Opinion
Civil Action No. 18-1063
12-21-2018
DANIEL L. CRISPELL, Plaintiff, v. JOHN E. WETZEL, SHIRLEY MOORE-SMEAL, TREVOR WINGARD, ROBERT GILMORE, and MICHAEL ZAKEN, Defendants.
Chief Judge Mark Hornak/Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly Re: ECF No. 2 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (the "Motion"), ECF No. 2, be denied as moot given that Plaintiff has received all the relief that he sought by means of the Motion.
II. REPORT
Daniel L. Crispell ("Plaintiff") has filed a civil rights Complaint, alleging that his constitutional rights were violated by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ("DOC") keeping Plaintiff housed in the Capital Case Unit ("CCU"), with its severe restrictions on the inmates housed therein, even after Plaintiff's death sentence was vacated by the Post Conviction Relief Act court. Plaintiff has named as defendants five individual who are either employees of the DOC central administration or employees of the State Correctional Institution at Greene, where Plaintiff was housed in the CCU. The Defendants have filed a response to the Motion, wherein they note that Plaintiff has been transferred into the general population as of October 10, 2018. Accordingly, Defendants assert that the Motion is now moot.
A. DISCUSSION
By means of the Motion, Plaintiff sought the following relief: an order requiring the Defendants to "(1) immediately re-integrate Mr. Crispell into the general prison population; and (2) Provide Mr. Crispell with appropriate psychological counseling to begin to address the serious psychological effects that Mr. Crispell is experiencing as a result of over 27 years in solitary confinement[.]" ECF No. 2 at 1. Defendants were ordered to file a response to Plaintiff's Motion and they did so. ECF No. 16.
In their Response, Defendants assert that Plaintiff has now been transferred out of the CCU and into the general population as of October 10, 2018 and thus the Motion has been rendered moot. Specifically, Defendants assert that "consistent with Williams[ v. Secretary of the Pa. Dept. of Corr., 848 F.3d 549 (3d Cir. 2017)] the DOC has since moved Plaintiff from the CCU to a General Population housing unit after being informed of the affirmance by the Pennsylvania supreme court of the PCRA order which vacated his death penalty. See Inmate Query—Cell History for Daniel L. Crispell BH8972." ECF No. 16 ¶ 20. The Defendants further represent that "Plaintiff was removed from the CCU on October 10, 2018, and placed in a General Population housing unit at SCI-Greene, where he is currently housed." Id. ¶ 21. Lastly, Defendants expressly represent to this Court that "the DOC has already provided Plaintiff with the relief sought by the instant motion. Therefore, the motion should be dismissed as moot." Id. ¶ 22.
We understand Defendants' assertion that the DOC has provided Plaintiff with the "relief sought" to mean that Plaintiff has been released into the general population and that Plaintiff is now receiving "appropriate psychological counseling to begin to address the serious psychological effects that Mr. Crispell is experiencing as a result of over 27 years in solitary confinement." ECF No. 2 at 1.
In light of the representations of the Defendants, we find that the Motion has been now rendered moot. See, e.g., Williamson v. Allegheny County Jail, CIV.A. 12-280, 2013 WL 451877, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 6, 2013) ("Petitioner sought to challenge the alleged fact that the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas ordered Petitioner to be housed in alternative housing, and not in the ACJ. When Petitioner was released from the ACJ, the Petition became moot because he was no longer housed there, the very thing relief he had sought via this Petition. Lowe v. Duckworth, 663 F .2d 42, 43 (7 Cir. 1981) ("When all the relief sought has been obtained, there no longer exists a live controversy, and the case must be dismissed as moot."). Accord Lowary v. Lexington Local Bd. of Educ., 854 F.2d 131, 133 (6 Cir. 1988) ("If a party has already obtained all the relief sought on appeal, the case is moot and must be dismissed.") (citing DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 316-17 (1974)); Althridge v. Quiggs, 852 F.2d 621, 624 (D.C. Cir. 1988) ("It seems clear that Athridge has obtained all the relief he is entitled to demand, and accordingly that his case is now moot.").
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, it is recommended that the Motion be denied as moot. 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 (14) days thereafter in accordance with Local Civil Rule 72.D.2.
Respectfully submitted, Date: December 21, 2018
s/Maureen P. Kelly
MAUREEN P. KELLY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE cc: The Honorable Mark R. Hornak
Chief United States District Judge
DANIEL L. CRISPELL
BH 8972
SCI GREENE
175 Progress Drive
Waynesburg, PA 15370
All counsel of record via CM-ECF