Opinion
Civil Action No. 18-1596
02-22-2019
DAARON SHEARS, Plaintiff, v. PUSHKALAI PILLAI and ALICIA BERGER, Defendants.
Judge Nora Barry Fischer/Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly Re: ECF No. 14 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons that set forth herein, it is respectfully recommended that the Brief in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 14, be treated as a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and be denied as moot given that Plaintiff has been transferred to a different prison.
II. REPORT
A. Background Facts
Daaron Shears ("Plaintiff") has filed a civil rights action, complaining of his conditions at the State Correctional Institution at Greene ("SCI-Greene"). At the time he initiated this action, on November 28, 2918, Plaintiff was housed at SCI-Greene. Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, ECF No. 9, was granted, ECF No. 12, and the pro se civil rights Complaint was filed. ECF No. 13. In the Complaint, Plaintiff complained of the conditions at SCI-Greene and his treatment or, more accurately, his alleged lack of mental health treatment at the hands of the two named defendants, who apparently were providers of psychiatric treatment at SCI-Greene. As part of the relief that Plaintiff requested, he sought an injunction, requiring the Defendants to, inter alia, permit Plaintiff to "recieve [sic] therapeutic out of cell treatment, ... to participate in mental health care programs for rehabilitation forthwith." ECF No. 14 at 6.
During the pendency of this lawsuit, Plaintiff was transferred to the State Correctional Institution at Forest ("SCI-Forest"), in Marienville, PA. ECF No. 7 (Notice of Change of Address, filed 1/15/2019).
B. Discussion
Plaintiff's transfer out of SCI-Greene to SCI-Forest necessarily moots his request for injunctive relief that he requests against the defendants in this suit. As such, the Motion for Preliminary Injunction should be denied as moot.
As a distinguished jurist on this Court previously explained:
The rule is that where a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against prison officials whose control he is no longer subject to or against a prison he is no longer housed in, there is no longer a live controversy and a court cannot grant that injunctive relief. See Abdul-Akbar v. Watson, 4 F.3d 195, 206 (3d Cir.1993); Fortes v. Harding, 19 F.Supp.2d 323, 326 (M.D.Pa.1998); Marrie v. Nickels, 70 F.Supp.2d 1252, 1259 (D.Kan.1999) ("Generally, an inmate's transfer to another prison or release moots his request for declaratory or injunctive relief.") (collecting cases); Chapdelaine v. Keller, No. 95-CV-1126, 1998 WL 357350, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. April 16, 1998) ("plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at Ray Brook and is no longer housed in a four person cell. He is not subject to any real or imagined 'threats, intimidation, or harassment' by the Ray Brook staff.... Consequently, plaintiff's request for an injunction that restrains Ray Brook officials from violating his civil rights is moot and should be dismissed...."). Hence, the motion for Preliminary Injunction should be denied as moot.Fielder v. Fornelli, CIV.A. 09-881, 2010 WL 3191841, at *1 (W.D. Pa. June 30, 2010), report and recommendation adopted, CIV.A. 09-881, 2010 WL 3186636 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 2010).
In light of the clear law governing this situation, the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 14, should be denied as moot.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth in this Report and Recommendation, it is respectfully recommended that Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction be denied as moot.
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.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Date: February 22, 2019
/s/ Maureen P. Kelly
MAUREEN P. KELLY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE cc: The Honorable Nora Barry Fischer
United States District Judge
DAARON SHEARS
KV1912
SCI FOREST
BOX 945
MARIENVILLE, PA 16239