Opinion
1:23-CV-00092-SPB-RAL
04-15-2024
JHEN SCUTELLA, Plaintiff v. ERIE COUNTY PRISON, MIKEY HOLMAN, D.W., DEPUTY BRYANT, COUNSELOR MARTIN, Defendants
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER, United States District Judge.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ECF NO. 5
RICHARD A. LANZILLO, Chief United States Magistrate Judge.
I. Recommendation
It is respectfully recommended that Plaintiff Jhen Scutella's motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 5) be DENIED as moot.
II. Report
Plaintiff Jhen Scutella initiated this pro se civil rights action against the Erie County Prison (“ECP”), Deputy Warden Holman, Deputy Warden Bryant, and Counselor Martin on March 27, 2023, when he was a pre-trial detainee at ECP. See ECF No. 8. Scutella subsequently moved for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and preliminary injunction asking the Court to enjoin ECP from violating inmates' constitutional and state rights. See ECF Nos. 5, 6. For the reasons stated in the undersigned's Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on Scutella's motion (ECF No. 9), the Court denied Scutella's request for a TRO and dismissed his request for a preliminary injunction without prejudice pending service of his Complaint and motion on the Defendants. See ECF Nos. 9, 14, 26. The Defendants have now been served and counsel has entered an appearance on their behalf. See ECF Nos. 28, 29. Accordingly, Scutella's motion (ECF No. 5) for preliminary injunction has been re-activated.
Scutella's motion for injunctive relief is based on certain conditions of his pre-trial detention at ECP. For relief, Scutella seeks, inter alia, an injunction directing the ECP to stop “violating the rights of [Scutella] and any other inmates by subjecting them to not being able to exercise, shower, or contact their families and at least afford inmates an hour out of the cell a day.” ECF No. 8, ¶ 21. However, in a motion Scutella filed on February 27, 2024, he informed the Court that he is no longer detained at the ECP. See ECF No. 37, ¶¶ 1,2. In fact, Scutella's notices of change of address reflect that he has been at liberty since January 2024. See ECF Nos. 25, 27, 32. This fact renders moot any request by Scutella for injunctive relief based on conditions or restrictions at the ECP.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully recommended that Scutella's motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 5) be DENIED as MOOT.
IV. Notice
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, the parties may seek review by the district court by filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Any party opposing the objections shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of objections to respond thereto. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file timely objections may waive appellate rights. See Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 194 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011); Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2007).