HINES v. LANIGAN
Filing
69
OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 11/10/2020. (rss, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
ERIC HINES,
Civil Action No. 17-02864
Plaintiff,
OPINION
v.
GARY M. LANIGAN, et al.,
Defendants.
APPEARANCES:
JOSEPH D. LENTO
OPTIMUM LAW GROUP
300 ATRIUM WAY
SUITE 200
MT. LAUREL, NJ 08054
Counsel for Plaintiff
MARVIN L. FREEMAN
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
25 MARKET STREET
P.O. BOX 112
TRENTON, NEW JERSEY 08625
Counsel for Defendants New Jersey Department of
Corrections, Gary M. Lanigan, Willie Bonds, SCO. Waters,
and SCO. Marvin
LAUREN M. STROLLO
VASIOS, KELLY & STROLLO, PA
2444 MORRIS AVENUE
UNION, NJ 07083
Counsel for Defendant Dr. Scott Miller
HILLMAN, District Judge
This matter is presently before the Court upon receipt of
Plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 51).
1
For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Preliminary Injunction will be DENIED.
BACKGROUND
The factual background and procedural history of this case
are set forth in the Court’s July 15, 2020 Order (ECF No. 58)
and need not be fully repeated here.
In relevant part, on November 15, 2017, after his case was
administratively terminated, Plaintiff filed a first amended
complaint, which included claims for violation of Title II of
the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act,
negligence, Eighth Amendment, and the First Amendment.
7).
(ECF No.
On September 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend
his complaint to include additional defendants and claims.
No. 10).
(ECF
Plaintiff’s motion was granted by this Court on
January 18, 2019.
(ECF No. 12).
Plaintiff then filed the
second amended complaint on March 27, 2019.
(ECF No. 18).
On January 6, 2020, Plaintiff moved for leave to file an
“all-inclusive amended complaint.”
(ECF No. 47).
Plaintiff’s
proposed amended complaint included additional defendants and
claims.
(ECF No. 47).
Prior to the court granting Plaintiff’s
Motion to File an All-Inclusive Amended Complaint, Plaintiff
filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
(ECF No. 51).
In
determining whether this motion shall be granted or denied, the
Court will consider the allegations in the second amended
2
complaint filed on March 17, 2019, which was the legally
operative complaint at the time the Plaintiff’s Motion for
Preliminary Injunction was filed.
(ECF Nos. 18, 51).
Accordingly, this Court will not consider additional allegations
from the third amended complaint, which became the legally
operative complaint on July 15, 2020 almost four months after
Plaintiff filed his Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
(ECF No.
58).
DISCUSSION
A.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s federal claims
under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and supplemental jurisdiction over
Plaintiff’s state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
B.
Preliminary Injunction Standard
A request for injunctive relief in the prison context must
be “viewed with considerable caution.”
Rush v. Corr. Med.
Servs., Inc., 287 F. App’x 142, 144 (3d Cir. 2008).
A party
seeking the extraordinary remedy of preliminary injunctive
relief must show: “(1) a likelihood of success on the merits;
(2) that it will suffer irreparable harm if injunction is
denied; (3) that granting preliminary relief will not result in
even greater harm to the nonmoving party; and (4) that the
public interest favors such relief.”
Kos Pharms., Inc. v. Andrx
Corp., 369 F.3d 700, 708 (3d Cir. 2004).
3
“[F]ailure to
establish any element in [a plaintiff’s] favor renders a
preliminary injunction inappropriate.”
Rush, 287 F. App’x at
144.
C.
Analysis
Here, Plaintiff seeks the following injunctive relief: (1)
“requiring the defendants to arrange for appropriate course of
medical supplies, proper disposable of hazardous waste, medical
supplies to restore and maintain severe itching, rash, penis
burning medical situation of possible skin break down;” and (2)
“for plaintiff to be transferred to another correctional
facility do [sic] to threats of bodily harm by (S.I.D) officers,
assaults, use of force by staff with injury.”
(ECF No. 51 at
9).
The fundamental flaw with the relief sought by Plaintiff is
that a majority of the relief and basis for such relief is not
included in his second amended complaint, which was the legally
operative complaint when he filed his Motion for Preliminary
Injunction.
For example, Plaintiff requests a transfer to
another facility because of the abuse he has allegedly received
at South Woods State Prison.
(ECF No. 51 at 7-9).
Plaintiff
failed to include any allegations related to Plaintiff’s abuse
in the second amended complaint.
(ECF No. 18).
By way of
another example, Plaintiff’s request for medical supplies to
deal with severe itching and burning relates to allegations that
4
are absent in the second amended complaint.
(ECF No. 51 at 4-5;
ECF No. 18).
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction must relate
to the allegations and relief sought in the second amended
complaint.
