United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
B. MILLER a/k/a/ STRANDON MILLER, Plaintiff
C.O. S.L. HOLT, et al ., Defendants
MALACHY E. MANNION United States District Judge
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 proceeds
on an amended complaint filed by Plaintiff B. Miller on
October 7, 2016. (Doc. 25.) Miller is currently incarcerated
at the State Correctional Institution at Frackville
(SCI-Frackville), Pennsylvania. Named as defendants in the
amended complaint are the following correctional officers at
SCI-Frackville: S.L. Holt, R.E. Lynn, S.P. Allen, and S.M.
Holezman. Plaintiff appears to allege that Defendants Lynn,
Allen and Holezman took his tablet from him for no reason
when he was coming in from the exercise yard on September 20,
2016. He claims that this was done pursuant to the order of
Defendant Holt in retaliation for suing Holt.
October 27, 2016, Defendant Holt filed a motion to dismiss
or, in the alternative, for summary judgment with respect to
the claims set forth against him in the amended complaint.
(Doc. 26.) The motion is based on Plaintiff's failure to
exhaust the claims set forth in the complaint. In support of
the motion, Holt has also filed a brief and the unsworn
declaration of Jennifer Newberry, Assistant to the
Superintendent at SCI-Frackville. (Docs. 31, 32.) Plaintiff
has failed to oppose this motion. In addition, although
waiver of service documents and the amended complaint were
mailed to the other three (3) defendants, they have not
acknowledged service or responded to the amended complaint.
before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive
Relief. (Doc. 35.) Plaintiff's filing has been construed
to be both his motion and his brief. (Doc. 38.) Plaintiff
requests that he immediately be placed in the general
population because Officers Downs and Reese are denying him
privileges in retaliation for exercising his constitutional
rights. In support of his argument, he cites generally to
Smith v. Mensinger, 293 F.3d 641 (3d Cir. 1999) and
Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523 (3d Cir. 2003).
Plaintiff further alleges that his allegations are proven by
a misconduct that was issued against him.
Injunctive Relief Standard
clear that Plaintiff fails to qualify for injunctive relief.
It is well established that preliminary injunctive relief is
extraordinary in nature and is granted only in the most
limited of circumstances. American Tel. and Tel. Co. v.
Winback and Conserve Program, Inc., 42 F.3d 1421,
1426-27 (3d Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 514
U.S. 1103 (1995). 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
determining whether to grant a motion seeking preliminary
injunctive relief, courts in the Third Circuit consider the
following four factors:
(1) likelihood of success on the merits;
(2) irreparable harm resulting from a denial of relief;
(3) the harm to the non-moving party if relief is granted;
(4) the public interest.
Meekins v. Beard, No. 3:06-CV-290, 2008 WL 474250 *2
(M.D. Pa. Feb. 20, 2008) citing United States v.
Bell, 238 F.Supp.2d 696, 699 (M.D. Pa. 2003). It is the
moving party that bears the burden of satisfying these
the most important prerequisite for the issuance of a
preliminary injunction is a demonstration that if it is not
granted, the applicant is likely to suffer irreparable harm
before a decision on the merits can be rendered. See
Continental Group, Inc., v. Amoco Chems. Corp., 614 F.2d
351, 356 (3d Cir. 1980). Irreparable injury is
“potential harm which cannot be redressed by a legal or
equitable remedy following a trial.” Instant Air
Freight Co. v. C.F. Air Freight, Inc., 882 F.2d 797, 801
(3d Cir. 1989). A court may not grant preliminary injunctive
relief unless “[t]he preliminary injunction [is] the
only way of protecting the plaintiff from harm.”
Id. The relevant inquiry is whether the party moving
for the injunctive relief is in danger of suffering the
irreparable harm at the time the preliminary injunctive
relief is to be issued. Id. Speculative injury does
not constitute a showing of irreparable harm.
Continental, 614 F.2d at 359; see also Public
Serv. Co. v. West Newbury, 835 F.2d 380, 383
(1st Cir. 1987). “The possibility that
adequate compensatory or other corrective relief will be
available at a later date, in the ordinary course of
litigation, weights heavily against a claim of irreparable
harm.” Instant Air Freight, 882 F.2d at 801
(quoting Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 90 (1964)).
“[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).