PRALL v. BOCCHINI et al
Filing
77
OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 3/5/2012. (dmr)(n.m.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
TORMU E. PRALL,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHARLES ELLIS, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil Action No. 10-1228 (JBS)
OPINION
APPEARANCES:
JEFFREY S. CHIESA,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY
By: Christine H. Kim, Deputy Attorney General
25 Market Street, P.O. Box 112
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
Counsel for Defendants, Michelle R. Ricci, William J.
Moliens, Chris Holmes, Jimmy Barnes, James Drumm, Ron
Wagner, James Keil, Lt. Alaimo, and Ortiz
ARTHUR R. SYPEK, JR.
MERCER COUNTY COUNSEL
By: Sarah G. Crowley, Deputy County Counsel
McDade Administration Building
640 South Broad Street, P.O. Box 8068
Trenton, New Jersey 08650-0068
Counsel for Defendants, E. Williams, T. Wilkie, Nurse Pete
S., and John Does 1-25
SIMANDLE, Chief Judge:
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the motion of
plaintiff, Tormu E. Prall (“Prall”), for entry of a preliminary
injunction.
In an Opinion and Order entered in this matter on
September 23, 2011, (Docket entry nos. 31 and 32), an Order to
Show Cause was issued directing certain named New Jersey State
Prison (“NJSP”) defendants to respond in writing as to why an
injunction should not be issued against the defendants regarding
Prall’s allegations of ongoing physical abuse.
On October 12,
2011, counsel for the NJSP defendants filed a response to the
Order to Show Cause.
(Docket entry no. 37).
The NJSP defendants
also filed a motion to seal certain exhibits, (Docket entry nos.
35 and 36), which this Court granted on October 24, 2011.
(Docket entry no. 38).
This motion for a preliminary injunction
is being considered on the papers pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 78.
For the reasons set forth below, preliminary injunctive relief
will be denied.
I.
A.
BACKGROUND
Procedural History
On or about March 8, 2010, Prall filed a Complaint against
numerous defendants,1 alleging that he has been confined to the
Management Control Unit (“MCU”) at the New Jersey State Prison
(“NJSP”) since December 12, 2009, based on allegedly false
1
The Complaint names the following defendants: Joseph L.
Bocchini, Jr., Mercer County Prosecutor; Arthur R. Sypek, Jr.,
Mercer County Counsel; Charles Ellis, Warden at Mercer County
Correction Center (“MCCC”); Phyllis Oliver, Head of Internal
Affairs at MCCC; Michelle R. Ricci, Administrator at NJSP; Brian
M. Hughes; Kelvin S. Ganges; Andrew A. Mair; Sarah G. Crowley; J.
McCall; E. Williams; T. Wilkie; Nurse Pete S.; Dr. Robert Roth;
Dr. Gooriah; Social Worker Lydia; William J. Moliens; Chris
Holmes; Jimmy Barnes; James Drumm; Ron Wanger; James Keil; Lt.
Alaimo; Crystal Raupp; Ms. Ishmael; Shirley Stephens; Sgt.
Newsom; Ortiz; John Does 1-25; John Moes 1-10; and John Roes 199. (Complaint, Caption and ¶¶ 3-8).
2
disciplinary infractions against him.
In his initial Complaint,
Prall states that he is a conscientious objector to the criminal
justice process as it applies to him and has been incarcerated
for his refusal to appear at his January 2008 criminal trial and
submit to his ultimate conviction at that trial.
at ¶¶ 12-13, Docket entry no. 1).
(See Complaint
The Complaint further alleges
that Prall had been placed in the MCU for three weeks with only a
gown and mattress.
He received no supplies to clean blood and
feces on the floor in his cell.
watch during this time.
Prall was under close/camera
The Complaint also states that when
Prall complained about the dirty conditions of his cell, certain
correctional officers slapped, joked, punched, kicked, clubbed ,
and threatened plaintiff.
Plaintiff alleges that the camera was
covered during this alleged assault.
The Complaint did not
allege that Prall needed medical treatment for any injuries from
the alleged beating.
Prall contends that he has remained in a
MCU cell without blankets, sheets, shoes, towels, toiletries and
canteen privileges.
He also was denied access to paralegal
assistance and his legal documents purportedly were withheld from
him.
(Id., Compl., ¶¶ 14, 15).
The Complaint seeks $1 million in compensatory damages and
$1 million dollars in punitive damages from the named defendants,
as well as unspecified declaratory and injunctive relief.