See Gonzalez v. Zickefoose, No. 12-3711, 2015 WL
6407832, at *2 (D.N.J. Oct. 22, 2015) (“Because Plaintiff in
this case has requested a preliminary injunction which relates .
. . to medical conditions which are not the basis of the claims
of the Complaint . . . his request for a preliminary injunction
will be denied.”); see also Zahl v. N.J. Dep’t of Law & Pub.
Safety, No. 06-3749, 2008 WL 4149032, at *1 (D.N.J. Sept. 4,
2008) (“Prior to this Court ruling on the preliminary injunction
requested by Zahl, he filed the Amended Complaint on April 30,
2007.
This Court dismissed the pending motion for a preliminary
injunction without prejudice, and allowed the filing of the
Amended Complaint, which substantially altered the nature of the
injunctive relief requested by Zahl.”).
This Court permitted Plaintiff to file a third amended
complaint almost four months after he filed his Motion for
Preliminary Injunction.
However, that does not cure the
problems with his current preliminary injunction request.
To
date, Plaintiff has failed to file another Motion for
Preliminary Injunction after Judge Schneider granted his motion
to amend his second amended complaint.
5
Moreover, even considering the allegations in the second
amended complaint, Plaintiff still fails to demonstrate
irreparable harm.
“[A] showing of irreparable harm is
insufficient if the harm will occur only in the indefinite
future. Rather, the moving party must make a clear showing of
immediate irreparable harm.’”
Rivera v. Pa. Dep't of Corr., 346
F. App’x 749, 750 (3d Cir. 2009) (emphasis in original) (quoting
Campbell Soup Co. v. ConAgra, Inc., 977 F.2d 86, 91 (3d Cir.
1992)).
Here, Plaintiff’s complaints regarding (1) the failure
to provide Plaintiff with a wheelchair accessible cell and/or
shower chair; (2) the denial of a second medical operation on
his shoulder by a doctor other than Dr. Scott Miller; (3) the
presence of spiders, insects, crickets, etc. in Plaintiff’s
administrative segregation cell; (4) the denial of Plaintiff’s
pain medication after requesting a second operation by a doctor
other than Dr. Scott Miller; and (5) Defendant SCO. Waters’
alleged interference with Plaintiff’s medical treatment all date
back to 2016, more than three years before this motion for
preliminary injunction was filed.
(ECF No. 18 at 3, 5, 8, 10).
Thus, there is nothing to indicate that failing to grant
Plaintiff’s preliminary injunction will result in irreparable
harm to Plaintiff.
See Lasane v. Campos, No. 17-6316, 2019 WL
959703, at *6 (D.N.J. Feb. 27, 2019)(“ Plaintiff’s dental
complaints date back to the second bed collapsing incident in
6
2015, more than two years before the Cross Motion was filed.
Thus, there is nothing to indicate that the immediate failure to
be seen by an oral surgeon or an orthodontist will result in
irreparable harm to Plaintiff.”); Doe v. Banos, 713 F. Supp. 2d
404, 415 n.15 (D.N.J. 2010) (“John Doe’s lack of urgency as
reflected in how this motion was brought before the Court
undermines his claim of immediate and irreparable harm to his
First Amendment rights, a necessary finding for pre-judgment
relief.
This is reason alone to deny the relief sought here.”);
Pharmacia Corp. v. Alcon Labs., Inc., 201 F. Supp. 2d 335, 383
(D.N.J. 2002) (explaining that delay in seeking preliminary
injunction “knocks the bottom out of any claim of immediate and
irreparable harm”).
In light of Plaintiff’s failure to establish irreparable
harm, it is unnecessary for the Court to address the remaining
factors in the injunctive relief analysis.
To obtain injunctive
relief, the movant must show that all four factors favor
injunctive relief.
AT&T Co. v. Winback & Conserve Program, 42
F.3d 1421, 1427 (3d Cir. 1994).
The movant’s failure to
establish any one of the four factors renders injunctive relief
improper.
See NutraSweet Co. v. Vit-Mar Enters., 176 F.3d 151,
153 (3d Cir. 1999).
Thus, even if Plaintiff shows that the
remaining factors favor injunctive relief, such relief is
inappropriate because of plaintiff’s failure to show irreparable
7
harm.
See Frank’s GMC Truck Ctr. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 847 F.2d
100, 102 (3d Cir. 1988) (stating that injunctive relief cannot
be granted where movant has not demonstrated probability of
irreparable harm).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s request for a
preliminary injunction will be denied without prejudice.
Plaintiff has recently obtained counsel who has entered his
appearance on Plaintiff’s behalf, and the Court is confident
that his counsel will pursue a course of action that is in
Plaintiff’s best interest.
An appropriate Order will be
entered.
Date:November 10, 2020
At Camden, New Jersey
s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
8
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?