Opinion
Case No. 1:16-cv-00276
11-14-2018
BRIAN ANGLE, II Plaintiff, v. CAPT. CARTER, ET AL. Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff Brian Angle (Angle), a prisoner incarcerated with the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections at the State Correctional Institution at Forest (SCI-Forest), has filed a pro se motion entitled "Motion for Injunctive Relief/T.R.O." ECF No. 53. Upon consideration, the motion is DENIED.
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 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." 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)).
Here, Angle's request for injunctive relief does not relate to any of his claims raised in this action. The Complaint alleges that the Defendants retaliated against him for filing grievances related to an alleged incident of sexual assault. ECF No. 4, at 2-3. His motion for injunctive relief, however, contends that he was retaliated against for failing to stand for a prisoner count. He also indicates that he is hearing disabled and that his legal papers are missing, allegations which are unrelated to the claims raised in his Complaint. See ECF No. 53.
Therefore, the Plaintiff's motion injunction is DENIED. For the same reasons, the Plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order is DENIED. See, e.g., Eckes v. Byrd, 2018 WL 4001737 at *2 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 22, 2018) (citing Ball v. Famiglio, 396 Fed. Appx. 836, 835 (3d Cir. 2010).
It is so ordered.
/s/_________
RICHARD A. LANZILLO
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Date: November 14, 2018