MILLBOURNE v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Filing
20
OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 12/14/2020. (rss, n.m.)
Case 1:20-cv-08264-NLH-JS Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 87
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
MONTY P. MILBOURNE,
Civil Action No. 20-8264
Plaintiff,
OPINION
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendant.
APPEARANCES:
Monty P. Milbourne
46305
Cumberland County Department of Corrections
54 West Broad St.
Bridgeton, NJ 08302
Plaintiff Pro se
HILLMAN, District Judge
This matter is presently before the Court upon receipt of
Plaintiff’s motions for a preliminary injunction.
Plaintiff’s
application were first filed on the docket as letters to the
Court (ECF Nos. 14 & 15) and subsequently docketed as motions.
(ECF Nos. 17 & 18).
For the reasons set forth below,
Plaintiff’s Motions for Preliminary Injunction will be denied.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff has filed suit against the Cumberland County
Department of Corrections (“Defendant Cumberland”) and Richard
Smith (“Defendant Smith”) (collectively, the “Defendants”).
1
Case 1:20-cv-08264-NLH-JS Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 88
Plaintiff is currently in the custody of the Cumberland County
Jail.
See (ECF No. 1 “Compl.” ¶1).
Plaintiff alleges he was in
direct contact with officers at the Cumberland County Jail who
tested positive for COVID-19.
(Compl. ¶¶1-2).
Plaintiff
contends Defendants Cumberland and Smith failed to follow proper
guidance and protocol directions of the CDC, Department of
Health, Governor Murphy, and President Trump.
(Comp. ¶¶4-8).
There is a related class action before this Court, Archie
v. Smith, No. 20-7907 (the “Archie class action”), which seeks
only injunctive relief on behalf of “all persons confined or to
be confined in the Cumberland County Department of Corrections.”
The Archie class action is focused on the Cumberland County
Department of Corrections’ actions and inactions during the
COVID-19 pandemic.
DISCUSSION
A.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s federal claims
under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
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
Case 1:20-cv-08264-NLH-JS Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 89
(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).
“[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:
“immediate release of the plaintiff-petitioners and proposed
class members who has or have been subject to direct contact
with anyone with COVID-19” and who “test positive and have
underlying health issues” (2) “to get proper adequate medical
relief from their own doctor or physician;” and (3) for the
prison “to exercise social distancing correctly by CDC
guidelines.”
(ECF No. 14 at 4; ECF No. 15 at 3).
There are two fundamental issues with Plaintiff’s Motions
for Preliminary Injunction that each individually require this
Court to deny the Motions.
First, this Court finds Plaintiff’s
Motions for Preliminary Injunction are deficient because they do
not include any explanation as to why Plaintiff is entitled to a
preliminary injunction.
See Lane v. New Jersey, No. 16-8948,
2017 WL 6390960, at *1 (D.N.J. Apr. 6, 2017) (“Plaintiff did not
3
Case 1:20-cv-08264-NLH-JS Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 90
submit a brief and therefore offers no argument or legal support
whatsoever as to why the preliminary injunction elements are
satisfied. The Court sees no basis to provide emergent relief
under these circumstances.”); see also Campbell v. Nelson, No.
17-4183, 2019 WL 3297145, at *3 (D.N.J. July 23, 2019) (citing
Reilly v. City of Harrisburg, 858 F.3d 173, 176 (3d Cir. 2017)
(“[Plaintiff] does not attach a supporting brief and his Amended
Complaint does not address the requirements to obtain a
preliminary injunction.
As such, his Motion will be
denied[.]”)).
Second, and more importantly, Plaintiff is currently a
member of a proposed class in the Archie class action, which
seeks injunctive relief on behalf of “all persons confined or to
be confined in the Cumberland County Department of Corrections.”
The Archie class action is focused on the Cumberland County
Department of Corrections’ actions and inactions during the
COVID-19 pandemic.
Plaintiff has not opted out of the Archie
class action and “[c]ourts have barred individual suits for
injunctive and equitable relief from allegedly unconstitutional
prison conditions where there is an existing class action.”
Young v. Kelly, No. 88-0511, 1993 WL 7539, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan.
14, 2013); see also Oliver v. Scott, 276 F.3d 736, 741 (5th Cir.
2002) (quoting Gillespie v. Crawford, 858 F.2d 1101 (5th
Cir.1988) (“Individual prisoners cannot pursue suits for
4
Case 1:20-cv-08264-NLH-JS Document 20 Filed 12/14/20 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 91
‘equitable relief within the subject matter of the class
action.’”)); Stewart v. Asuncion, No. 16-5872, 2016 WL 8735720,
at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2016) (quoting Gilliam v. Frances, No.
14-5716, 2015 WL 5895770, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2015) (“A
plaintiff who is a member of a class action for equitable relief
concerning prison conditions may not maintain an individual suit
for equitable relief arising from the same issues in the class
action.”)).
The injunctive relief Plaintiff seeks is equitable relief
within the subject matter of the Archie class action, which
focuses on Cumberland County Department of Corrections’ actions
and inactions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This is evident
through the Motions for Preliminary Injunction themselves, which
seek injunctive relief for “plaintiff-petitioner and proposed
class members.”
(ECF No. 14 at 4); see also (ECF No. 15 at 3)
(explaining “the plaintiff and class member asks for relief”).
Accordingly, this Court must deny Plaintiff’s Motions for
Preliminary Injunction.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s request for a
preliminary injunction will be denied.
An appropriate Order
will be entered.
Date: December 14, 2020
At Camden, New Jersey
s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
5
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?