Heim v. Dauphin County Prison et al

Filing 57

ORDER denying 12 Motion for Preliminary Injunction Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 4/12/11 (jam, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOSEPH HEIM,
Plaintiff
v.
DAUPHIN COUNTY PRISON, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 3:CV-10-1491
(Judge Caputo)

ORDER
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
Joseph Heim, a prisoner who is presently incarcerated at the Retreat State
Correctional Institution (SCI-Retreat) in Hunlock Creek, Pennsylvania, filed this civil
rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 charging various employees and
medical care providers at the Dauphin County Prison (DCP) denied him adequate
medical care. Doc. 1, Compl. Presently before the Court is Mr. Heim’s Motion for
Injunctive Relief. Doc. 12, Mot. for Inj. In his motion he primarily recites the
allegations of his Complaint and contends that DCP officials are denying him legal
materials, writing paper, dental care, medical services and other programs.
A court issues a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit to preserve the status quo
and prevent irreparable harm until the court has an opportunity to rule on the
lawsuit’s merits. Acierno v. New Castle County, 40 F.3d 645, 647 (3d Cir. 1994). “A

preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that is never awarded as of right.”
Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7,

, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376, 172 L.Ed.2d

249 (2008); Kos Pharm., Inc. v. Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700, 708 (3d Cir. 2004).
In order to obtain preliminary injunctive relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65,
the requesting party must show: (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)). Preliminary relief requires a showing of likely
irreparable injury. Winter, 555 U.S. at

, 129 S.Ct. at 375 (emphasis in original).

In other words, “‘a preliminary injunction will not be issued simply to prevent the
possibility of some remote future harm.’” Id. (quoted case omitted).
With these considerations in mind, the Court will deny Mr. Heim’s motion for
injunctive relief as he cannot demonstrate immediate irreparable harm justifying
preliminary injunction because he no longer resides at DCP, but has been
transferred to SCI-Retreat. See Doc. 35, Change of Address. As such, it would
appear his request for injunctive relief is now moot. It is well established that a
prisoner’s transfer or release from prison moots his claims for injunctive or
declaratory relief since he is no longer subject to the conditions he alleges are
unconstitutional. Abdul-Akbar v. Watson, 4 F.3d 195, 206-207 (3d Cir. 1992). For
these reasons, the motion for preliminary injunctive relief will be denied.

-2-

ACCORDINGLY, THIS 12th DAY OF APRIL, 2011, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT Mr. Heim’s Motion for Injunctive Relief (doc. 12) is DENIED.

/s/ A. Richard Caputo
A. RICHARD CAPUTO
United States District Judge

-3-