The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner
Presently before the court is plaintiff Joseph A. Elliott, Sr.'s ("Elliott") motion for a temporary restraining order. (Doc. 73). For the reasons that follow, the motion will be denied.
Elliott contends that he was transferred from the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill to the State Correctional Institution at Greene without all of his personal property.*fn1 (Doc. 73). He seeks to have his personal property returned.
In determining whether to grant a motion seeking preliminary injunctive relief, the court must evaluate four factors: (1) the likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm resulting from a denial of the relief; (3) the harm to the non-moving party if relief is granted; and (4) the public interest. United States v. Bell, Civil No. 1: CV-01-2159, 2003 WL 102610, *2 (M. D. Pa. January 10, 2003)( J. Conner)( internal citations omitted). "[A] failure to show a likelihood of success or a failure to demonstrate irreparable injury must necessarily result in the denial of a preliminary injunction." In Re Arthur Treacher's Franchise Litigation, 689 F.2d 1137, 1143 (3d Cir. 1982). It is the moving party that bears the burden of satisfying these factors. Bell, 2003 WL 102610 at *2.
Preliminary injunctive relief is extraordinary in nature and should issue in only limited circumstances. See American Tel. And Tel. Co. v. Winback and Conserve Program, Inc., 42 F. 3d 1421, 1426-27 (3d Cir. 1994). Moreover, issuance of such relief is at the discretion of the trial judge. Orson, Inc. v. Miramax Film Corp., 836 F. Supp. 309, 311 (E. D. Pa. 1993).
"In the prison context, requests for injunctive relief must always be viewed with great caution because judicial restraint is especially called for in dealing with the complex and intractable problems of prison administration. . . . Further where a plaintiff requests injunctive relief that would require the court to interfere with the administration of a state prison, the court must consider the principles of federalism in determining the availability and scope of equitable relief." Riley v. Snyder, 72 F.Supp.2d 456, 459 (D.Del.1999).
A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
In order to prevail on a §1983 claim, Elliott must establish that:
(1) the alleged wrongful conduct was committed by a person acting under color of state law, and
(2) the conduct deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Nicini v. Morra, 212 F.3d 798, 806 (3d Cir. 2000); Schiazza v. Zoning Hearing Bd., 168 F.Supp.2d 361, 372 (M.D.Pa. 2001).
The loss of personal property at the hands of a state actor does not constitute a constitutional violation if a meaningful post-deprivation remedy is available. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). Pennsylvania tort law offers a remedy for a prison official's unlawful deprivation of an inmate's property. See 42 PA. CONS. STAT. ANN. §8522(b); See Hicks v. Feeney, 770 F.2d 375, 378 (3d Cir. 1985); Payton v. Horn, 49 F. Supp 2d 791, 795 (E.D. Pa. 1999); Austin v. Lehman, 893 F. Supp. 448, 454 (E.D. Pa., ...