Opinion
3:22-cv-52-KAP
01-03-2024
EARNEST SCOTT, Jr., Plaintiff v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants
MEMORANDUM ORDER
KEITH A. PESTO,, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, having filed a motion to compel and a motion for reconsideration, is now filing repetitive motions under different titles. The motion for sanctions at ECF no. 79 and the motion to compel at ECF no. 84 are denied.
The motion styled as a motion for temporary restraining order at ECF no. 81 is denied. Without repeating the legal citations already offered several times to plaintiff, preliminary injunctive relief is for the purpose of providing interim relief to make sure the relief ultimately sought in the underlying case is not rendered unattainable. A TRO is not for the purpose of bypassing the Prison Litigation Reform Act and bringing new claims. Further, plaintiff's several complaints in this court allege daily violations of his civil rights at S.C.I. Houtzdale. Yet the only concrete injunctive relief requested in the motion is an order to the DOC not to transfer plaintiff from Houtzdale. That relief is not necessary to prevent irreparable injury to plaintiff. Plaintiff's attempt to claim irreparable injury by threatening to become homicidal or suicidal if his demands are not met is rejected as a naked attempt at blackmail.