Opinion
2:21-cv-000267
04-05-2022
BRIAN JOSEPH STOLTIE, Plaintiff, v. GINA CERILLI, JOHN R. WALTON, GEORGE LOWTHER, ERIC SWARTZ, STEVEN M. PELESKY, DAYTON WOLFE, MR. TRAN, MATTHEW SPRINGER, THOMAS KEMERER, MR. FAGAN, MR. MARTIN, MR. PALMER, MR. CORUSO, CHRISTOPHER DEMOREST, MARK GIAQUINTO, JEFFREY LONG, RICHARD JACK, CHAD BLACK, MR. LOCKWICH, NIKKI CRAMER, COUNTY OF WESTMORELAND, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
PATRICIA L. DODGE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. Recommendation
It is respectfully recommended that the Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiff, Brian Joseph Stoltie, (ECF No. 33) be DENIED as moot.
II. Report
Brian Joseph Stoltie (“Stoltie”), proceeding pro se, commenced this case in April of 2021 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his civil rights under the First, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. In Stoltie's eight-count Complaint he brings numerous claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pertaining to the conditions of his confinement at the Westmoreland County Prison (“WCP”) from April 28, 2020, through approximately December 2020. Plaintiff names various WCP employees and persons affiliated with WCP as defendants in the case.
Stoltie subsequently filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 33) on December 23, 2021. In his motion, Stoltie asserts that after he filed this lawsuit, unidentified individuals at the WCP have retaliated against him by “forc[ing] him to work a medically inappropriate work assignment” and placing him in disciplinary confinement for an alleged “non-existent rule violation.” Id. at 1-2. During this disciplinary confinement, he contends, he has been denied “meaningful” access to the law library and a previously approved legal book, his personal property has been confiscated, and he has been denied access to grievances. See id. at 2. As relief, Stoltie seeks an order directing the unidentified jail officials or employees to cease their alleged retaliatory conduct and provide plaintiff with access to the law library and his legal book. See id.
On January 12, 2022, a Report and Recommendation was issued recommending that Stoltie's motion for preliminary injunction be denied (ECF No. 34). In an Order issued on February 3, 2022 (ECF No. 46), the Court vacated its Report and Recommendation because Stoltie was granted leave to file a Supplemental Complaint. Stoltie's Supplemental Complaint (ECF No. 50) was filed on February 11, 2022.
On March 23, 2022, a Case Management Order setting various deadlines was issued and mailed to Stoltie at his address at WCP. This order was returned to the Court on April 4, 2022, as undeliverable with “no forwarding address” because Stoltie was no longer housed at WCP. The Court takes judicial notice that Stoltie was sentenced on March 11, 2022. It has also confirmed that he is no longer a pre-trial detainee held at WCP because was transferred to SCI-Smithfield.
Stoltie did not advise the court of his address change. In a Notice mailed to him on April 4, 2022 (ECF No.63), Stoltie was reminded that he must keep the court advised of his current address at all times throughout this litigation and was ordered to notify the court in writing as to all address changes, including temporary transfers to another jail, prison, or other facility. The failure to keep his address current in the future may result in the dismissal of this case if the court or Defendants are unable to serve him with orders, pleadings and other documents related to this case.
All of the matters that were the subject of Stoltie's preliminary injunction motion are expressly related to alleged retaliatory conduct by unidentified individuals at WCP after Stoltie commenced this action. Because Stoltie is no longer detained at WCP, he can no longer be subjected to the alleged conduct that forms the basis for his motion for injunctive relief. Accordingly, his motion for preliminary injunction is moot and should be denied. See, e.g., Sutton v. Rasheed, 323 F.3d 236, 248-50 (3d Cir. 2003) (injunction claims are generally moot when an inmate is transferred from the facility in which his injunctive claims arose) (citing Abdul-Akbar v. Watson, 4 F.3d 195, 206 (3d Cir. 1993))
III. Conclusion
For these reasons, it is respectfully recommended that Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 33) be DENIED as moot.
Although Stoltie has not updated his address of record, the Court will mail this Report and Recommendation to him at SCI-Smithfield because it appears that he is now housed at that facility.
In accordance with the applicable provisions of the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)&(C), and Rule 72.D.2 of the Local Rules of Court, the parties have fourteen (14) days from the date of the service of this Report and Recommendation to file written objections thereto. The failure to file timely objections will constitute a waiver of the right of appeal.