3
(Id.).
On July 1, 2010, Prall filed an amended Complaint.
entry no. 5).2
(Docket
On August 16, 2010, the Honorable Freda L.
Wolfson, U.S.D.J., issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order, (Docket
entry nos. 10 and 11), administratively terminating the case
because Prall’s filing was subject to the “three strikes”
provision under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and Prall had failed to pay
the requisite $350.00 filing fee.
Prall had appealed August 16,
2010 Order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.
(Docket entry no. 12).
On February 3, 2011, Prall
filed a motion to vacate the August 16, 2010 Opinion and Order,
which had administratively terminated his case.
no. 17).
(Docket entry
On or about February 24, 2011, Prall also filed a
2
Prall’s amended Complaint added the following defendants:
Teresa Blair, Attorney General for the State of New Jersey; Brian
Hughes, Mercer County Executive; Kelvin S. Ganges, Mercer County
Chief of Staff; Andrew A. Mair, Mercer County Administrator;
Joseph P. Blaney, Assistant Mercer County Counsel; Sarah G.
Crowley, Deputy County Counsel; Sgt. J. McCall at MCCC; E.
William, Correctional Officer at MCCC; T. Wilkie, Correctional
Officer at MCCC; Pete S., Nurse at MCCC; Sgt. K. Morris at MCCC;
Dr. Robert Roth at the Ann Klein Forensic Center (“AKFC”); Dr.
Gooriah at AKFC; Social Worker Lydia at AKFC; William J. Moliens,
Associate Administrator at NJSP; Chris Holmes, Assistant
Superintendent at NJSP; Jimmy Barnes, Assistant Superintendent at
NJSP; James Drumm, Assistant Superintendent at NJSP; Ron Wagner,
Assistant Superintendent at NJSP; James Keil, Chief of Custody at
NJSP; Lt. Alaimo at NJSP; Crystal Raupp, Social Worker at NJSP;
Ishmael, school teacher at NJSP; Shirley Stephens, Supervisor of
Education at NJSP; Flora J. Defilippo, mental health doctor at
NJSP; Sgt. Ortiz at NJSP; Captain Ortiz at NJSP; John Does 1-25,
unknown named Mercer County Correction Officers; John Moes 1-10,
unknown named Unit Manager and nurses at AKFC; and John Roes 199, unknown named corrections officers, supervisors and Special
Investigation Division (“SID”) investigators at NJSP. (Amended
Complaint at ¶¶ 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14-21, 23-38).
4
motion for a preliminary and permanent injunction regarding all
of his claims asserted in his Complaint and amended Complaint,
including his allegations of ongoing physical abuse at NJSP.
(Docket entry no. 18).
On April 28, 2011, the Third Circuit issued a judgment on
Prall’s appeal, vacating the administrative termination of the
action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Namely, the Third Circuit
found that Prall’s amended Complaint had alleged “a continuing
danger of serious physical injury that was imminent at the time
he filed his complaint.”
Accordingly, the Third Circuit directed
that the August 16, 2010 Order be vacated and remanded the matter
to the District Court:
to grant Prall’s motion for leave to proceed IFP if it
determines that he has made a sufficient showing of
indigence, see Gibbs v. Ryan, 160 F.3d 160, 161 n.1 (3d Cir.
1998), and thereafter to conduct such further proceedings as
may be appropriate. We emphasize that we express no opinion
on the merits of Prall’s claims and that his complaint
remains subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See
Gibbs, 160 F.3d at 967. Prall’s motions to expedite this
appeal and for other relief are denied.
(April 6, 2011 Opinion at pp. 4-5, Docket entry no. 21).
On May 2, 2011, Prall filed a motion to have Judge Wolfson
recuse herself from his case.
He also sought to renew his motion
for a preliminary injunction.
(Docket entry no. 22).
In an
Opinion and Order filed on August 19, 2011, Judge Wolfson denied
Prall’s motion for a vacatur (Docket entry no. 17) as well as his
motion for recusal (Docket entry no. 22).
5
(See Docket entry nos.
28 and 29).
Thereafter, in an Opinion and Order filed on
September 23, 2011, Judge Wolfson dismissed without prejudice,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1), all
claims asserted by Prall in his original and amended Complaints
that attempted to challenge Prall’s state court conviction,
sentence and/or extradition.
Likewise, Prall’s claims against
the Mercer County Prosecutor defendants, namely, defendants
Bocchini and Galuchie.
