an injunction when the injunction in question is not of the same character, and deals with a matter lying wholly outside the issues in the suit.") (citing De Beers, 325 U.S. at 220); Dopp v. Jones, No. CIV-12-703-HE, 2012 WL 7192503, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 19, 2012) ("A preliminary injunction involves intermediate relief of the same character as that which may be finally granted.") (citing De Beers, 325 U.S. at 220) (footnote omitted).
Alsop's complaint asserts claims related to his medical treatment for varicose veins and his need for mobility assistance devices as a result of his medical condition. None of the claims articulated in his complaint concern the July 12, 2018, search of his cube, access to his legal papers (or access to the courts), or access to security camera footage. These requests are entirely unrelated to the civil rights claims raised in his complaint. Ultimately, "the court does not have jurisdiction over the claims raised by [Alsop] in his motion for an injunction because those matters are not part of this action." Jones, 2013 WL 1899852, at *2.
Accordingly, we recommend that the plaintiff's second motion for preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. 29) be denied.
B. The First, Third, and Fourth Motions
On October 10, 2018, we received notice from the plaintiff advising that he had been transferred away from FCI Allenwood Low to USP Canaan, located in Wayne County, Pennsylvania, on September 20, 2018, and then to FCI Ray Brook, located in Essex County, New York, on October 4, 2018. (Doc. 51). On December 7, 2018, we received a notice from the plaintiff advising that he had been transferred again, but he was still in transit and did not know where he was going. (Doc. 78). On December 11, 2018, we received a notice from the plaintiff advising that he had arrived at his new place of incarceration, FCI Cumberland. (Doc. 80).
A prisoner's transfer from the prison complained of generally moots his claims for prospective injunctive relief. Sutton v. Rasheed, 323 F.3d 236, 248 (3d Cir. 2003) ("[A] federal court has neither the power to render advisory opinions nor to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them.") (quoting Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401 (1975)); Abdul-Akbar v. Watson, 4 F.3d 195, 206 (3d Cir. 1993); Weaver v. Wilcox, 650 F.2d 22, 27 n.13 (3d Cir. 1981). The preliminary injunctive relief requested by Alsop in his first, third, and fourth motions was specific to the institution where he had been incarcerated at the time, under the defendants' supervision. With his transfer to another facility, his motion for preliminary injunctive relief is now moot.
Accordingly, we recommend that the plaintiff's first, third, and fourth motions for preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. 14; Doc. 57; Doc. 58) be denied.
IV. RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the plaintiff's first, second, third, and fourth motions for preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. 14; Doc. 29; Doc. 57; Doc. 58) be DENIED. Dated: March 1, 2019
s/Joseph F . Saporito , Jr.
JOSEPH F. SAPORITO, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the undersigned has entered the foregoing Report and Recommendation dated March 1, 2019. Any party may obtain a review of the Report and Recommendation pursuant to Local Rule 72.3, which provides:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
Failure to file timely objections to the foregoing Report and Recommendation may constitute a waiver of any appellate rights. Dated: March 1, 2019
s/Joseph F . Saporito , Jr.
JOSEPH F. SAPORITO, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge