Brown v. Arnone

Filing 10

RULING: denying 5 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 5 Motion for TRO. Signed by Judge Joan G. Margolis on 1/7/2014. (Rodko, B.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
KENYA BROWN,
Plaintiff
v.

NO. 3:13 CV 902(JBA)

LEO C. ARNONE,
Defendant
RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiff, Kenya Brown, currently incarcerated at CorriganRadgowski [“Corrigan”], has paid the filing fee to commence this
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff names

Commissioner Leo C. Arnone as the only defendant. (Dkts. ##1, 6).
Pending before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for injunctive
relief, filed September 23, 2013 (Dkt. #5), which has been referred
to this Magistrate Judge by U.S. District Judge Janet Bond Arterton
on November 4, 2013.

(Dkt. #7).

Plaintiff claims that in August 2013, prison officials at
MacDougall Correctional Institution [“MacDougall”] transferred him
to Corrigan in retaliation for filing this lawsuit as well as a
lawsuit about inadequate medical care, Brown v. UCONN Managed
Health Care, et al., No. 3:13 CV 931(JBA), and a lawsuit about
inadequate dental care, Brown v. Tuttle, No. 3:13 CV 1444(JBA). He
seeks to be transferred to Garner or MacDougall Correctional
Institutions.
This

case

involves

a

challenge

to

the

Department

of

Correction’s revised policy on the receipt of sexually explicit
materials by inmates.

The only defendant is former Commissioner

Leo Arnone.
Plaintiff’s
incident

that

motion
occurred

includes
during

allegations
the

pertaining

administration

of

to

an

dental

treatment by Dr. Tuttle in July 2013; plaintiff alleges that his
transfer to Corrigan in August 2013 was due to the lawsuit against
Dr. Tuttle. (Dkt. #5, Brief at 2-5,13-15). The defendant in this
action, Leo Arnone retired in early April 2013,1 prior to the
filing of this lawsuit, and is not a defendant in the case filed
against Dr. Tuttle or in the case filed against the University of
Connecticut Managed Health Care.

Defendant Arnone could not have

been responsible for transferring plaintiff to Corrigan on August
25, 2013 because he was not employed as a Department of Correction
official at that time.
To the extent that the plaintiff seeks injunctive relief from
other Department of Correction officials who may have been involved
in the decision to transfer him to Corrigan, the Court cannot
enjoin their actions.

A 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,

1

See Malloy: Connecticut Correction Department Commissioner Leo Arnone
to retire, NEW HAVEN REGISTER (Feb. 4, 2013). Plaintiff acknowledges that
Commissioner Arnone was retired by the time plaintiff commenced his lawsuit.
(See Dkt. #5, Brief, at 1).

2

Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, FEDERAL PRACTICE & 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
...”).
Furthermore,

the

relief

sought

by

plaintiff

pertains

to

inadequate mental health and dental treatment, access to courts at
Corrigan, and a transfer to another prison facility.

As indicated

above, this lawsuit involves a challenge to a prison directive
relating to sexually explicit written and pictorial materials.
Because

plaintiff’s

allegations

and

requests

for

relief

are

unrelated to the claims in the Amended Complaint filed in this
action (Dkt. #6), the request for injunctive relief as to those
claims is inappropriate. See De Beers Consol. Mines Ltd. v. United
States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945)(preliminary injunction appropriate
to grant intermediate relief of “the same character as that which
may be granted finally,” but inappropriate where the injunction
“deals with a matter lying wholly outside of the issues in the
suit.”)
For all of the reasons set forth above, plaintiff's Motion for
Injunctive Relief [Dkt. #5] is DENIED.

3

SO ORDERED at New Haven, Connecticut this 7th day of January,
2014.
/s/ Joan G. Margolis, USMJ
JOAN G. MARGOLIS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4