In addition, the original and amended
Complaints were dismissed without prejudice in their entirety as
against named defendants Sypek, Blair, Hughes, Ganges, Mair,
Blaney and Crowley, because Prall failed to state a viable claim
against these defendants based on more than mere supervisor
liability.
Further, Judge Wolfson dismissed without prejudice
Prall’s claims asserting conspiracy, retaliation, denial of
access to the courts, and denial of his First Amendment right to
free exercise of religion.
Prall’s claims asserting deprivation
of property, denial of due process based on his MCU placement and
classification, denial of due process based on false disciplinary
charges, denial of equal protection, denial of his Ninth
Amendment right to revolt, and denial of his rights against selfincrimination and to a presumption of innocence, and his claims
asserted against the AKFC defendants, were dismissed with
prejudice, for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1).
6
However, Judge Wolfson
allowed plaintiff’s claims alleging unconstitutional conditions
of confinement and excessive force in violation of his Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendment rights to proceed with respect to the named
NJSP defendants, Michelle R. Ricci; William J. Moliens; Chris
Holmes; Jimmy Barnes; James Drumm; Ron Wagner; James Keil; Lt.
Alaimo; Sgt. Ortiz and Captain Ortiz; and John Roes 1-99, the
unknown correctional officers and SID investigators at NJSP; and
the MCCC defendants, McCall, Williams, Wilkie and the John Doe
MCCC officers.
Plaintiff’s claim asserting denial of free
exercise of religion in violation of RLUIPA also were allowed to
proceed, but Judge Wolfson directed that Prall must amend his
Complaint to name the appropriate NJSP defendants with respect to
this claim within 30 days from entry of the accompanying Order.
Finally, Prall’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief (Docket
entry no. 18) was denied, except with respect to his claim of
ongoing physical abuse.
As to that claim, Judge Wolfson directed
that the NJSP defendants, namely, Michelle R. Ricci, William J.
Moliens, Chris Holmes, Jimmy Barnes, James Drumm, Ron Wagner,
James Kiel, Lt. Alaimo, Sgt. Ortiz and Captain Ortiz, respond in
writing to the Court concerning Prall’s allegations of ongoing
physical abuse, and to show cause why an injunction should not be
issued against the defendants.
(September 23, 2011 Opinion and
Order, Docket entry nos. 31 and 32).
Summons and the original
and amended Complaints were issued to the remaining defendants,
7
namely, Jimmy Barnes, James Drumm, Chris Holmes, James Keil, Lt.
Alaimo, J. McCall, William J. Moliens, Nurse Pete S., Ortiz,
Michelle R. Ricci, Ron Wagner, T. Wilkies, and E. Williams.
(Docket entry no. 33).
On October 6, 2011, this action was reassigned to the
undersigned.
(Docket entry no. 34).
On October 12, 2011, counsel on behalf of NJSP defendants,
Jimmy Barnes, James Drumm, Chris Holmes, James Keil, Lt. Alaimo,
William J. Moliens, Ortiz, Michelle R. Ricci, and Ron Wagner, who
had not yet been served at that time, filed a response to the
September 23, 2011 Order to Show Cause concerning Prall’s
allegations of ongoing physical abuse, as well as a motion to
seal Exhibits D and E of the response.
36, and 37).
(Docket entry nos. 35,
This Court granted the motion to seal Exhibits D
and E, by Order entered on October 24, 2011.
(Docket entry no.
38).
On October 19, 2011, Prall filed an appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit with regard to the
September 23, 2011 Opinion and Order that had dismissed certain
claims and defendants from this action.
(Docket entry no. 39).
On October 25, 2011, Prall also filed a motion before this Court
for reconsideration of the September 23, 2011 Opinion and Order.
(Docket entry no. 40).
This Court denied Prall’s motion for
8
reconsideration in a separate Opinion and Order filed on or about
the date of entry of this Opinion.
On October 31, 2011, Prall filed an emergency motion for
reconsideration of the Court’s decision granting defendants’
motion to seal certain documents.
Prall’s motion also sought to
compel the defendants to serve plaintiff with the responsive
papers and all exhibits attached thereto.
(Docket entry no. 43).
In a Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on November 22, 2011,
this Court denied Prall’s motion for reconsideration of the
Court’s Order to seal certain exhibits, and granted Prall’s
motion to compel service of defendants’ response to the order to
show cause, the motion to seal and the corresponding exhibits.
