United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
RICHARD CAPUTO United States District Judge
before the Court is Daryl Charles Ali's
“Complaint” and ex parte Motion for a Temporary
Restraining Order (TRO) and Preliminary Injunction. (ECF Nos.
1 and 8.) Plaintiff is incarcerated at FCI Allenwood. He
claims that in “the latter part of May and June II,
2017, [he] was sexually assaulted by his roomate(sic)”.
(ECF No. 1.) He names no defendants in his
“Complaint.” In both his Complaint and TRO, Mr.
Ali seeks his immediate transfer to another facility because
he no longer feels safe at FCI Allenwood, is dissatisfied
with the lack of counseling offered to him as a victim of
sexual assault, and does not wish to “be faced with
retaliation from staff members at FCI Allenwood” for
filing this lawsuit. (ECF No. 9.)
reasons that follow, Plaintiff's motion for injunctive
relief will be denied and he will be required to file a
Complaint which complies with the requirements of
“the latter part of May and June 11, 2017, [Mr. Ali]
was sexually assaulted by [his] roomate (sic) Wade
Kilgore.” (ECF No. 1.) While asleep in his cell, Mr.
Ali was awoken by Kilgore who attempted to force him to
perform fellatio. When Mr. Ali refused and resisted, Kilgore
went to sleep in his bunk. Mr. Ali tried to report the
attempted sexual assault to the psychology department
numerous times without success by advising staff he
“needed to discuss a personal problem”.
(Id., p. 2.) He was told there was no one to see him
that day “because the person on duty was only an
intern.” (Id.) He sent an electronic request
to speak with a psychologist and a request to the warden of
the facility “requesting his assistance in setting up
an appointment with the psychology department.” Neither
the warden or the psychology department replied to his
request as of June 16, 2017. (Id.) However, he was
later told that he was scheduled to see someone in the
psychology department but that he failed to appear for his
second attempted assault occurred the evening of June 11,
2017. On that date Kilgore attempted to rape Mr. Ali. The
following morning, when his celldoor was unlocked, Mr. Ali
went to the counselor's office and demanded a room
change. The counselor granted his request that day.
(Id., pp. 1 - 2.)
states he reported “the sexual assault via trulincs to
O.I.G.” (Id., p. 3.) Plaintiff does not know
why he was placed in the institution's Special Housing
Unit (SHU) following his report of these events. He fears
that FCI Allenwood staff will retaliate against him and
attempt to cover up the events “to offset [their]
liability with P.R.E.A. or any outside investigative
departments.” (Id. and ECF No. 9, p. 3.) He
seeks an immediate transfer to another facility.
Mr. Ali must file a Proper Complaint
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 3, “a civil action is commenced by
filing a complaint with the court.” The Complaint must
contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Mr. Ali's “Pro Se Motion for
Injunctive Relief against ALL Staff at FCI Allenwood and
Immediate Relocation within Bureau of Prisons” violates
both rules. It is not a complaint; it is a five page
letter-motion describing his encounter with his former
cellmate and his attempts to contact the mental health
professionals at the facility following the event. It is
completely devoid of reference to any specific individual
defendant. In its present form he fails to set forth a claim
against a single individual. Mr. Ali will therefore be
required to file a complaint, labeled as such, and one that
complies with Rule 8(a)(2).
Mr. Ali's Motion for TRO will Be Denied.
Rules of Civil Procedure 65 governs the grant or denial of
TROs. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has outlined four
factors to consider: (1) whether the movant has shown a
reasonable probability of success on the merits; (2) whether
the movant will be irreparably injured by denial of the
relief; (3) whether granting preliminary relief will result
in even greater harm to the nonmoving party; and (4) whether
granting the prelminary relief will be inthe public interest.
Crissman v. Dover Downs Entm't Inc., 239 F.3d
357, 364 (3d Cir. 2001); see Bieros v. Nicola, 857
F.Supp. 445, 446 (E.D. Pa. 1994). The granting of a TRO is
extraordinary in nature, and such relief should only be
granted in limited circumstances. A.T. & T. Co. V.
Winback & Conserve Program, Inc., 42 F.3d
1421, 1426 - 27 (3d Cir. 1994). “In the prison context,
requests for injunctive relief must always be viewed with
great caution because judicial restraint is especially called
for in dealing with complex and intractable problems of
prison administration.” Sanders v. Beard, No.
3:09-CV-1384, 2010 WL 2853113, at *1 (M.D. Pa. July 20,
has failed to demonstrate that either an ex parte TRO or a
preliminary injunction is warranted. Specifically, Mr. Ali
does not allege any instance of retaliation, intimidation, or
any other threat to his safety from staff or other inmates
since July 12, 2017, when he was provided new housing.
Likewise, the fact that he is housed in the institution's
SHU following the report and during the investigation of his
allegations of sexual assault is not unusual. Accordingly,
Mr. Ali's motion fails to set forth facts clearly
demonstrating that immediate irreparable injury ...