Montalban v. Powell et al
Filing
40
MEMORANDUM re pltf's MOTION for "Preliminary Restrain Order" 38 filed by Jose Montalban (Order to follow as separate docket entry)Signed by Honorable William W. Caldwell on 10/31/17. (ma)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOSE MONTALBAN,
Plaintiff
v.
MR. POWELL, et al.,
Defendants
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:CV-17-0212
(Judge Caldwell)
MEMORANDUM
I.
Introduction
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, Plaintiff has filed a motion for injunctive
relief prohibiting prison officials from interfering with his legal mail. The motion
follows the confiscation of a single piece of his legal mail on July 12, 2017, at USPColeman.
For the reasons that follow, the motion will be denied.
II.
Background
Montalban, while housed at USP-Coleman, in Coleman, Florida, filed
this civil rights action, making an excessive force claim. The claim arises from an
incident that occurred in December 2012 while he was housed at USP-Canaan, in
Waymart, Pennsylvania, after Plaintiff assaulted a staff member. He also claims he
was denied proper medical and mental health care after he was assaulted by staff
and that USP-Canaan staff confiscated, lost or destroyed some of his legal materials
in July 2014 after he was transferred to federal court to face criminal charges
stemming from the December 2012 event. (ECF No. 24, Am. Compl.)
III.
Discussion
Inmate pro se pleadings which seek extraordinary, or emergency relief,
in the form of preliminary injunctions are governed by Rule 65 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. “To obtain a preliminary injunction the moving party must show
as a prerequisite (1) a reasonable probability of eventual success in the litigation,
and (2) that it will be irreparably injured . . . if relief is not granted . . . In addition, the
district court, in considering whether to grant a preliminary injunction, should take
into account, when they are relevant, (3) the possibility of harm to other interested
persons from the grant or denial of the injunction, and (4) the public interest.” Reilly
v. City of Harrisburg, 858 F.3d 173, 176 (3d Cir. 2017) (internal alterations and
citation omitted).
In his motion, Montalban seeks an order against USP-Coleman
officials prohibiting them from tampering with his legal and personal mail following a
July 12, 2017, incident where a piece of legal mail was “confiscated” by a USPColeman Corrections Officer (CO) Howell. CO Howell is not a defendant in this
action but is a named defendant in Montalban’s pending action before the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division. (ECF No. 38).
The Third Circuit has held that “there must be a relationship between the injury
claimed in the party’s motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.” Ball v.
-2-
Famiglio, 396, F. App’x 836, 837 (3d Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (interal quotation marks
omitted). A court cannot grant an injunction when the issues raised are “entirely
unrelated to the relief [Plaintiff] sought in his complaint.” Kloss v. Albion SCI, C.A.
No. 17-1478, 2017 WL 3912494, at *1 (Jun. 5, 2017).
Based on these cases, it is clear that this Court lacks the authority to
grant Montalban’s requested relief as it is not connected to any of the issues raised
in this case. The alleged deprivation of his legal materials occurred at USPColeman, not USP-Canaan. And none of the Defendants in this action, who are
located at USP-Canaan, are alleged to have confiscated his legal mail on July 12,
2017. Accordingly, his motion for injunctive relief will be denied.
/s/ William W. Caldwell
William W. Caldwell
United States District Judge
Date: October 31, 2017
-3-
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?