Opinion
2:20-cv-00794-SPB
03-21-2022
CHARLES WILLIAMS, Plaintiff v. THE PA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, JOHN WETZEL, J. S. JOHNSON, MARK CAPOZZA, DEPUTY SUPT. NICKELSON, DEPUTY SUPT. ARMEL, DEBRA HAWKTNBERRY, RHONDA HOUSE, SHELLEY MANKEY, JOSEPH TREMPUS, CAPT. TIFT, LT. FISHER, LT. WOODS, MR. BYERS, MR. RIDDLE, MS. NAGY, MR. KNEPPER, MR. ERICKSON, CARRIE HAWK-LUSTER, CO. 1 MINNIE, CO. 1 BAGAN, NEDRA RICE, DR. JIN, MR. CASPER, MS. KACZMARK, MS. GIBSON, MS. BROWN, MS. SCHWARTZ, CO 1 FETSKO, SGT. KOWALL, Defendants
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER UNITED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ECF NO. 65
RICHARD A. LANZILLO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. Recommendation
For the following reasons, it is respectfully recommended that Plaintiffs motion for a mandatory preliminary injunction at ECF No. 65, be denied as moot.
This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.
II. Report
Plaintiff Charles Williams (Williams) filed a motion seeking "an emergency transfer" from the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections' (DOC) State Correctional Institution at Fayette (SCI-Fayette) where he was incarcerated. ECF No. 65. With this motion on referral for Report and Recommendation pursuant to the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned construed it as a motion for mandatory preliminary injunction and recommended that the motion be denied on February 45 2022. ECF No. 67. Then, on February 22, 2022, Williams filed a notice of change of address which explained that he had been transferred to the State Correctional Institution at Coal Township. ECF No. 69. Williams filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 73. Defendant Dr. Jin's response in opposition to those objections argued that Williams' motion for a transfer had become moot. ECF No. 76.
Based upon Williams' subsequent transfer from SCI-Fayette to SCI-Coal Township, the undersigned hereby vacates the Report and Recommendation at ECF No. 67 and respectfully recommends that the Court deny Williams' motion for mandatory preliminary injunction as moot. See Miller v. Hartwell, 834 Fed.Appx. 692, 694 (3d Cir. 2020) (citing Sutton v. Rasheed, 323 F.3d 236, 248 (3d Cir. 2003) ("An inmate's transfer from the facility complained of generally moots the equitable and declaratory claims.")).
Williams' motion also sought an order that DOC staff transport his property from SCI-Fayette to his new institution "free of charge." ECF No. 65, p. 2. Williams' objections to the first report and recommendation were filed after his transfer and did not mention the transfer of his property. See ECF No. 73. To the extent this request is not mooted by his subsequent prison transfer, Williams has not shown that he "will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is denied," Kos Pharms., Inc. v. Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700, 708 (3d Cir. 2004), because such harm is speculative, and he has an adequate remedy at law to compensate the cost to him, if any, of transporting his property. See Campbell Soup Co. v. ConAgra, Inc., 977 F.2d 86, 91 (3d Cir. 1992) (irreparable harm does not include that which may occur "only in the indefinite future."); Adams v. Freedom Forge Corp., 204 F.3d 475, 485 (3d Cir. 2000) (purely economic harms are generally not irreparable harm unless there is "something uniquely threatening about the particular loss of money.").
III. Notice
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, any party 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 constitute a waiver of 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).