FARMER v. LANIGAN et al

Filing 62

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER denying as moot 22 Motion for Preliminary Injunction pursuant to Judge Arleo's Letter Order of September 25, 2013, (ECF No. 49), which denied the same relief, etc. Signed by Judge Susan D. Wigenton on 12/23/13. (jd, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

ALLEN J. FARMER,
Plaintiff,
v.
GARY M. LANIGAN, et al.,
Respondents.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil Action No. 12-5716 (SDW)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

THIS MATTER having come before the Court by motion filed by
Plaintiff, Allen J. Farmer, seeking a preliminary injunction,
(ECF No. 22), and this motion being considered on the papers
pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
it appearing that:
1.

On September 3, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Complaint

alleging violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
2.

On April 9, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for a

preliminary injunction.

(ECF No. 22.)

In his motion, Plaintiff

alleges that he remains in “punitive segregation” and is
restricted access to the law library and continues to suffer
other conditions of confinement and retaliation as set forth in
his Complaint.
3.

(Id.)

On September 6, 2013, Plaintiff renewed his application

for preliminary injunctive relief based on the same allegations

as asserted in his Complaint and in his initial motion (ECF No.
22), by filing two separate applications for relief.

(ECF Nos.

45, 46.)
4.

By Letter Order filed on September 25, 2013, the

Honorable Madeline Cox Arleo, U.S.M.J., denied Plaintiff’s
applications for preliminary injunctive relief on the grounds
that Plaintiff “has administrative remedies available to him to
seek redress.”
5.

(ECF No. 49.)

Because Plaintiff’s earlier motion for a preliminary

injunction is virtually identical to his later applications for
the same relief, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s motion is now
rendered moot pursuant to Judge Arleo’s Letter Order of
September 25, 2013, (ECF No. 49), which denied the same
preliminary injunctive relief.
THEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons,
It is on this 23rd day of December, 2013,
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary
injunction (ECF No. 22) is DENIED as moot pursuant to Judge
Arleo’s Letter Order of September 25, 2013, (ECF No. 49), which
denied the same relief; and it is further

2

ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve this Order upon
Defendants through their counsel via electronic filing, and upon
Plaintiff by regular mail.

_s/Susan D. Wigenton__________
SUSAN D. WIGENTON
United States District Judge

3