United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Daniel A. Kloss, Plaintiff,
SCI Albion/PA D.O.C., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is the Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) of the Honorable Susan Paradise
Baxter, United States Magistrate Judge, recommending that the
Court deny Plaintiff's most recent motions (ECF Nos. 207,
210 and 227). (ECF No. 232). Plaintiff timely filed
objections to the R&R. (ECF Nos. 235, 236, 237). Having
reviewed the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff's
objections thereto, the record of the case, and the relevant
law, the Court HEREBY ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation
and DENIES Plaintiff's three motions.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Daniel A. Kloss, an inmate incarcerated at the State
Correctional Institution in Albion, Pennsylvania, filed a
pro se complaint on November 23, 2015, alleging
sexual harassment, denial of medical treatment, violation of
his First Amendment “Right for Religion, ” and
violations of the “Federal Disability Act.” (ECF
No. 1 (Compl. at ¶ 4)). In addition, he requests that he
be “placed back in the same cell and unit as [inmate]
Jamie Butler.” (ECF No. 1 (Compl. at ¶ 6)). In
Plaintiff's Proposed Amended Complaint, Plaintiff
reiterates several issues, and raises new ones. Among other
things, Plaintiff alleges violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”), unsafe prison
conditions on housing units, procrastination and refusal of
medical care, harassment, unwanted and unwarranted pain, and
deliberate medical indifference. (ECF No. 86).
the motions currently before the court, Plaintiff has filed
approximately twenty-five motions that have been titled or
construed as motions for preliminary injunctions. (ECF Nos.
10, 42, 49, 50, 51, 53, 55, 58, 67, 79, 108, 109, 126, 130,
135, 136, 146, 158, 162, 165. 174, 179, 207, 210 and 227).
The Court will discuss the motions addressed in the June 29,
2017 R&R. (ECF No. 232).
5, 2017, Plaintiff filed a document titled “emergency
injunction with phone hearing for wheelchair to be put back,
” requesting an order requiring the new Medical Doctor
at SCI-Albion, Dr. Halligan, to return Plaintiff's
wheelchair. (ECF No. 207). Defendants filed a response
stating Dr. Halligan removed Plaintiff's wheelchair
because it was found that Plaintiff's strength was good
and that he was able to ambulate with a cane. (ECF No. 214).
Defendants argue Dr. Halligan's professional opinion
concluded Plaintiff's wheelchair was not medically
necessary. Notably, Dr. Halligan is not a named Defendant. In
Plaintiff's objections, he claims he purchased the
wheelchair himself and that he cannot use only a cane when
walking long distances. (ECF No. 235). Plaintiff's
objections seek to have the wheelchair returned, in which he
asks the court to “confirm the wheelchair is mine and
it belongs to me.”
June 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed a “motion for change of
venue out of Erie District.” (ECF No. 210). Plaintiff
requests that his case be moved to another district and
reassigned to a new judge. Specifically, Plaintiff is looking
for a court that may provide him with more favorable
treatment and suggests his case be reassigned to Judge Rambo
in the Middle District of Pennsylvania because she is
“hard on jails.” Defendants filed a response,
maintaining that venue is proper. (ECF No. 213). Defendants
further point to Plaintiff's obvious attempt to
“judge shop, ” which Defendants believe is based
on the fact the Court has denied many of Plaintiff's
motions. In Plaintiff's objections, he largely restates
his narrative of reasons why he believes there should be a
change in venue. (ECF No. 236). Plaintiff's objections
further assert frivolous accusations claiming that “any
court would recuse him or herself if they had inside
information.” Plaintiff maintains a wish to change
venues and in addition asks the Court to transfer Lt.
Cleveland to another prison to avoid issues.
on June 26, 2017, Plaintiff filed a “motion for phone
hearing for return of private owned wheelchair & basic
air in the infirmary to be working in rooms for my health and
safety.” (ECF No. 227). In his motion, Plaintiff
requests his wheelchair be returned because he has fallen.
Additionally, Plaintiff objects to his week in the infirmary
and complains of the lack of air conditioning. Plaintiff
again raises American's with Disabilities Act, further
alleging that SCI-Albion's healthcare administrators are
“committing deliberate indifference under the Eighth
Amendment” by causing harm to Plaintiff when his
wheelchair was removed. In his objections, Plaintiff
continues to grieve about the air conditioning and his time
in the infirmary. (ECF No. 237).
on June, 292017, Magistrate Judge Baxter issued the R&R,
recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff's three
motions because Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of
showing either immediate irreparable injury or a likelihood
of success on the merits. (ECF No. 232). The R&R suggests
that Plaintiff's disagreements with Defendants'
medical judgment and care are not actionable and concludes
the Court will not override the professional judgment of
medical practitioners charged with the Plaintiff's care.
Magistrate Judge Baxter further states Plaintiff's
“motion for change of venue” is “merely a
thinly-veiled request for recusal, ” without any legal
justification. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the
R&R. (ECF No. 235, 236, 237). In addition to
Plaintiff's objections noted above, Plaintiff continues
to be redundant in his narrative of grievances regarding his
medical care and confinement.
Standard of Review
issuance of a preliminary injunction is a matter of
discretion for the Court that must be reviewed in light of
the equitable standards governing the issuance of
injunctions. Intel Corp. v. ULSI Sys. Tech., Inc.,
995 F.2d 1566, 1586 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In determining whether
a movant has a right to preliminary injunctive relief, four
factors must be shown: (1) a likelihood of success on the
merits; (2) whether the movant will suffer irreparable harm
if the injunction is denied; (3) whether granting relief will
cause greater harm to the nonmoving party; and (4) whether
the public interest favors such relief. Bimbo Bakeries
USA, Inc. v. Botticello, 613 F.3d 102, 109 (3d Cir.
2010) (citing Miller v. Mitchell, 598 F.3d 139, 147
(3d Cir. 2010)). If the record does not support a finding of
both irreparable injury and a likelihood of success on the
merits, then preliminary injunctive relief cannot be granted.
Marxe v. Jackson, 833 F.2d 1121, 1123 (3d Cir.
Third Circuit “has placed particular weight on the
probability of irreparable harm and the likelihood of success
on the merits.” Ortho Biotech Prods., L.P. v. Amgen
Inc., No. 05-4850, 2006 WL 3392939, at *5 (D.J.N. Nov.
21, 2006) (quoting Appollo Tech. Corp. v. Centrosphere
Indus. Corp., 805 F.Supp. 1157, 1205 (D.N.J. 1992)). In
fact, irreparable injury is most significant and must be
present for a court to ...