(Docket entry nos. 46 and 47).3
On December 1, 2011, Prall filed a motion to amend the
record and a motion for a writ of mandamus, (Docket entry nos. 50
and 51), which recently were denied in a separate Opinion and
Order on March 2, 2012.
However, this Court construed Prall’s
motion to “amend the record” as a reply in regard to the order to
show cause concerning Prall’s allegations of ongoing physical
abuse.
3
The docket entry for the November 22, 2011 Order (Docket
entry no. 47) erroneously reflects that the Court’s Order
pertained to plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration filed as
Docket entry no. 40. This Court notes that the November 22, 2011
Order actually pertains to plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration
of the seal Order, which motion was docketed as entry no. 43.
9
On December 20, 2011, an answer was filed Mercer County
Correction Center (“MCCC”) defendants, MCCC Officer E. Williams,
MCCC Officer T. Wilkie, MCCC Nurse Peter Schroeder (improperly
pled as Nurse Pete S.) and John Doe MCCC Officers.
no. 54).
(Docket entry
On December 27, 2011, NJSP defendants Jimmy Barnes and
James Keil filed a motion for an extension of time to answer the
Complaint and amended Complaint.
(Docket entry no. 58).
On
February 1, 2012, the remaining NJSP defendants, James Drumm,
Chris Holmes, Lt. Alaimo, William J. Moliens, Ortiz, Michelle R.
Ricci, and Ron Wagner also filed a motion for an extension of
time to answer.
(Docket entry no. 68).
On December 28, 2011, Prall filed a motion for entry of
default and to enjoin defendants Nurse Pete S., T. Wilkie and E.
Williams from applying for vacatur once a default is entered
against them.
(Docket entry no. 59).
On January 17, 2012, Prall
filed a motion for an issuance of a summons and service of the
complaints upon defendant K. Newsom.
(Docket entry no. 64).
On
February 1, 2012, Prall also filed a motion to compel discovery
from the MCCC defendants.
(Docket entry no. 69).
These motions
are currently pending, and do not impact on the present motion
concerning Prall’s claims of ongoing physical abuse by the NJSP
defendants.
10
B.
Factual Allegations
In his Complaint and amended Complaint, Prall asserts that
he is being subjected to unconstitutional treatment and
conditions of confinement at the MCU at NJSP in violation of his
rights under the Eighth Amendment.
First, Prall alleges that,
when he was first placed in the MCU, he was put under camera
watch for three weeks and given only a gown and a mattress on the
floor in his cell during this time.
He states that the floor and
walls in his cell were filthy, covered in blood and feces.
He
had complained about the conditions and that his skin was itching
from not taking showers.
No remedy was provided.
After the three weeks expired, Prall was placed in a regular
cell in the MCU.
He states that he was not given a blanket,
sheets, slippers, shoes, “draws”, towels, wash rag, hygiene
supplies, exercise or emergency canteen.
Prall does admit that
he received “one pair” of clothing (instead of the usual three),
is allowed a 10 minute shower each day and isolated yard
recreation/exercise outside his cell once per week.
However, he
further complains that his MCU placement has caused him to suffer
“extreme isolation.”
Visitation is rare and restricted to glass
window with no contact allowed.
Prall claims that he is deprived
of “almost any environmental or sensory stimuli and of almost all
human contact.”
He generally alleges that prisoners in the MCU
are tortured, beaten, harassed and mistreated by the correctional
11
officers in the MCU.
Prall states that the officers slap, punch,
kick, club and threaten plaintiff both physically and mentally.
He alleges that these attacks are ongoing.
Prall contends that
he is treated this way to force him to modify his behavior and
renounce his sincerely held religious beliefs.
In particular, with regard to his claim of physical abuse
and excessive force, Prall has alleged that NJSP correctional
officers have slapped his face, stomped on his toes and fingers,
sprayed mace in his eyes, nose, throat and on his genitals and
rectal areas.
He has been poked with needles, kicked with boots,
punched, and electrocuted with devices that burn holes in rugs.
In their response to the September 23, 2011 Order to Show
Cause, the NJSP defendants set forth the inmate grievance
procedure for inmates at NJSP.
In accordance with N.J.A.C.
10A:8-1.1 to 10A:8-3.6, the NJSP has adopted Inmate Handbooks
that set forth the rights and privileges of its inmates at NJSP.
The Inmate Handbook also sets forth the inmate grievance
procedure at NJSP.
