Opinion
Civil Action 3:20-cv-0243
06-22-2022
SHAWN KING, Plaintiff, v. BARRY SMITH, Superintendent; BOBBI JO SALAMON, Deputy Superintendent/PRC; DAVID CLOSE, Deputy Superintendent, MICHELLE IVIC, Deputy Superintendent, and LUCINDA GAINEY, Mail Inspector Supervisor, Defendants.
Kim R. Gibson, United States District Judge.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Cynthia Reed Eddy, Chief United States Magistrate Judge.
I. Recommendation
For the reasons that follow, it is respectfully recommended that Plaintiff's Motions for Preliminary Injunction (ECF Nos. 8, 32, 63, and 99) be denied as moot.
II. Report
Plaintiff Shawn King is a state prisoner in the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. At the time these motions were filed, he was housed at SCI-Houtzdale. In each motion he is seeking to be allowed to remain housed in the Restricted Housing Unit at SCI-Houtzdale, rather than be returned to General Population. Defendants have responded to the motions (ECF No. 147), and King has filed a Reply (ECF No. 161).
On April 6, 2022, King notified the Court that on March 31, 2022, he had been transferred to SCI-Fayette. (ECF No. 182).
“[T]he grant of injunctive relief is an ‘extraordinary remedy which should be granted only in limited circumstances.' ” AT & T v. Winback & Conserve Program, Inc., 42 F.3d 1421, 1426-27 (3d Cir. 1994) (quoting Frank's GMC Truck Center, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 847 F.2d 100, 102 (3d Cir. 1988)). A party seeking a preliminary injunction must show: “ ‘(1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that it will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is denied; (3) that granting preliminary relief will not result in even greater harm to the nonmoving party; and (4) that the public interest favors such relief.' ” Ball v. Beard, 396 Fed.Appx. 826, 827 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Kos Pharm., Inc. v. Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700, 708 (3d Cir. 2004)). Additionally, “a showing of irreparable harm is insufficient if the harm will occur only in the indefinite future. Rather, the moving party must make a clear showing of immediate irreparable harm.” Campbell Soup Co. v. ConAgra, Inc., 977 F.2d 86, 91 (3d Cir. 1992) (internal quotations omitted). “In order to support a preliminary injunction, plaintiff must show both a likelihood of success on the merits and a probability of irreparable harm.” Id. at 90-91.
In the context of prisoner litigation, it is well established that “an inmate-plaintiff's transfer to another prison, or his release, moots a request for declaratory or injunctive relief.” Mollett v. Leith, 2011 WL 5407359, at *13 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 8, 2011), aff'd sub nom. Mollett v. Leicth, 511 Fed.Appx. 172 (3d Cir. 2013). The record is clear that King has been transferred from SCI-Houtzdale and he is now housed at SCI-Fayette. There is no indication in the record that King will be transferred back to SCI-Houtzdale in the foreseeable future. As it is clear from the record that King was released from SCI-Houztdale after the filing of the instant motions, the motions for preliminary injunction should be denied as moot.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, it is respectfully recommended that Plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunction (ECF Nos. Nos. 6, 32, 63, and 99) be denied as moot.
Any party is permitted to file Objections to this Report and Recommendation to the assigned United States District Judge. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d) and 72(b)(2), and LCvR 72.D.2, Plaintiff, because he is a non-electronically registered party, may file written objections, if any, to this Report and Recommendation by July 11, 2022 and Defendants, because they are electronically registered parties, may file written objections, if any, by July 7, 2022. The parties are cautioned that failure to file Objections within this timeframe “will waive the right to appeal.” Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n. 7 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Siers v. Morrash, 700 F.2d 113, 116 (3d Cir. 1983). See also 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).