Opinion
3:22-cv-94-KAP
09-12-2022
NIARA BURTON, a/k/a Herman Burton, Plaintiff v. JOHN E. WETZEL, et al., Defendants
ORDER, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Keith A. Pesto, United States Magistrate Judge
Recommendation and Order
Plaintiff's pending motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, ECF no. 11, should be denied. The motion for extension of time to file a brief, ECF no. 12, is denied.
Report
Plaintiff Niara Burton, known to the Department of Corrections as Herman Burton, is an inmate at S.C.I. Houtzdale. Burton filed a complaint in August 2021, Burton v. Wetzel, Case No. 3:22-cv-94-KAP (W.D.Pa.), that was administratively closed for lack of a filing fee and subsequently abandoned. Burton filed the substantially similar complaint in this matter in June 2022, which also was administratively closed until Burton made arrangements in August 2022 to pay the filing fee. The lengthy handwritten complaint has not yet been screened as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act but its salient claim, as was the previous complaint's, is that Burton was repeatedly raped by corrections officers at S.C.I. Muncy in April 2020 before being transferred to S.C.I. Houtzdale.
Burton now files a motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction against personnel at S.C.I. Houtzdale to prohibit a laundry list of actions that he calls retaliation.
Preliminary relief under Rule 65 is for the purpose of maintaining the status quo to avoid the likelihood of irreparable injury before a decision on the merits of a matter can be rendered. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). A court considering a request for preliminary injunction typically evaluates: (1) the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits at the final hearing; (2) the extent to which the plaintiff is being irreparably harmed by the conduct complained of; (3) the extent to which the defendant will suffer irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction is issued; and (4) the public interest. Hawksbill Sea Turtle v. FEMA, 126 F.3d 461, 478 n.13 (3d Cir.1997), citing Merchant & Evans, Inc. v. Roosevelt Building Products, Inc., 963 F.2d 628, 632-33 (3d Cir.1992). This not a balancing test: the moving party must show, before any balance of harms or public interest is considered, both a reasonable likelihood of ultimately prevailing on the merits in the underlying action and the need for immediate relief to avoid irreparable injury. Hope v. Warden York County Prison, 972 F.3d 310, 319 (3d Cir. 2020); Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co. v. White Consolidated Industries, Inc., 414 F.2d 506, 511 (3d Cir.1969). Plaintiff's motion does not allege either. Nor does Burton explain why action should be taken in advance of notice to the defendants. Burton submits no evidence at all.
Rule 65 proceedings presume that the preliminary relief is being sought for its proper purpose, namely, “to grant intermediate relief of the same character as that which may be granted finally.” De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945). Plaintiff does not seek narrowly tailored relief as required by Rule 65 and the Prison Litigation Reform Act, but rather to enlist the court in ongoing supervision of daily interactions with prison staff. Additionally, as an inmate subject to the exhaustion of remedies requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Burton cannot dispense with exhaustion of administrative remedies and jump to the front of the line by styling a pleading as a motion for injunctive relief when it involves a new dispute with different parties.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1), the parties are given notice that they have fourteen days to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation. In the absence of timely and specific objections, any appeal would be severely hampered or entirely defaulted. See EEOC v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir.2017) (describing standard of appellate review when no timely and specific objections are filed as limited to review for plain error).