(Declaration of Brenda A. Hutton, ¶¶ 3, 5 at
Docket entry no. 37-2, and Exhibit B at Docket entry no. 37-3).
In particular, Inmate Remedy System Forms (“IRSF”) are made
available to NJSP inmates within their housing units, at the
prison law library, and from the unit social workers.
Decl., ¶ 6 and Ex. B).
(Hutton
Once an inmate completes the IRSF and
submits it, the IRSF is given to the appropriate staff person for
12
a response.
When the inmate receives a response to his IRSF, he
may then appeal the response.
After an administrative response
is provided to the inmate’s appeal, the inmate’s administrative
remedies have been exhausted.
(Hutton Decl., ¶¶ 7-9 and Ex. B).
The NJSP defendants state that Prall has filed numerous
IRSFs, and attaches them to their response at Exhibit C to
Hutton’s Declaration.
(Docket entry no. 37-3).
Out of the
numerous IRSFs filed by Prall, he briefly mentions being
“physically abused” by NJSP officers only twice in April 2010.
(See Hutton Decl., Ex. C at DOC3 and DOC6).
For instance, on
April 6, 2010, Prall complained about the lack of supplies for
his legal work and that he was placed in MCU to hinder his legal
capabilities and to physically and mentally abuse him.
DOC3).
(Id. at
Then, on April 15, 2010, Prall filed an IRSF alleging
that he was physically abused when he complained about the
showers and other conditions at the MCU.
(Id. at DOC6).
Prall
has not filed any other IRSFs since April 2010 complaining about
alleged ongoing physical abuse.
(See Hutton Decl., Ex. C).
The NJSP defendants also state that Prall has filed only two
Health Services Request Forms from 2010 to the present time; one
requesting Benadryl and the other seeking an appointment with an
optometrist.
(Hutton Decl., Ex. D).
There are no medical
request forms for any alleged injuries from physical abuse.
Further, Prall’s NJSP medical records do not disclose any
medical treatment for the alleged physical abuse that Prall
13
claims he is continually experiencing, such as his allegations of
choking, marks on his face, injured toes, fingers, eyes, nose,
throat, genital area, needle marks, and/or signs of
electrocutions.
(Hutton Decl., Ex. E).
In addition, NJSP
defendants show that Prall underwent several mental health
evaluations that did not reveal any psychological problems
related to being housed in the MCU and purportedly being
subjected to physical abuse.
(Hutton Decl., Ex. E at MED22-24,
MED26-31, MED38-44, MED65, MED69-71, MED78-80, MED84, MED91,
MED96, and MED98).
Moreover, Prall underwent several
medical/physical examinations that did not disclose any physical
injuries consistent with Prall’s allegations of physical abuse.
In fact, there are no notations in Prall’s medical records at
NJSP that he had any physical injuries attributable to physical
abuse, and physical examinations and observations made during
2010 and early 2011 did not reveal any physical injuries.
(Hutton Decl., Ex. E at MED5, MED32-34, MED73-76, MED82-83).
Finally, the NJSP defendants state that when an incident of
physical abuse occurs or is suspected to have happened, the
Special Investigations Division (“SID”) will conduct an
investigation.
(See Declaration of Vincent B. Wojciechowicz, ¶ 4
and N.J.A.C. 10A:21-5.1(a)).
After an investigation is
completed, the SID will prepare written reports regarding any
incident brought to its attention.
N.J.A.C. 10A:21-8.5(a).
A
search of the SID records reveals no incidents between Prall and
14
NJSP corrections officers from February 5, 2010 to September 28,
2010 that led to an SID investigation.
(Wojciechowicz Decl., ¶
5).
However, on September 28, 2010, the SID did receive a copy
of Prall’s complaints in this action alleging physical abuse.
(Wojciechowicz Decl., ¶ 6).
Consequently, SID Investigator
Shawn Harrison conducted an investigation of Prall’s allegations.
(Wojciechowicz Decl., ¶ 7).
On September 30, 2011, the SID
requested NJSP medical staff to conduct a physical examination of
Prall to determine if there were any injuries from the alleged
physical abuse, but Prall refused to leave his cell and
participate in the medical assessment.
8, 9).
(Wojciechowicz Decl., ¶¶
Therefore, NJSP medical staff, namely, Neal West, R.N.,
completed a visual assessment of plaintiff that revealed no signs
of physical injury or distress.
(Wojciechowicz Decl., ¶¶ 10, 11,
13).
