Opinion
Civil Action 20-140J
11-01-2021
JAMIE MCVICKER, Plaintiff, v. GREGORY BRIGGS, Warden, JOHN CARON, Deputy Warden, TONI MARONOWSKI, Lieutenant, and BRIAN PELESKY, Deputy Warden, Defendants.
Re: ECF No. 41
Kim R. Gibson, Judge.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MAUREEN P. KELLY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
I. RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Jamie McVicker ("Plaintiff"), an inmate presently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Houtzdale ("SCI-Houtzdale"), filed this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising out of allegations that the conditions of his confinement at Somerset County Jail violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. ECF No. 6.
Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction, in which Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief regarding allegedly malfunctioning toilets at the Somerset County Jail. ECF No. 41. For the following reasons, this Motion should be denied.
II. REPORT
A. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit on July 21, 2020 by filing a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP Motion"), together with a proposed Complaint. ECF No. 1. The Court granted Plaintiffs IFP Motion on August 4, 2020, and his Complaint was filed on the same date. ECF Nos. 5 and 6.
1. Plaintiff s Claim
Plaintiff previously was incarcerated at the Somerset County Jail during two periods of time: (1) February 27, 2017 to August 1, 2018; and (2) November 27? 2019 to December 9, 2019. ECF No. 36 at 2. In his Complaint, Plaintiff asserted four claims arising out of the conditions of his confinement at the Somerset County Jail, and he also alleged that he was retaliated against for raising those concerns. ECF No. 6. Based on the Court's ruling on a Motion to Dismiss subsequently filed by Defendants, only a single claim, Count I, now remains. ECF No. 40.
In Count I, Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights in connection with malfunctioning toilets at the Somerset County Jail, which backed up and sprayed human waste into inmates' cells upon flushing. ECF No. 6 |f 87-94.
As to this claim, he requests relief including a "preliminary and permanent injunction ordering the defendants to immediately fix the sanitation/plumbing problem with the toilets to prevent the backing up of raw sewage from one cell to another and eliminate the risk of acquiring an infectious disease." Id. at 26¶2.
Plaintiffs Complaint includes continuously numbered paragraphs for his allegations and legal claims. His prayer for relief begins again at ¶ 1. For clarity, the Court includes both the page and paragraph number when citing to Plaintiffs requested relief.
2. Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Plaintiff originally incorporated the instant Motion for Preliminary Injunction in his Response to Defendants' Objections to the Report and Recommendation on their Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 39 at 7-10. Upon ruling on the Motion to Dismiss, the Court ordered that Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction be docketed as a separate motion for consideration. ECF No. 40. His motion was then re-docketed at ECF No. 41.
In the instant Motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter an Order granting the preliminary injunctive relief he seeks as to Count I. ECF No. 41 at 7. Although he is no longer incarcerated at Somerset County Jail, Plaintiff claims there is "high likelihood" of his returning for an evidentiary hearing on his Post-Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA") petition or for resentencing on an illegal sentence. Id. at 6-7. He contends there is a risk of irreparable harm, as Hepatitis A could spread due to the unsanitary conditions caused by the broken toilets. Id. at 8. He also argues that he is likely to succeed on his claim, pointing to the Court's denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss at Count I. Id. Finally, he argues that injunctive relief is warranted because it is in the public interest to require prison officials to follow the law, and it is more important to protect inmates' health than to save prisons money. Id. at 8-9.
Defendants filed a Brief in Opposition, arguing that preliminary injunctive relief is improper. ECF No. 45. Defendants argue that Plaintiff does not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, because he simply relies on unproven allegations in his pleadings. Id. at 4. Defendants also argue that Plaintiff fails to show he will face immediate, irreparable harm if denied relief, because he is no longer incarcerated at Somerset County Jail, and there are no upcoming proceedings that require him to return to this area. Id. at 4-5. Defendants refer the Court to Plaintiffs criminal docket, noting that Plaintiff previously filed a successful PCRA petition to overturn his third-degree murder conviction, and he already was resentenced on his charges back in December 2019. Id. Thus, there are no ongoing PCRA proceedings requiring his return to this facility.
Finally, Defendants argue, the balance of hardships weighs in their favor, because it would require a significant undertaking to rework the plumbing system, and there is a public interest in requiring inmates to prove their claims before tax dollars are spent to resolve alleged problems. Id. at 5-6.
The Motion for Preliminary Injunction is now ripe for consideration.
B. LEGAL STANDARD
Preliminary injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy and should issue only in limited circumstances. Ferring Pharau Inc. v. Watson Pharm., Inc., 765 F.3d 205, 210 (3d Cir. 2014). Four factors inform a court's decision as to the issuance of a preliminary injunction: (1) whether the movant has shown a reasonable probability of success on the merits; (2) whether the movant will suffer irreparable harm if denied relief; (3) whether the requested relief will cause greater harm to the nonmovant; and (4) whether an injunction would be in the public interest. Am. Express Travel Related Servs.. Inc. v. Sidamon-Eristoff, 669 F.3d 359, 366 (3d Cir. 2012). The first two factors are "most critical" to the court's analysis, and the movant cannot succeed if either of these two factors are not established. Reillv v. City of Harrisburg, 858 F.3d 173, 179 (3d Cir. 2017). If these first two "gateway factors" are met, the court considers the remaining factors and determines whether all four factors, on balance, weigh in favor of granting the requested preliminary relief. Id.
C. DISCUSSION
Upon review, the Motion for Preliminary Injunction should be denied. Plaintiff does not establish he will suffer irreparable harm if he is denied relief. In order to satisfy the irreparable harm element, it is not enough to show some risk of future harm. See Angstadt v. Midd-West Sch. Dist, 182 F.Supp.2d 435, 437 (M.D. Pa. 2002) (citing Hohe v. Casey, 868 F.2d 69, 72 (3d Cir. 1989)). Rather, the "moving party has the burden of proving a 'clear showing of immediate irreparable injury.'" Id. (quoting Cont'l Grp., Inc. v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 359 (3d Cir. 1980)). Plaintiff must show that the irreparable harm is "actual and imminent, not merely speculative." Id. (quoting Raitport v. Provident Nat'l Bank, 451 F.Supp. 522, 530 (E.D. Pa. 1978)). As such, this relief is not appropriate to "eliminate the possibility of a remote future injury. ..." Id. (quoting Raitport, 451 F.Supp. at 530).
Although Plaintiff claims he is at risk of acquiring an infectious disease from toilets at the Somerset County Jail, he is no longer incarcerated at this facility, and there are no pending criminal proceedings requiring his return. Even if Plaintiff returned to Somerset County Jail at some point in the future, there is no indication the plumbing problems he alleges-which he last experienced nearly two years ago-would be ongoing in his vicinity. Therefore, Plaintiff does not demonstrate any actual and imminent risk of harm. Because Plaintiff does not establish one of the two "gateway factors" required to award preliminary injunctive relief, his Motion should be denied.
The Court takes judicial notice of the dockets for Plaintiffs criminal proceedings at Commonwealth v. McVicker, No. CP-56-CR-0000229-2017 in the Court of Common Pleas for Somerset County, Pennsylvania and Commonwealth v. McVicker, No. 1623 WD A 2018 in the Pennsylvania Superior Court. Those docket sheets are available at ujsportal.pacourts.us/Case Search (last visited October 29, 2021).
D. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Court should deny Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 41.
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 in accordance with the schedule established in the docket entry reflecting the filing of this Report and Recommendation. 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.
Honorable Kim R. Gibson, United States District Judge.