Opinion
Civil Action 21-208
10-03-2022
KEITH ROSARIO, Plaintiff, v. WESTMORELAND COUNTY, PA; WESTMORELAND COUNTY COMMISSIONER; WARDEN WALTON; DEPUTY WARDEN LOWTHER;DEPUTY WARDEN SCHWARTZ; LIEUTENANT TOMASELLO; LIEUTENANT WOLFF; SERGEANT GILLETTE; SERGEANT BRADLEY; JOHN DOE 1-6. Defendants.
Re: ECF No. 56
Maureen P. Kelly Magistrate Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MAUREEN P. KELLY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Keith Rosario ("Plaintiff), an inmate presently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution Albion ("SCI-Albion), brings this pro se action arising out of allegations that he was assaulted by prison officials while incarcerated at the Westmoreland County Prison ("WCP"). ECF No. 14.
Presently before the Court is a Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiff. ECF No. 56. For the reasons below, it is respectfully recommended that the Motion for Preliminary Injunction be denied.
II. REPORT
A. LEGAL STANDARD
Preliminary injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy and should issue only in limited circumstances. Ferring Pharm., Inc. v. Watson Pharmu 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. Reilly 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
B. DISCUSSION
In the instant motion, Plaintiff argues that Defendants are improperly mailing legal/confidential mail to him through the Smart Communications, instead of sending it directly to him at SCI-Albion. ECF No. 56 1. This has included documents that contain sensitive information, like his Social Security number. Id. ¶¶ 5-6. Because Smart Communications stores documents for seven years, he argues, he will be irreparably harmed unless the Court orders that Smart Communications and the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ("DOC") dispose of this information and reject any further legal/confidential mail that Defendants send. Id. ¶ 6. He also argues that this conduct violates his First Amendment rights. Id. ¶ 8. Based on this, Plaintiff requests the Court to issue an order requiring Defendants to refrain from sending any further legal correspondence to him through Smart Communications. Id. at 2.
Upon review, this motion should be denied. Because he is incarcerated, Defendants must mail service copies through Smart Communications in order for Plaintiff to receive the documents. Under DOC policy DC-ADM 803, incoming inmate mail is divided into two categories: "privileged" and "non-privileged." McLaughlin v. Zavada, No. 19-422, 2019 WL 5697347, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 4, 2019); see also DC-ADM 803 § l(A)(3)-(4). "Privileged" mail is sent to the prison where the inmate is incarcerated, entered into a log, and then distributed to the inmate. McLaughlin, 2019 WL 5697347, at *1. "Privileged correspondence shall only contain essential, confidential, attorney-client communication." Id. All "non-privileged" mail, however, must be sent to Smart Communications. Id. Smart Communications is an outside service located in St. Petersburg, Florida, which scans the mail and sends it electronically to staff at the inmate's facility. Id. The scanned copies are then electronically submitted to the appropriate facility, where they are printed and delivered to the inmates. IcL
The DOC's policies are available at https://www.cor.pa.gov/About%20Us/Pages/DOC-Policies.aspx (last visited August 24, 2022).
Courts have held that the DOC's mail policy does not unconstitutionally abridge inmates' First Amendment rights. See, e.g., Pelino v. Wetzel No. 20-326 (W.D. Pa. 2020), aff'dPelino v. Wetzel No. 21-1363, 2022 WL 1239050 (3d Cir. Apr. 27, 2022); Smith v. Wolf, No. 19-711, 2020 WL 4551229 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 6, 2020); Woodell v. Wetzel No.18-4430, 2020 WL 2841380 (M.D. Pa. June 1, 2020).
Because Plaintiff does not have an attorney-client relationship with Defendants' counsel in this matter, they are required to send this non-privileged mail through Smart Communications. If the Court were to require Defendants to mail documents to Plaintiff directly, as he requests, he would not receive those documents. Therefore, the Court should deny this requested relief.
To the extent Plaintiff requests the Court to order Smart Communications and/or the DOC to reject or destroy any mail sent by Defendants, this request should also be denied. Those entities are not parties to this litigation, so the Court cannot properly direct their conduct. And, as discussed, this mail is not improperly sent under DOC policy. For these reasons, the Court should deny the Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
C. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully recommended that Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 56, 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 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 days thereafter in accordance with Local Civil Rule 72.D.2.