Opinion
1:22-CV-00105-RAL
10-27-2022
JIHAAD AMORE HARRISON, Plaintiff, v. SECRETARY GEORGE LITTLE, LONNIE OLIVER, SCI-ALBION SUPERINTENDENT; SKINNER, SCI-ALBION CAPTAIN; AND S. A. SMITH, SCI-ALBION CORRECTIONS OFFICER; Defendants,
IN RE: ECF NOS.4, 15
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
RICHARD A. LANZILLO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
I. Recommendation
It is respectfully recommended that the motions for preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order filed by Plaintiff Jihaad Amore Harrison (“Harrison”) be DENIED.
II. Report
Harrison filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on March 28, 2022. ECF No. 1. On April 21, 2022, Harrison filed a motion for temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and to show cause. ECF No. 4. On May 27, 2022, the Court dismissed Harrison's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, without prejudice, due to his failure to file a certified institutional account statement for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of his Complaint. ECF No. 6, p. 1. Harrison was instructed that he may reopen this case by paying the statutory filing fee and administrative fee or by filing another motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Id., at p. 2. Plaintiff renewed his motion and was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis on July 19, 2022 (ECF No. 12) and his Complaint was docketed the same day (ECF No. 13). On July 29, 2022, Harrison filed another motion seeking a temporary restraining order. ECF No. 15. Upon review of both pending motions, it is respectfully recommended that they be denied.
Harrison's Complaint brings claims under the Eighth Amendment (conditions of confinement, excessive force), the First Amendment (retaliation), as well as the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (due process). See ECF No. 13.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), a magistrate judge may hear and determine any pretrial motion or other pretrial matter with certain exceptions. One such exception is a motion for injunctive relief, including a motion for preliminary injunction. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Local Civil Rule 72.D.1.C. As to motions for injunctive relief and other motions excepted by subsection (b)(1)(A) of § 636, a magistrate judge may consider and submit proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of such motions to the district court pursuant to § 636(b)(1)(B). See also Local Civil Rule 72.D.1. See, e.g., Williams v. Wolf, No. 3:20-CV-61,2021 WL 147045, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 15,2021).
Harrison fails to demonstrate he is entitled to a TRO. Preliminary injunctive relief is “an extraordinary remedy” and “should be granted only in limited circumstances.” Kos Pharms., Inc. v. Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700, 708 (3d Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). The burden is on the party seeking the TRO to “establish every element in its favor, or the grant of a [TRO] is inappropriate.” P.C. Yonkers, Inc. v. Celebrations the Party & Seasonal Superstore, LLC, 428 F.3d 504, 508 (3d Cir. 2005) (quoting NutraSweet Co. v. Vit-Mar Enters., Inc., 176 F.3d 151, 153 (3d Cir. 1999)). This remedy should be granted only if: (1) the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) denial will result in irreparable harm to the plaintiff; (3) granting the injunction will not result in irreparable harm to the defendant; and (4) granting the injunction is in the public interest. Hartmann v. Maybee-Freud, 279 Fed.Appx. 142, 144 (3d Cir. 2008). Harrison also is required to show immediate harm. See Cont'l Group Inc. v. Amoco Chern. Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 359 (3d Cir. 1980). The standards for reviewing a preliminary injunction are the same for a TRO. See, e.g. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Finally, the Court notes that a TRO or preliminary injunction is meant to maintain the status quo to prevent impending irreparable harm-this type of extraordinary equitable relief is not appropriate where, as here, Harrison seeks an exceptionally quick resolution to his case. Acierno v. New Castle Auth, 40 F.3d 645, 653 (3d Cir. 1994).
Although Harrison's Complaint has not yet been served on the Defendants, a TRO may be issued without notice to the adverse party but usually expires after 14 days. Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b)(1), (2).
Harrison's motions allege that the Defendants, various employees of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, retaliated against him by apparently confiscating his keyboard, surge protector, athletic shoes, television antenna, and headphones. See ECF No. 4, p. 1; ECF No. 15, p. 1. As relief, Harrison asks for the return of those items, a transfer to another penal institution, and five thousand dollars. See, e.g.,. ECF No. 15, p. 2. These allegations fail to establish the emergent nature of his complaints or a likelihood of success on the merits. Instead, any unconstitutional deprivation of his personal property, if proven, may be compensated through money damages or equitable relief. See e.g., Alston v. Pennsylvania State Univ., 2015 WL 136334, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 9, 2015).
Harrison's most recent motion alleges that his access to court is being unconstitutionally restricted as retaliation for the filing of a criminal case against him. See ECF No. 15, p. 2. This fails to satisfy Harrison's burden of establishing a likelihood of success on the merits because he cited no evidence to support this claim and instead presents only his bare, conclusory allegation to the Court as a basis for its judgment. See Young v. Medden, 214 Fed.Appx. 45, 47 (3d Cir. 2007) (upholding denial of TRO were prisoner provided no evidence, outside of his allegations, to support his claim of wrongdoing). See also Hammonds v. Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections, 2019 WL 3843085, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 15, 2019) (citing Young).
Accordingly, it is respectfully recommended that the pending motions for injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 4 and 15) be denied.