McCain v. Wetzel et al
MEMORANDUM re pltf's Mtns for PI 349 and 360 (Order to follow as separate docket entry)Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 5/17/17. (ma)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
AMIR McCAIN aka/a JOHN
JOHN E. WETZEL, et al.,
Civil No. 1:12-cv-789
Judge Sylvia H. Rambo
Before the court are the following motions filed by Plaintiff Amir Hakim
McCain a/k/a John McCain: 1) a request for an injunction and temporary
restraining order (Doc. 349); 2) a motion for pretrial proceeding relating to a
telephone conference (Doc. 355); and 3) a motion for preliminary injunction and
temporary restraining order (Doc. 360). The defendants have responded to the
In his first request for an injunction and temporary restraining order
(Doc. 349), McCain alleges that he did not consent to defense counsel obtaining
his mental health records and providing same to the court for an in camera review.
McCain argues that counsel for Defendant Roegner should not have had access to
those records and that they only should have been provided to the court through
counsel for the Department of Corrections.
In his motion for pretrial proceeding related to a telephone conference
(Doc. 355), McCain seeks an additional conference call, to be recorded, to show
that Magistrate Schwab may have had ex parte communications with defense
counsel during his absence. He also again argues that his medical records were
released without his consent and without court order.
In his renewed request for a preliminary injunction and temporary
restraining order (Doc. 360), McCain seeks a hearing, a recording of a telephone
conference with the court held on January 12, 2017, to be transferred into the
court’s custody, and to have counsel for Defendant Roegner removed from the
A. Requirements for a preliminary injunction and/or temporary
In deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction or temporary
restraining order, the court must consider the following factors: (1) the likelihood
of success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm resulting from a denial of relief; (3)
the harm to the non-moving party if relief is granted; and (4) the public interest.
Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Amgen, 882 F.2d 806, 812-13 (3d Cir. 1989).
B. Law of the Case
Law of the case principles also apply to the instant motions. In Arizona v.
California, 460 U.S. 608 (1983), the Supreme Court explained that, “[u]nlike the
more precise requirements of res judicata, law of the case is an amorphous concept.
As most commonly defined, the doctrine posits that when a court decides upon a
rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent
stages of the same case.” Id. at 618. Only in extraordinary circumstances will the
court permit reconsideration of an issue previously decided in the same case. They
include situations in which: (1) new evidence is available; (2) a supervening new
law has been announced; or (3) the earlier decision was clearly erroneous and
would create manifest injustice. See Bridge v. U.S. Parole Commission, 981 F.2d
97, 103 (3d Cir. 1992).
A. Request for an injunction and temporary restraining order (Doc.
By order dated April 23, 2015, the Department of Corrections was
ordered to produce McCain’s mental health records to the court for an in camera
review. (Doc. 252 at p. 2; Doc. 257 at pp. 2-3.) By requesting copies of his medical
records for use in this case, McCain made those documents relevant thereby
entitling Defendant Roegner’s attorney to discovery of those same documents.
B. Motion for pretrial proceeding relating to a telephone conference
As respondent points out, the issues McCain raises in this motion were
addressed by the court through prior briefing and telephone conferences. (See Doc.
358, p. 4.) McCain’s prior motions alleging that his mental health records should
not have been obtained were all denied by the court. These orders are the law of
C. Motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining
order (Doc. 360)
The issues raised in this motion have been addressed by the court and
remain the law of the case. (See Docs. 248, 252, 253, 255, 257, 271, 273, 275, 276,
283, 344-45, 352.)
McCain is advised that discovery in this case concluded in August 2015
(Doc. 268) and dispositive motions have been decided. The only matter pending is
his claim against Defendant Roegner for a violation of his Eighth Amendment
right arising out of strip searches. The motions will be denied, and a date for trial
will be set. An appropriate order will issue.
s/Sylvia H. Rambo
SYLVIA H. RAMBO
United States District Judge
Dated: May 17, 2017
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?