As noted above, Prall filed a motion to amend the record,
which this Court construes as plaintiff’s reply to the NJSP
defendants’ response to the order to show cause regarding Prall’s
allegations of ongoing physical abuse.
In his motion papers,
Prall alleges that the person accepting or collecting inmate
grievances does not sign, note the date and time on the form, or
give the inmate a copy for his receipt.
Thus, Prall claims that
there is no way for an inmate to track his own grievances.
Responses to inmate grievances are received through the mail.
15
(Docket entry no. 50, Prall Declaration at ¶¶ 1, 2).
Prall
further alleges that the only responses he received to his
grievances are Documents 13, 15, 26, 30, 31, 41, 44, 51, 53 and
60, which were submitted as Exhibit with defendants’ October 12,
2011 brief in response to the order to show cause.
(Id., ¶ 3).
He also alleges that he was provided the materials he requested
in Exhibits “Doc 1, 3, 29, 43, 52, 68 and 12 without ever
receiving any responses.”
(Id., ¶ 4).
Prall’s reply indicates that he disputes defendants’
argument that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies,
and that to the extent that he did not file an appeal, it was the
fault of the NJSP administrators in failing to provide a response
to his grievances.
Crucially for purposes of the present motion
for injunctive relief, he does not provide any factual proof or
documentary evidence to support his claim of ongoing physical
abuse.
II.
DISCUSSION
To secure the extraordinary relief of a preliminary
injunction or temporary restraining order (“TRO”), plaintiff must
demonstrate that “(1) he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2)
denial will result in irreparable harm; (3) granting the
injunction will not result in irreparable harm to the
defendants]; and (4) granting the injunction is in the public
interest.”
Maldonado v. Houston, 157 F.3d 179, 184 (3d Cir.
1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1130 (1999)(as to a preliminary
16
injunction); see also Ballas v. Tedesco, 41 F. Supp.2d 531, 537
(D.N.J. 1999) (as to temporary restraining order).
A plaintiff
must establish that all four factors favor preliminary relief.
Opticians Ass’n of America v. Independent Opticians of America,
920 F.2d 187 (3d Cir. 1990).
The standards for a permanent
injunction are essentially the same as for a preliminary
injunction, except that the plaintiff must show actual success on
the merits, not a likelihood of success, to obtain a permanent
injunction.
See University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390,
392 (1981).
Here, based on this Court’s review of the documentary
evidence provided by the NJSP defendants, it is manifest that
Prall cannot show that he will likely succeed on the merits of
his claim of ongoing physical abuse.
As illustrated above, there
are no records of any kind, either through medical examinations,
grievance forms and SID investigations to support that Prall was
a victim of ongoing physical abuse as he alleges.
The Court also
notes that during his initial admission to the MCU, he was under
close supervision/observation, and the records detailing the
staff’s observations of Prall do not disclose any accounts of
physical injuries to Prall during this time.
Moreover, Prall made only a general allegation of physical
abuse in two IRSFs he submitted in April 2010.
He provides no
evidence or other documentary proof to support the allegations he
noted in his amended Complaint in this action.
17
Thus, based on
the documentary evidence provided by the NJSP defendants and
Prall’s failure to provide any evidence to refute the record,
this Court finds that Prall is unlikely to succeed on the merits
of his claim, and therefore, a preliminary injunction should not
issue.
Similarly, because Prall can not provide any factually
demonstrable support for his bald allegations, and the record
provided by the NJSP defendants negate Prall’s allegations of
ongoing physical abuse, Prall has not shown irreparable harm
necessary to warrant issuance of a preliminary injunction.
Moreover, a prisoner lacks standing to seek injunctive and
declaratory relief if he is no longer subject to the alleged
conditions.
See Abdul-Akbar v. Watson, 4 F.3d 195, 197 (3d Cir.
1993); Weaver v. Wilcox, 650 F.2d 22, 27 (3d Cir. 1981).
Because
Prall cannot show any evidence of ongoing physical abuse, and
because the medical records and SID records fail to disclose any
incident of physical abuse, Prall’s request for preliminary
injunctive relief as to his allegations of ongoing physical abuse
must be denied as moot.
Consequently, where Prall cannot show all four factors
necessary for issuance of a preliminary injunction, his motion
for such relief must be denied.
18
III.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, plaintiff’s
motion for a preliminary injunction regarding his allegations of
ongoing physical abuse will be denied.
An appropriate order
follows.
s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Dated:
March 5, 2012
19
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?