Opinion
Civil Action 23-379 Re: ECF 27
03-20-2024
Jonathan Paul Jones, Plaintiff v. Allegheny County Office of District Attorney; Allegheny County Division of Laboratories; et al., Defendants.
William S. Stickman, District Judge.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MAUREEN P. KELLY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
I. RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Jonathan Paul Jones (“Jones”) presents a “Motion to the Court” for injunctive relief in the form of an order requiring the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections to transfer him to a facility of his choosing. ECF No. 27.
For the following reasons, it is respectfully recommended that the Court deny the motion.
II. REPORT
A. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Jonathan Paul Jones (“Jones”) is an inmate in the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and is currently housed at the State Correctional Institution at Somerset (“SCI - Somerset”). Jones presents what has been construed as a civil rights action arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, related to his request for DNA testing of evidence supporting his underlying criminal conviction. ECF Nos. 21, 26.
Through the pending one-page motion, Jones asserts that his access to the prison law library is “complicated” and that he “has ‘had'” problems with inmates, guards, and staff, and fears for his life and wellbeing. ECF No. 27. Jones also states that his mother recently died, and his mental status is “unhealthy.” Id. Thus, he asks that the Court issue an injunction requiring his immediate transfer to one of three facilities where he could access a law library, mental health services, and be free of fear of harm.
B. DISCUSSION
The Court construes Jones' motion as a motion for preliminary injunction or, because the defendants have not yet been served, a motion for a temporary restraining order. Robertson v. Samuels, 593 Fed.Appx. 91, 92-93 (3d Cir. 2014) (finding that the prisoner's motion seeking medical care and transfer to a different facility was appropriately considered as a motion for a preliminary injunction). Preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.
In determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction, “[f]our factors are considered: (1) whether the movant has a reasonable probability of success on the merits; (2) whether the movant will be irreparably harmed by denying the injunction; (3) whether there will be greater harm to the nonmoving party if the injunction is granted; and (4) whether granting the injunction is in the public interest.” Highmark, Inc, v. UPMC Health Plan, Inc., 276 F.3d 160, 170-71 (3d Cir. 2001). See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 65. Great weight is placed on these first two prongs, as “preliminary injunctive relief cannot be granted” without a showing of both a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable injury. Pettaway v. Overton, No. 13-cv-213, 2014 WL 3747672, at *2 (W.D. Pa. July 29,2014) (citing Marxe v. Jackson, 833 F.2d 1121 (3d Cir. 1987)). The standard for deciding a motion for a temporary restraining order is the same as the test for ruling on a motion for a preliminary injunction. Bieros v. Nicola, 857 F.Supp. 445, 446 (E.D. Pa. 1994).
Where a request is for mandatory prospective relief in the prison context, the motion is “judged against exacting legal standards.” Artis v. Byunghak Jin, No. 13-cv-1226, 2013 WL 5936434, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 5, 2013). The Artis court noted that:
In the past, inmates have frequently sought preliminary injunctive relief compelling prison officials to take certain actions with respect to them during the pendency of a lawsuit. Yet, such requests, while often made, are rarely embraced by the courts. Instead, applying Rule 65 's exacting standards courts have frequently held that prisoner-plaintiffs have not shown that they are entitled to use a motion for preliminary injunction as a vehicle to compel prison officials to provide them with some specific relief and services pending completion of their lawsuits.Id. at *4 (citations omitted). Moreover, “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.2d 1211, 1214 (8th Cir. 1982)).
Here, Jones fails to satisfy the requisite burden because his motion does not relate to any of the matters raised in his underlying Amended Complaint. The purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to prevent irreparable injury pending the resolution of the underlying claims on their merits. Thus, there must be a connection between the underlying complaint and the relief requested in the motion for a preliminary injunction. Ball v. Famiglio, 396 F. App'x. 836, 837 (3d Cir. 2010). A district court “should not issue an injunction when the injunction in question is not of the same character, and deals with a matter lying wholly outside the issues in the suit.” Kaimowitz v. Orlando, Fla., 122 F.3d 41, 43 (11th Cir. 1997) (citing De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945)). In Ball, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a motion for preliminary injunction because there was “no relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.” Ball, 396 Fed.Appx. at 837.
In this case, Jones' allegations in the pending motion relate to prison library access, personal safety, and mental health treatment, and have no connection to his underlying claims against various Allegheny County officials and departments for failing to provide forensic evidence for DNA testing to support a potential challenge to his criminal conviction for rape. ECF No. 26. In the absence of a relationship between the requested relief and his Amended Complaint, the motion for preliminary injunctive relief should be denied.
Should Jones wish to proceed on his current claims related to the conditions of his confinement, he may do so in a separately filed lawsuit.
D. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully recommended that Plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief, ECF No. 27, be denied.
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 within fourteen days, or seventeen days for unregistered ECF Users. 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.