Opinion
2:21-cv-399-KRG-KAP
06-13-2022
WILLIAM P. JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN ORLANDO HARPER, et al. Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
KEITH A. PESTO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Recommendation
The pleading that has been docketed at ECF no. 21 as a Motion for Preliminary Injunction should be denied.
Report
Plaintiff is in the Butler County Prison, where he is a pretrial detainee in United States v. Jackson, 2:20-cr-118-NBF (W.D.Pa.). Plaintiff has entered a guilty plea before Judge Fischer but a motion to withdraw that plea is pending. Plaintiff was previously detained at the Allegheny County Jail, and both his original complaint filed in March 2021 and his amended complaint filed in December 2021 seek damages for allegedly inadequate dental care by personnel at the ACJ. Because plaintiff has not provided service copies of the complaint this matter has not proceeded even to service.
Plaintiff's motion before the court is styled “Order to Show Cause An Preliminary Injunction & A Temporary Restraining Order.” Plaintiff makes no attempt to comply with Rule 65, but if he did, to obtain either form of preliminary relief he would have to show not only a reasonable probability of eventual success in the litigation, but also that he will be irreparably injured if relief is not granted to him to prevent a change in the status quo. Irreparable harm is harm that cannot be redressed by a remedy following a trial. See Acierno v. New Castle County, 40 F.3d 645, 653 (3d Cir. 1994).
It follows immediately from the foregoing that no injunctive order should issue. Because plaintiff (who by his averments has been and is being seen by a dentist while at the Butler County Prison) is no longer at the ACJ, he has no standing to request prospective relief against defendants even as final relief following a trial. See Jones v. Unknown D.O.C. Bus Driver & Transportation Crew, 944 F.3d 478, 483 (3d Cir. 2019); Matthews v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 827 Fed.Appx. 184, 186-87 (3d Cir. 2020), both citing City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 104-05 (1983) (holding no actual controversy existed for prospective relief where a citizen who alleged that he was subjected by police to an illegal chokehold and “assert[ed] that he may again be subject” to an illegal chokehold). If the remaining defendants are found liable to plaintiff, they will be liable for money damages only. If plaintiff's current dental care were to be the subject of a proper motion for injunctive relief, it would have to be filed within litigation with the persons currently responsible for plaintiff's dental care.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1), plaintiff can within fourteen days file written objections to this Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff is advised that 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).