Miller v. Berdanier et al

Filing 73

ORDER denying plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction 71 . (See order for complete details.)Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 5/22/13. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EDWARD MILLER,
Plaintiff
v.
EUGENE BERDANIER, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-CV-00520
(Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 22nd day of May, 2013, upon consideration of plaintiff’s
motion (Doc. 71) for a preliminary injunction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 65, which is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted, in the
court’s discretion, only if a plaintiff demonstrates: (1) a likelihood of success on the
merits; (2) irreparable harm resulting from the denial of relief; (3) granting the
injunction will not result in irreparable harm to the non-moving party; and (4)
granting the injunction is in the public interest, Liberty Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. v.
Ford Motor Co., 562 F.3d 553, 556 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing McNeil Nutritionals, LLC v.
Heartland Sweeteners, LLC, 511 F.3d 350, 356-57 (3d Cir. 2007), and this court
recognizing that because of the intractable problems of prison administration, a
request for injunctive relief in the prison context must be viewed with considerable
caution, Rush v. Correctional Med. Services, Inc., 287 F. App’x 142, 144 (3d Cir.
2008) (citing Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995)), and it appearing that
plaintiff seeks an order directing medical staff at SCI-Pittsburgh, plaintiff’s current
place of incarceration, to consult with outside medical professionals on plaintiff’s

cancer and treatment, and it further appearing that such a request bears no
relation to the action pending1 and, therefore, is an impermissible basis for seeking
injunctive relief as the issuance of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status
quo and prevent irreparable harm until the court has an opportunity to rule on the
merits of the pending lawsuit, Acierno v. New Castle County, 40 F.3d 645, 647 (3d
Cir. 1994), it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary
injunction (Doc. 71) is DENIED.

S/ Christopher C. Conner
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
United States District Judge

See, e.g., Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994) (finding that
because plaintiff’s motion was based on new assertions of mistreatment that are
entirely different from the claim raised and the relief requested in the original
lawsuit, they cannot provide the basis for a preliminary injunction); Spencer v.
Stapler, Civ. No. 04-1532, 2006 WL 2052704, at *9 (D. Ariz. July 21, 2006) (denying
plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief because it concerns events that are unrelated
to the subject of his complaint and concerns conduct of persons other than the
named defendants); Westbank Yellow Pages v. BRI, Inc., Civ. No. 96-1128, 1996 WL
255912, at *1 (E.D. La. May 13, 1996) (determining that a preliminary injunction is
not an appropriate vehicle for trying to obtain relief that is not sought in the
underlying action); Williams v. Platt, No. Civ-03-281-C, 2006 WL 149024, at *2 (W.D.
Okla. Jan. 18, 2006) (concluding that a preliminary injunction “would be
inappropriate to address wrongs wholly unrelated to the complaint”).
1