Opinion
2:21-cv-1564
03-07-2022
JAMES A. PALUCH, JR., Plaintiff, v. FRANK LEWIS, MATTHEW KENDERSKI, MICHAEL HOWARD, and PA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, BUREAU OF TREATMENT SERVICES, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
PATRICIA L. DODGE, United States Magistrate Judge.
I. Recommendation
It is respectfully recommended that Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief Concerning Yahweh's Passover (ECF No. 43) be denied.
II. Report
Plaintiff James A. Paluch, Jr., an inmate at the State Correctional Institution (“SCI”) at Fayette, commenced this pro se civil rights action in which he alleges that Defendants Frank Lewis, Matthew Kenderski, Michael Howard and the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections' Bureau of Treatment Services violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying him kosher meals. In Plaintiff's pending motion, he seeks a preliminary injunction that would permit Plaintiff and “other similarly-situated and qualified prisoners” to participate in Yahweh's Passover and “partake of the communal seder meal” tentatively scheduled for April 15, 2022.
A. Facts Relevant to Plaintiff's Motion
Plaintiff represents that he is a “sincere worshipper of Yahweh, a Torah-observant Messianic and is required to eat a kosher diet.” (ECF No. 12, Complaint, Statement of Complaint ¶ D.) In his Complaint, he alleges that starting in October 2021, the individual defendants conspired to retaliate against him by denying him kosher meals “based on false information and arbitrary policies.” (Id. ¶ B.) He claims that he was subject to this retaliation because he filed grievances and asserted complaints that the kosher meals did not meet the necessary standards. (Id. ¶ D.) This retaliation allegedly included making false claims that Plaintiff was seen taking non-kosher meal trays and cookies. (Id.)
In his motion for preliminary injunctive relief (ECF No. 43), Plaintiff alleges that in 2020 and 2021, he was permitted to observe Yahweh's Passover but not to physically congregate with the Messianic and Jewish communities for a communal seder meal due to the COVID pandemic. He does not allege in his motion that he objected to these restrictions or that these limitations violated his constitutional rights. With respect to this year's Yahweh's Passover, Plaintiff wishes to participate in a seder meal with two other prisoners. He asserts that all are vaccinated, wear masks and practice social distancing. However, he has been advised that due to COVID, there will not be a communal meal; rather, the meal will be eaten separately by each inmate. Plaintiff does not allege that he will not be given a Passover meal.
Plaintiff asserts that this decision is “oppressive” and based on “frivolous and exaggerated reasons” in violation of his civil rights. He therefore seeks an order granting his right to participate in a communal seder meal with other “qualified” prisoners. Defendants have filed a response in opposition to Plaintiff's motion. (ECF No. 49.)
B. Discussion
It is well established that temporary or preliminary injunctive relief is “an extraordinary remedy” and “should be granted only in limited circumstances.” Kos Pharm., Inc. v. Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700, 708 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting American Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Winback & Conserve Program, Inc., 42 F.3d 1421, 1427 (3d Cir. 1994)). In evaluating a movant's request for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunctive relief, courts employ the familiar four-factor balancing test. Reilly v. City of Harrisburg, 858 F.3d 173, 176-79 (3d Cir. 2017). That test requires that the movant demonstrate a reasonable probability of eventual success in the litigation, and that it is more likely than not that he will suffer irreparable injury in the absence of immediate injunctive relief. Id. The remaining two factors are the possibility of harm to other interested persons from the grant or denial of the injunction, and the public interest. Id. If the movant meets his burden with respect to the first two factors, which are the “most critical[,]” “a court then considers the remaining two factors and determines in its sound discretion if all four factors, taken together, balance in favor of granting the requested preliminary relief.” Id. at 179.
Importantly, the above-cited factors are relevant only if the movant's request for immediate injunctive relief is being sought for its proper purpose, which is to maintain the status quo to avoid the likelihood of irreparable injury before a decision on the merits of the complaint can be rendered. See, e.g., Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). By contrast, injunctive relief is not an appropriate means by which to raise and litigate new claims, either against a named defendant or a third party. Moreover, there must be “a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.” Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994) (finding that because plaintiff's motion raised issues entirely different from those presented in his complaint, his allegations could not provide the basis for a preliminary injunction); see also Braithwaite v. Phelps, 602 Fed.Appx. 847, 849 (3d Cir. 2015); Ball v. Famiglio, 396 Fed.Appx. 836, 837 (3d Cir. 2010).
Here, Plaintiff's motion is fails to meet the standards for preliminary injunctive relief for multiple reasons. As Defendants note, the alleged constitutional violation about which Plaintiff complains in his motion is not related to the conduct that forms the basis for the claim in the Complaint. The Complaint alleges that he is not being provided with acceptable kosher meals. Plaintiff's motion seeks an order compelling a communal Passover meal. Simply put, these are separate and distinct claims.
Plaintiff's Declaration which was submitted in conjunction with his motion discussed other issues not raised in the Complaint.
Thus, Plaintiff's motion is not a proper motion for preliminary injunctive relief. As discussed above, he cannot amend or supplement the Complaint by filing a motion for preliminary injunctive relief in which he raises new claims. Nor can he avoid the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act by styling his motion as one for injunctive relief when he is actually bringing new claims of misconduct against a defendant. Finally, Plaintiff cannot utilize such a motion in an attempt to make the Court the overseer of the day-to-day management of the prison system, including decisions related to COVID-19. If Plaintiff wants to pursue claims based upon the allegations he raises in his motion, he is reminded that under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), he must first fully exhaust all available administrative remedies before pursuing a civil rights complaint concerning prison conditions.
Plaintiff's motion also fails on the merits. Plaintiff acknowledges that in 2020 and again in 2021, he was permitted to observe Yahweh's Passover but was not allowed to participate in a communal meal due to the pandemic. Similarly, no communal meal will be permitted this year due the pandemic. While undoubtedly Plaintiff would prefer to share this meal with others, and while he may disagree that the prison's decision is necessary, he has not demonstrated any irreparable harm by not participating in a communal meal, just as was done in 2020 and 2021. Significantly, he does not allege that he has been told that he won't receive a Passover meal. Thus, he has not met his burden to establish irreparable harm.
Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to show that he is likely to succeed on the merits. The prison has a legitimate interest in taking appropriate measures to protect all inmates from COVID-19. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he has a constitutional right to participate in a communal meal during a pandemic. Plaintiff's disagreement with COVID protective measures adopted by prison officials is insufficient to support the relief he seeks. While Plaintiff asserts that these measures are “frivolous” or “exaggerated,” he has not shown that being required to eat a Passover meal in his cell violates his First Amendment rights.
III. Conclusion
Based upon the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that the Court deny Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief Concerning Yahweh's Passover (ECF No. 43).
Pursuant to the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and Rule 72.D.2 of the Local Civil Rules, Plaintiff is allowed fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order to file objections to this Report and Recommendation. Failure to do so will waive the right to appeal. Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011).