From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Whitenight v. Wetzel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Dec 14, 2017
Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-1864 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 14, 2017)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-1864

12-14-2017

SHAWN WHITENIGHT, Plaintiff, v. JOHN WETZEL, et al., Defendants.


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

All parties who have been served have consented to jurisdiction before a United States Magistrate Judge; therefore, the Court has the authority to decide dispositive motions, and to eventually enter final judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 636, et seq. See ECF Nos. 57, 101, 105, 113, 165, 168, 170, and 185. The only parties who have not been served are John / Jane Doe defendants. --------

At the time Plaintiff filed his request for injunctive relief, ECF No. 20, he was a prisoner at SCI-Greene. In his motion, Plaintiff seeks an order directing Defendants to provide a medically appropriate course of medical treatment for his back problems. In particular, Plaintiff wants an examination by a qualified neurosurgeon-specialist.

Since filing the motion, Plaintiff has been released and is apparently residing in a private residence in Berwick, PA. Defendants Norris, Wetzel, R. Clites, Dr. Herbik, Dr. Jin, Dr. Alpert, Raj Mahli, Dr. Park, Ester Mattes, Elan Mwaura and Correct Care Solutions, Inc., have responded to the motion arguing that Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief are moot. (ECF No. 155, 160). Plaintiff filed a reply in which he argues that he has obtained a medical card / health insurance through the Commonwealth Access system, and that the Commonwealth Access system should not be liable for Defendants' "wanton actions and medical treatment denials . . . ." (ECF No. 187).

After consideration of the parties' submissions, the Court finds that because Plaintiff has been released from DOC custody, his claims for injunctive relief are, in fact, moot. The rule is that where a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief for prison conditions that he is no longer subject to, 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). Hence, the injunctive relief claims should be dismissed against all of the Defendants.

An appropriate Order follows.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 14th day of December, 2017, it is hereby ORDERED, ADUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Injunction is DENIED as moot and the injunctive relief claims are dismissed against all of the Defendants.

s/Cynthia Reed Eddy

Cynthia Reed Eddy

United States Magistrate Judge cc: SHAWN WHITENIGHT

182 Evansville Road

Berwick, PA 18603

(via U.S. First Class Mail)

All counsel of record

(via ECF electronic notification)


Summaries of

Whitenight v. Wetzel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Dec 14, 2017
Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-1864 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 14, 2017)
Case details for

Whitenight v. Wetzel

Case Details

Full title:SHAWN WHITENIGHT, Plaintiff, v. JOHN WETZEL, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Dec 14, 2017

Citations

Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-1864 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 14, 2017)