United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Kane United States District Judge
12, 2016, Plaintiff Daaron Shears, an inmate at the State
Correctional Institution at Frackville, Pennsylvania
(“SCI-Frackville”), filed a complaint under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against two correctional officers and a
registered nurse employed at SCI-Frackville. (Doc. No. 1.)
Shears claims the correctional officers, Carter and
Chehovich, improperly required him to strip search, used
excessive force and sexually assaulted him. (Id.) He
also claims that the registered nurse, Kathleen Shorts,
failed to provide him with medical care. (Id.)
Shears requests declaratory and injunctive relief and
compensatory and punitive damages. Id.
with the complaint Shears filed a motion to proceed in
forma pauperis and an authorization to have funds
deducted from his prison trust fund account to pay the filing
fee in installments. On July 15, 2016, Shears filed a motion
for a temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction.
(Doc. No. 9.) By order of July 18, 2016, the court directed
that the complaint be served on Defendants named therein.
(Doc. No. 10.) On August 2, 2016, Defendants waived service
of the complaint. (Doc. No. 14.) On August 25, 2016, Shears
filed a second motion for a temporary restraining order.
(Doc. No. 19) On September 9, 2016, the court issued an order
(Doc. No. 33) deeming Shears' first motion for temporary
restraining order (Doc. No. 9) withdrawn for failing to file
a supporting brief. An answer to the complaint was filed by
Defendants on September 19, 2016. (Doc. No. 34.) The purpose
of this order is to address the second motion for a temporary
restraining order. For the reasons set forth below the court
will deny the motion without prejudice.
document which Shears filed was designated by him as a
“Temporary Restraining Order” and docketed by the
Clerk as a motion for temporary restraining order. (Doc. No.
19.) The motion consists of one page and states as follows,
including the grammatical and spelling errors:
[It is further ordered] that effective immediately, and
pending the hearing and determination of this order to show
cause, the Defendants [correctional officers (CO) John
Carter, Correctional Officer (CO) Clint Chehovich, Registered
Nurse (RN) Kathleen Shorts, SCI Frackville Medical Department
and the Frackville PRC Treatment Team of the BMU Program.]
1. John Carter & Clint Chehovich area friends in there
Town locally & Carter has Officer Clint Chehovich taking
fruit & food off of my trays at dinner time to were as
though Chehovich also tells me Carter said how do my nutts
feel. Please stop this problem.
2. Clint Chehovich calls me rapist telling me we don't
believe your innocent that's why you don't deserve
testicals and penis “Fuck Boy”.. Chehovich also
has a relationship the deputy & major which the PRC
treatment team and they threaten to throw away all my legal
work depriving me from law work calling me
3. I've been having an allergic reaction to dairy
products & I have to begg for medical assistants when im
breaking out in hives and swelling up and they take my money
for sick calls don't treat me with medication telling me
I shouldn't have told on Carter, Chehovich & Kathleen
Shorts which works for SCI Frackville Medical Department...
4. Medical is also playing with my seizure dose which caused
me to go into shock on 8-4-16....
5. I need a safer environment until the outcome of this
serious matter because I cant take what they're doing or
ill committ suicide Please?
(Id.) At the end of the page was a signature and
date line under which was handwritten “United States
District Judge.” (Id.) It would appear based
on paragraph 5 that Shears is requesting as relief an order
directing that he be separated from the defendants and
transferred to another prison.
standard for deciding a motion for a temporary restraining
order is the same as the test for ruling on a motion for a
preliminary injunction. Bieros v. Nicola, 857
F.Supp. 445, 446 (E.D. Pa. 1994). Preliminary injunctive
relief is extraordinary in nature, and is discretionary with
the trial judge. Orson, Inc. v. Miramax Film Corp.,
836 F.Supp. 309, 311 (E.D. Pa. 1993) (citing Skehan v.
Board of Trustees of Bloomsburg State College, 353
F.Supp. 542 (M.D. Pa. 1973)). In determining whether to grant
a motion seeking preliminary injunctive relief, courts in the
Third Circuit consider the following four factors: (1) the
likelihood that the applicant 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.
S & R Corp. v. Jiffy Lube Int'l, Inc., 968
F.2d 371, 374 (3d Cir. 1992) (citing Hoxworth v. Blinder,
Robinson & Co., 903 F.2d 186, 197-98 (3d Cir.
1990)); Instant Air Freight v. C.F. Air Freight,
Inc., 882 F.2d 797, 800 (3d ...