Heleva v. Brooks et al

Filing 68

ORDER denying petitioner's motion 67 for preliminary injunction. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 6/25/15. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DANIEL ARTHUR HELEVA,

:
:
Petitioner
:
:
v.
:
:
WARDEN MRS. M. BROOKS, and :
PA STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, :
:
Respondents
:

CIVIL NO. 1:07-CV-1398
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 25th day of June, 2015, upon consideration of petitioner’s
motion (Doc. 67) for a preliminary injunction, in which he seeks an order preventing
respondents from interfering with his ability to exhaust state court remedies, 1 and
the Third Circuit Court having stated that a preliminary injunction is an
“extraordinary remedy” that should issue in only limited circumstances, see Rawls
v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 334 F. App’x 462, 464 (3d Cir. 2009), and that the court must
consider (1) the likelihood that the movant will prevail on the merits, (2) the extent
to which the movant is being irreparably harmed by the conduct complained, (3)
the extent to which the non-moving party will suffer irreparable harm if the
preliminary injunction is issued, and (4) whether granting preliminary injunctive
relief will be in the public interest, see S&R Corp. v. Jiffy Lube Int’l, Inc., 968 F.2d

1

Heleva challenges prison mailroom policies and claims that prison staff
hindered the delivery of his mail for a period of five days thus interfering with his
ability to send legal documents to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. (Doc. 67).

371, 374 (3d Cir. 1992), and it appearing that petitioner failed to establish that he is
entitled to an injunction requesting the relief sought,2 it is hereby ORDERED that
the motion (Doc. 67) is DENIED.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania

Heleva claims that respondents interfered with his ability to mail a legal brief and
several motions to the Pennsylvania Superior Court in docket number 886 EDA
2015. (Doc. 67, ¶¶ 1, 2). However, upon review of the state court docket, on June 2,
2015, the Pennsylvania Superior Court did in fact receive Heleva’s brief and five
separate motions. See https://ujsportal.pacourts.us, electronic docket number 886
EDA 2015. Thus, Heleva has not demonstrated actual injury to his ability to
exhaust state court remedies, and has not shown that his ability to litigate this suit
is being irreparably harmed. See, e.g., Ball v. Oden, 396 F. App’x 886, 887 (3d Cir.
2010) (district court properly denied prisoner’s motion for a preliminary injunction
because she “has not shown that defendants are irreparably injuring her ability to
litigate this or any other suit”).
2