Opinion
Civil Action 21-660
05-04-2022
MONROE WEEKLEY, III, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL CLARK, Superintendent, SCI Albion; and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondents.
J. Nicholas Ranjan District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Re: ECF No. 105
MAUREEN P. KELLY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons stated below, it is respectfully recommended that the Motion for Temporary Injunction, ECF No. 105, filed by Petitioner Monroe Weekley, III (“Petitioner”), be dismissed without prejudice to refiling as a lawsuit, if appropriate. It is further recommended that, to the extent that one is required, a certificate of appealability be denied.
II. REPORT
Petitioner is a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Albion (“SCI-Albion”) in Albion, Pennsylvania. Petitioner initiated this action by submitting a Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (the “Petition”), which was received by this Court on May 18, 2021. ECF No. 1. On February 22, 2022, Petitioner timely submitted an Amended Petition, which attacks his criminal conviction in the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County, Pennsylvania, at Docket No. CP-04-CR-2162-2011. ECF No. 85 at 1. Respondents have yet to properly answer the Amended Petition. The Answer is due on May 10, 2022. See ECF No. 113.
Currently before this Court is Petitioner's Motion for Temporary Injunction, ECF No. 105. In the motion, Petitioner alleges that certain payments he is required to make pursuant to Pennsylvania's “Act 84” have been calculated, collected, and/or submitted incorrectly by the business office at SCI-Albion. He seeks an injunction enjoining the collection of those payments until the “[p]ayments received by the Beaver County Clerk of Courts Office [] match the payment amount sent by SCI Albion.” ECF No. 105 at 1.
Pennsylvania's so-called “Act 84,” 42 Pa.C.S.A § 9728(b)(5), requires the Department of Corrections to “make monetary deductions of at least 25% of deposits made to inmate wages and personal accounts for the purpose of collecting restitution” and other court costs.
A. A Preliminary Injunction should be Denied.
“[T]he grant of injunctive relief is an ‘extraordinary remedy which should be granted only in limited circumstances.'” AT&T v. Winback & Conserve Program, Inc., 42 F.3d 1421, 1426-27 (3d Cir. 1994) (quoting Frank's GMC Truck Center, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 847 F.2d 100, 102 (3d Cir. 1988)). A party seeking a preliminary injunction must show: “(1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that it will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is denied; (3) that granting preliminary relief will not result in even greater harm to the nonmoving party; and (4) that the public interest favors such relief.” Ball v. Beard, 396 Fed.Appx. 826, 827 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Kos Pharm., Inc. v. Andrx Corp, 369 F.3d 700, 708 (3d Cir. 2004)). “In order to support a preliminary injunction, plaintiff must show both a likelihood of success on the merits and a probability of irreparable harm.” Id. at 90-91.
Here, Petitioner cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits of the injunctive relief that he seeks in the instant motion, because such relief is not cognizable in a habeas petition.
It is well settled that the relief available through a writ of habeas corpus is limited. See, e.g., Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 540 (3d Cir. 2002). “[T]he essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). Section 2254 authorizes a federal court to grant a writ of habeas corpus if a state prisoner demonstrates that “he or she is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).
In contrast, “the monetary component of a sentence is not capable of satisfying the ‘in custody' requirement of federal habeas statutes.” United States v. Ross, 801 F.3d 374, 380 (3d Cir. 2015) (collecting cases); Obado v. New Jersey, 328 F.3d 716, 718 (3d Cir. 2003) (noting that “[t]he payment of restitution or a fine, absent more, is not the sort of ‘significant restraint on liberty' contemplated in the ‘custody' requirement of the federal habeas corpus states.”). Consequently, courts have consistently declined to review claims related to fines, garnishments, and restitutions under the federal habeas statutes because such claims do not challenge a petitioner's confinement. See Stoltzfoos v. Sec'y Penn. Dep't Corrs., 733 F. App'x. 34, 37 n.6 (3d Cir. 2018); Peterson v. Clark, No. 18-58, 2019 WL 1956925, at *1-2 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 27, 2019) (rejecting a petitioner's argument that “fines, restitution and costs” can be challenged in a habeas petition). See also Spada v. Smith, No. 20-CV-298, 2020 WL 8461537, at *1-2 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 18, 2020) (collection of fines under Act 84 not cognizable under habeas) report and recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 428633 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 8, 2021).
The injunctive relief that Petitioner seeks in the instant motion is not available in a federal habeas action. Thus, the motion should be dismissed. Dismissal should be without prejudice to Petitioner filing a lawsuit challenging the Act 84 deductions, if appropriate.
This Court expresses no opinion on the merits of such a lawsuit.
B. A Certificate of Appealability should be Denied.
To the extent that Petitioner would require one, a certificate of appealability should be denied because jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether the present Motion for Temporary Injunction is cognizable as a federal habeas claim. See, e.g., Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (explaining the standard for the grant of a certificate of appealability where a court does not address petition on the merits but on some procedural basis).
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that Petitioner's Motion for Temporary Injunction, ECF No. 105, be dismissed without prejudice to refiling as a lawsuit, if appropriate. To the extent that one is required, a certificate of appealability should 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.