WILLIAMS v. WETZEL et al

Filing 41

ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Pltf's "motion requesting proof" 34 is DENIED as MOOT.; 2. Pltf's "motion for miscellaneous facts" 36 & motions "for release from SMU" 37 & 38 are DENIED for same rea sons in ct's 7/18/17 memo & order 32 33 .; 3. Pltf's "motion for order" 35 is GRANTED to extent that pltf is not being given access to his legal mat'ls which may have impeded his ability to file br in opp to defts' MTD.; 4. Pltf shall file br in opp to defts' MTD 23 w/in 30 days of date of this order. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 8/15/17. (ki)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARK-ALONZO WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff
vs.
JOHN WETZEL, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No. 1:17-CV-00079
(Judge Rambo)

ORDER

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
Pro se Plaintiff Mark-Alonzo Williams is currently confined at State
Correctional Institution Forest, Marienville, Pennsylvania (“SCI-Forest”). The
case, raising claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is proceeding on the basis of an
amended complaint filed on January 3, 2017. (Doc. No. 7.) Plaintiff names as
Defendants several employees of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
(“DOC”), and alleges, inter alia, that while confined at SCI-Dallas, the Defendants
failed to protect him from an assault in violation of his rights under the Eighth
Amendment.
On May 19, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim (Doc. No. 23) and filed a brief in support. (Doc. No. 28.) Plaintiff has not

yet filed a brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss. On June 30, 2017, Plaintiff
filed a motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order
requesting that this Court order Plaintiff be released from the special management
unit (“SMU”) and placed back into general population. (Doc. No. 29). By
Memorandum and Order dated July 18, 2017 (Doc Nos. 30, 31), this Court denied
Plaintiff’s motion.
Plaintiff has subsequently filed five additional motions. Four of those
motions were filed on July 20, 2018. The first motion is a request that the Court
prove that it knows he has filed an injunction (Doc. No. 34, “motion requesting
proof”); the second is a motion to allow him access to his boxes of legal materials
so that he can appropriately meet filing deadlines in his lawsuit (Doc. No. 35,
“motion for order”); the third motion, entitled miscellaneous facts and information,
again requests that he be released from SMU and informs the Court that his legal
materials were seized in an attempt to block his access to this Court (Doc. No. 36,
“motion for miscellaneous facts”); the fourth motion appears to be another motion
for a preliminary injunction and to release Plaintiff from SMU (Doc. No. 37,
“motion for release from SMU”); and the fifth pending motion is another request
that he be released from SMU. (Doc. No. 38.)
The Court will deny Plaintiff’s “motion requesting proof” (Doc. No. 34), as
moot, given that the Memorandum and Order of July 19, 2017, has been docketed

and a copy of the same has not been returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff’s motion
for miscellaneous facts and two motions for release from SMU (Doc. Nos. 36, 37,
and 38), wherein Plaintiff appears to requests a preliminary injunction to be
released from SMU will also be denied for the same reasons set forth in this
Court’s July 18, 2017, Memorandum and Order (Doc. Nos. 32, 33.) Finally, in
Plaintiff’s “motion for order” (Doc. No. 35), he asserts that his legal materials have
been confiscated and he is not permitted access to them. (Id.) This assertion was
set forth in Plaintiff’s previous motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 29),
which Defendants, in their brief in opposition (Doc. No. 30), denied that they
seized his property and papers. (Id. at 4.) Defendants have not responded to this
current motion. Accordingly, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s “motion for order”
(Doc. No. 35) to the extent that Plaintiff is not being given access to his legal
materials which may have impeded his ability to file a brief in opposition to
Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Court will further Order that Plaintiff file a
brief in opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 23) within thirty
(30) days of the date of this Order.
AND, SO, this 15th day of August, 2017, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s
“motion requesting proof” (Doc. No. 34), “motion for order” (Doc. No. 35),
“motion for miscellaneous facts” (Doc. No. 36), motions for “release from SMU”

(Doc. Nos. 37, 38), and in accordance with the Background of this Order, IT IS
ORDERED THAT:
1. Plaintiff’s “motion requesting proof” (Doc. No. 34) is DENIED as moot;
2. Plaintiff’s “motion for miscellaneous facts” (Doc. No. 36) and motions for
“release from SMU” (Doc. Nos. 37, 38) are DENIED for the same reasons
set forth in this Court’s July 18, 2017 Memorandum and Order (Doc. Nos.
32, 33);
3. Plaintiff’s “motion for order” (Doc. No. 35) is GRANTED to the extent that
Plaintiff is not being given access to his legal materials which may have
impeded his ability to file a brief in opposition to Defendants’ motion to
dismiss; and
4. Plaintiff shall file a brief in opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss
(Doc. No. 23) within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.

s/Sylvia H. Rambo
SYLVIA H. RAMBO
United States District Judge