United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
June 25, 2015
DANIEL ARTHUR HELEVA, Petitioner,
WARDEN MRS. M. BROOKS, and PA STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondents.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER, Chief District Judge.
AND NOW, this 25th day of June, 2015, upon consideration of petitioner's motion (Doc. 67) for a preliminary injunction, in which he seeks an order preventing respondents from interfering with his ability to exhaust state court remedies,  and the Third Circuit Court having stated that a preliminary injunction is an "extraordinary remedy" that should issue in only limited circumstances, see Rawls v. Pa. Dep't of Corr., 334 F.Appx. 462, 464 (3d Cir. 2009), and that the court must consider (1) the likelihood that the movant will prevail on the merits, (2) the extent to which the movant is being irreparably harmed by the conduct complained, (3) the extent to which the non-moving party will suffer irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction is issued, and (4) whether granting preliminary injunctive relief will be in the public interest, see S&R Corp. v. Jiffy Lube Int'l, Inc., 968 F.2d 371, 374 (3d Cir. 1992), and it appearing that petitioner failed to establish that he is entitled to an injunction requesting the relief sought,  it is hereby ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 67) is DENIED.