IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
July 9, 2009
GARY PHILLIP EVANS, PLAINTIFF
YORK COUNTY ADULT PROBATION & PAROLE DEPARTMENT, ET AL., DEFENDANT
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner
AND NOW, this 9th day of July, 2009, upon consideration of plaintiff's motion (Doc. 2) for preliminary injunction, which seeks to enjoin defendants from enforcing various conditions of plaintiff's parole, and wherein plaintiff asserts that his term of parole was suspended pending appeal of a criminal conviction,*fn1 that defendants nonetheless ordered him to continue adhering to the conditions of his parole,*fn2 and that he fears re-arrest should he deviate from those conditions, and it appearing that defendants aver that plaintiff is no longer under their supervision, (see Doc. 8 at 2-3; see also id., Ex. 8), that their attempts to supervise plaintiff ceased when defendants received notice of plaintiff's pending appeal, (see id. at 3), and that "the Motion for Preliminary Injunction [therefore] seek[s] to enjoin alleged behaviors and actions that the Defendants have not engaged in since April of 2009," (id.), and it further appearing that the extent to which plaintiff remains under defendants' supervision and possesses a legitimate fear of re-arrest is a matter in factual dispute, and that plaintiff has neglected to submit affidavits, verified pleadings, or other written evidence upon which the court could resolve this dispute,*fn3 see, e.g., Elliott v. Kiesewetter, 98 F.3d 47, 53-54 (3d Cir. 1996) (stating that entry of a preliminary injunction "'may be based on affidavits and other documentary evidence if the facts are undisputed and the relevant factual issues are resolved'" (emphasis in original) (quoting Bradley v. Pittsburgh Bd. of Educ., 910 F.2d 1172, 1175-76 (3d Cir. 1990))); Williams v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 681 F.2d 161, 163 (3d Cir. 1982) (same); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 52(a)(2) (requiring court to make findings of fact "[i]n granting or refusing an interlocutory injunction"); 11A CHARLES A. WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2949, at 222 (2d ed. 1995) ("Accordingly, a motion for a preliminary injunction supported only by written evidence usually will be denied when the facts are in dispute."), it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's motion (Doc. 2) for preliminary injunction is DENIED without prejudice.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge