IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
May 11, 2012
SUPERINTENDENT KLOPTOSKI, ET AL., DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: (Judge Conner)
AND NOW, this day of 11th day of May, 2012, upon consideration of plaintiff's motion (Doc. 190) for a preliminary injunction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, which is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted, in the Court's discretion, only if a plaintiff demonstrates: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm resulting from the denial of relief; (3) granting the injunction will not result in irreparable harm to the non-moving party; and (4) granting the injunction is in the public interest, Liberty Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 562 F.3d 553, 556 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing McNeil Nutritionals, LLC v. Heartland Sweeteners, LLC, 511 F.3d 350, 356-57 (3d Cir. 2007), and this Court recognizing that because of the intractable problems of prison administration, a request for injunctive relief in the prison context must be viewed with considerable caution, Rush v. Correctional Med. Services, Inc., 287 F. App'x 142, 144 (3d Cir. 2008) (citing Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995)), and it appearing that plaintiff's motion involves the deprivation of legal property by Security Captains Pall and Zakarakis, neither of whom are defendants in this action, and it further appearing that such deprivation of legal property at bears no relation to the action pending*fn1 and, therefore, is an impermissible basis for seeking injunctive relief as the issuance of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm until the court has an opportunity to rule on the merits of the pending lawsuit, Acierno v. New Castle County, 40 F.3d 645, 647 (3d Cir. 1994), it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 190) is DENIED.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge