Opinion
Case No. C2-00-706.
May 20, 2009
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Brian Mann's motion for relief from judgment (Doc. # 172), Defendants' memorandum in opposition (Doc. # 186), and Plaintiff's reply memorandum (Doc. # 193). For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff's motion.
I. Background
In a December 21, 2007 Opinion and Order, this Court narrowed the issue in this action to whether Mann's copy of a pamphlet titled "Doctrinal Statement of Beliefs," from the Christian Identity Church, was being wrongfully withheld by Defendants in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 cc-1 and the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. # 154.) On September 17, 2008, this Court issued an Opinion and Order granting Defendants' fifth motion for summary judgment, finding that Mann's claim was moot because Defendants had returned the pamphlet to him. (Doc. # 170.)
On October 9, 2008, Mann was transferred from the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility to the Trumbull Correctional Facility ("TCI"). On October 16, 2008, the pamphlet was taken from Mann and Mann was given a conduct report for possession of the pamphlet and charged with "possession of contraband."
Defendants agree that taking the pamphlet and issuing the conduct report were both done in error. However, they explain that the pamphlet was taken by employees at TCI, where Plaintiff had just been transferred and that TCI had not yet been informed of the lengthy history before this Court regarding the pamphlet. Further, Defendants contend, that the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections "is in the process of entering information into a central database calculated to put all prisons in the system on notice that Mann is entitled to possess the pamphlet in question." (Doc. # 186 at 2.)
II. Standard
Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in pertinent part:
On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: . . . (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b), . . . or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.
III. Analysis
Mann argues that he is entitled to relief from judgment under Rules 60(b)(2) and 60(b)(6), because even though Defendants voluntarily returned the pamphlet to Mann in 2008, the steps that they took to ensure that the pamphlet would not be confiscated again were insufficient. Defendants concede this point, admitting that the TCI staff did not learn of this litigation until after they had "erroneously" taken the pamphlet. The Court recognizes that Defendants made a mistake by confiscating the pamphlet. However, to make it absolutely clear, the Court finds it necessary to enjoin Defendants from the ability to remove the pamphlet from Mann at any time in the future.
Mann's request for monetary damages, however, is not well taken. As this Court explained in its September 17, 2008 Opinion and Order:
The Prison Litigation Reform Act prohibits any damages recovery to a prisoner who fails to allege an underlying physical injury. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) ("No Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or other correctional facility, for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury."). Here, it is uncontroverted that Plaintiff did not suffer any physical injury as the result of Defendants' alleged violations of his right to possess religious literature in prison.
(Doc. # 170 at 12.) Moreover, even if damages were available the Court would not grant Mann's request for them because of the minimal time that he was not permitted to maintain possession of the pamphlet.
IV. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Mann's motion for relief from judgment (Doc. # 172). Specifically, Mann's motion is granted to the extent that it seeks injunctive relief and denied in all other respects. The Court ENJOINS Defendants from removing from Mann his copy of a pamphlet titled "Doctrinal Statement of Beliefs" at any time in the future.