Opinion
1:22-cv-00033-SPB-RAL
04-20-2022
BRYAN ANGLE, II, . Plaintiff v. LT. SMITH, et al., Defendants
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [ECF NO. 8]
RICHARD A. LANZILLO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. Recommendation
Plaintiff Bryan Angle, II (Angle) filed a motion for preliminary injunction [ECF No. 8]. This motion has been referred to the undersigned for Report and Recommendation pursuant to the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). At the conclusion of the hearing on the motion on April 7, 2022, the undersigned recommended on the record that the Court deny the motion. This writing supplements that oral Recommendation.
II. Report .
A. Background
Angle, an inmate in the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) at its State Correctional Institution at Fayette (SCI-Fayette), commenced this action in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County on January 31, 2021. ECF No. 1-2. Angle's Complaint named numerous DOC employees as Defendants. The Complaint alleged violations of his federal constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq., and Pennsylvania state tort law claims. ECF No. 1-2. He alleged an incident of excessive force, harassment, confiscation of his kufi-“a religious headpiece for Muslims, ” and seizure of his legal papers and other property. Id., ¶ 9. Angle sought compensatory and punitive damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief. Id., ¶¶ 30-36. The Defendants removed the action to this Court based on its original federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ECF No. 1.
On February 18, 2022, Angle filed the instant motion for preliminary injunction seeking the preservation of video surveillance footage and the return of his religious kufi, legal papers, and other property. ECF No. 8. The Defendants responded, arguing that Angle's motion does not support injunctive relief and should be denied. ECF No. 31. The Court conducted an . evidentiary hearing and heard argument on Angle's motion on April 7, 2022.
B. Standard of Review
Injunctive relief is an “extraordinary remedy which should be granted only in limited circumstances.” American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Winback and Conserve Program, Inc., 42 F.3d 1421 (3d Cir. 1994) (quoting Frank's GMC Truck Center, Inc. v. General Motor Corp., 847 F.2d 100, 102 (3d Cir. 1988)). The purpose of the preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo until the rights of the parties can be fairly and fully litigated and determined. Wetzel v. Edwards, 635 F.2d 283, 286 (4th Cir. 1980). In deciding whether to grant injunctive relief, the Court considers four factors: (1) the likelihood that the applicant will prevail on the merits; (2) the extent to which the movant is being irreparably harmed by the conduct complained of; (3) the extent to which the non-moving party will suffer irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction is issued; and (4) whether granting preliminary injunctive relief will be in the public interest. See Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. v. Botticella, 613 F.3d 102, 109 (3d Cir. 2010). 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.2d1211, 1214 (8th Cir. 1982)).
C. Discussion
Angle cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits of his claim about seized legal papers and other property. Officials confiscated his property pursuant to DOC policies, supported by legitimate penological interests, that limit the amount of material an inmate may possess. A claim under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause would fail because of the availability of an adequate post-deprivation remedy: the administrative grievance process (which he used) or a state tort action. See Monroe v. Beard, 536 F.3d 198, 210 (3d Cir. 2008) (citation omitted); Tapp v. Proto, 404 Fed.Appx. 563, 567 (3d Cir. 2010). He has not shown irreparable harm either. The Court credits the declaration of DOC official Michelle Tharp that Angle can request any legal papers or documents from his excess property which can then be swapped out with his current property as long as he stays within the allowable property limits. See ECF No. 12-3, ¶¶ 8-12. Moreover, no evidence supports that officials violated Angle's right to access the courts. See Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002). Legal files that Angle claims are missing appear replaceable by different means, including those he identified from his criminal proceedings. Most of Angle's legal papers relate to civil litigation he has pending before this Court. No imminent pretrial deadlines appear to be looming, and to the extent Angle believes he may have been delayed or prejudiced by restricted or limited access to his legal papers, the Court can accommodate this by granting reasonable extensions of future pretrial deadlines. .
Angle has also failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of his RLUIPA claim because he has not shown that officials placed a “substantial burden” on his religious exercise. See Washington v. Klem, 497 F.3d 272, 280 (3d Cir. 2007). Kufis and other religious articles are permitted in DOC facilities. However, consistent with DOC policy, Angle's handmade brown kufi was confiscated because all kufis. (and other religious headgear) must be white and he could not prove that he owned it. See ECF No. 12-3, ¶¶ 8-12; DC-ADM 819 § 3(A)(4)(a). And DOC policy does not permit handmade religious articles. See DC-ADM 819, § 3(A)(1)(j). What's more, contrary to Angle's position, the “Grandfathered Items” provision did not apply because that covers items on an inmate's personal property inventory that were approved before May 2008. DC-ADM 815, § 2(A)(6)(a-b). Angle may purchase a new, DOC-approved kufi through the DOC's chaplaincy service at minimal cost, thereby obviating any irreparable harm.
The exception for prisoners with a kufi prior to March 2007 did not apply to Angle because he was incarcerated in March 2009. .' .
Angle's request for preliminary injunctive relief ordering the Defendants to preserve video footage and other evidence relevant to his claims should also be denied. At the hearing, the Defendants stated that relevant video footage has been preserved and acknowledged their continuing obligation to preserve such evidence independent of Angle's motion. See Bistrian v. Levi, 448 F.Supp.3d 454, 468 (E.D. Pa. 2020).
D. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons and those previously stated on the record, Angle's motion for preliminary injunction should be denied. A transcript of the hearing on April 7, 2022, is attached to this Report.
III. Notice
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, any party may 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 Objections to respond thereto. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file timely objections may constitute a waiver of appellate rights. See Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 194 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011); Nara v. Frank, 488F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2007).