Lewis v. Frayne et al
RULING denying 4 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 3/5/2013. (Lewis, D)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
PRISONER CASE NO.
DR. MARK FRAYNE, et al.,
MARCH 5, 2013
RULING ON MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
On July 20, 2012, the plaintiff, Kacey Lewis, incarcerated and pro se, filed a
Complaint pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Drs. Mark Frayne, Robert Berger and
Gerard Gagne. Pending before the court is the plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief.
The plaintiff states that during his confinement at Northern Correctional Institution in
2001, the defendants injected him with psychotropic drugs against his will. The plaintiff
also claims that, after his transfer to Garner, he was still receiving injections. He seeks
a court order directing the defendants and the Department of Correction to stop the
Although a showing that irreparable injury will be suffered before a decision on
the merits may be reached is insufficient by itself to require the granting of a preliminary
injunction, it is nevertheless the most significant condition which must be demonstrated.
See Faiveley Transport Malmo AB v. Wabtec Corp., 559 F. 3d 10, 118 (2d Cir. 2009).
To demonstrate irreparable harm, plaintiff must show an “‘injury that is neither remote
nor speculative, but actual and imminent and that cannot be remedied by an award of
monetary damages.’” Forest City Daly Housing, Inc. v. Town of North Hempstead, 175
F.3d 144, 153 (2d Cir. 1999) (quoting Rodriguez v. DeBuono, 162 F.3d 56, 61 (2d Cir.
While a hearing is generally required on a properly supported motion for
preliminary injunction, oral argument and testimony is not required in all cases. See
Kern v. Clark, 331 F.3d 9, 12 (2d Cir. 2003). Where, as here, “the record before the
district court permits it to conclude that there is no factual dispute which must be
resolved by an evidentiary hearing, a preliminary injunction may be granted or denied
without hearing oral testimony.” 7 James W. Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶
65.04 (2d ed.1995]. In this case, the court finds that oral testimony and argument is
The plaintiff’s Complaint involves claims against defendants Drs. Frayne,
Gagne and Berger relating to his mental health treatment during his confinement at
Northern from May 19, 2011 to November 18, 2011. The plaintiff is currently confined
at Garner Correctional Institution (“Garner”). Defendants Frayne and Gagne are
employed at Northern Correctional Institution and no longer provide treatment to the
plaintiff. See Defs.’ Reply Mot. Injunctive Relief, Doc. No. 13, Ex. 2. Dr. Berger was a
member of the independent panel that convened during the plaintiff’s incarceration at
Northern and reached a determination that the plaintiff’s psychotic disorder required
involuntary medication. See id. Dr. Berger is not the plaintiff’s current treating
psychiatrist. The plaintiff is presently being treated for his mental health conditions by
mental health providers at Garner. (See id.)
To the extent that the plaintiff seeks injunctive relief relating to conditions of
confinement and mental health treatment at Northern, that request is now moot. See
Mawhinney v. Henderson, 542 F.2d 1, 2 (2d Cir. 1976) (inmate’s request for injunctive
relief against correctional staff or conditions of confinement at a particular correctional
institution becomes moot when the inmate is discharged or transferred to a different
correctional institution); Martin-Trigona v. Shiff, 702 F.2d 380, 386 (2d Cir. 1983) (“The
hallmark of a moot case or controversy is that the relief sought can no longer be given
or is no longer needed”). To the extent that the plaintiff seeks injunctive relief from
individuals who provide mental health treatment at Garner, the court cannot enjoin their
actions. The court must have in personam jurisdiction over a person before it can
validly enter an injunction against him or her. See In re Rationis Enterprises, Inc. of
Panama, 261 F.3d 264, 270 (2d Cir. 2001) (“A court may not grant a final, or even an
interlocutory, injunction over a party over whom it does not have personal jurisdiction.”)
(citation omitted); 11A Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal
Practice and Procedure § 2956, at 335 (2d ed. 2001) (“A court ordinarily does not have
power to issue an order against a person who is not a party and over whom it has not
acquired in personam jurisdiction.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d) (providing, in pertinent part,
that “[e]very order granting an injunction . . . is binding only upon the parties to the
action . . .”). Because the mental health personnel at Garner are not defendants, the
court lacks jurisdiction to enjoin their conduct.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the Motion for Injunctive Relief
[Doc. No. 4] is DENIED.
Dated this 5th day of March, 2013, at New Haven, Connecticut.
/s/ Janet C. Hall
Janet C. Hall
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?