Martin v. Secretary of Corrections et al
Filing
92
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 45 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Tyrone Martin.Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 8/30/17. (jam)
I
f
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
[.
TYRONE MARTIN,
Civil No. 3:16-cv-2060
Plaintiff
(Judge Mariani)
v.
SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS, et al., :
Defendants
MEMORANDUM
Presently before the Court in this civil rights action is a motion (Doc. 45) for a
r
t
I
I
I
I
j
''
preliminary injunction filed by Plaintiff Tyrone Martin ("Martin"), an inmate currently confined
at the State Correctional Institution, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania ("SCI-Huntingdon"). At all
times relevant to the claims in this action, Martin was housed at the State Correctional
I
l
I
I
Institution, Smithfield, Pennsylvania ("SCI- Smithfield"). (See Doc. 1). Martin failed to file a
brief in support of the motion as required by Local Rule of Court 7.5. For the following
reasons, the Court will deny the motion for preliminary injunction.
I.
Standard of Review
Inmate pro se pleadings which seek emergency relief in the form of preliminary
injunctions are governed by Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A preliminary
injunction is an "extraordinary remedy" that should issue only in limited circumstances.
Rawls v. Pa. Dep't of Corr., 334 F. App'x 462, 464 (3d Cir. 2009). In determining whether to
!
I
I
grant a motion seeking preliminary injunctive relief, courts in the Third Circuit consider the
following four factors: (1) the likelihood that the movant will prevail on the merits; (2) the
extent to which the movant is being irreparably harmed by the challenged conduct; (3) the
extent to which the non-moving party will suffer irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction
is issued; and (4) whether granting preliminary injunctive relief will be in the public interest.
S &R Corp. v. Jiffy Lube Int'/, Inc., 968 F.2d 371, 374 (3d Cir. 1992) (citing Hoxworth v.
Blinder, Robinson & Co., 903 F.2d 186, 197-98 (3d Cir. 1990)); Chimenti v. Kimber, 2009
WL 2957792, *1 (M.D. Pa. 2009). If the record does not at least support a finding of both
I
!
I
l
I
!
t
)
irreparable injury and a likelihood of success on the merits, then preliminary injunctive relief
cannot be granted. Marxe v. Jackson, 833 F.2d 1121 (3d Cir. 1987); Spotts v. United
States, 2013 WL 753520, *3 (M.D. Pa. 2013), adopted by, 2013 WL 753799 (M.D. Pa.
2013). The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating these factors. Chimenti, 2009
WL 2957792, at *1 (citing Dorfman v. Moorhous, 1993 WL 483166, *1 (E.D. Pa. 1993)).
"Perhaps the most important prerequisite for the issuance of a preliminary injunction
is a demonstration that if it is not granted, the applicant is likely to suffer irreparable harm
before a decision on the merits can be rendered." McLaughlin v. Fultz, 2008 WL 239557, *4
(M.D. Pa. 2008). Speculative injury does not constitute a showing of irreparable harm.
Continental Group, Inc. v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 359 (3d Cir. 1980);
Azzara v. Scism, 2012 WL 722342, *10 (M.D. Pa. 2012). The Third Circuit Court of Appeals
2
has defined irreparable injury as "potential harm which cannot be redressed by a legal or an
equitable remedy following a trial." Instant Air Freight Co. v. C.F. Air Freight, Inc., 882 F.2d
797, 801 (3d Cir. 1989); Azzara, 2012 WL 722342, at *9-10. A court may not grant
preliminary injunctive relief unless "[t]he preliminary injunction [is] the only way of protecting
the plaintiff from harm." Instant Air Freight Co., 882 F.2d at 801.
II.
Discussion
In the instant motion, Martin claims that Defendants interfered with his ability to copy
documents, tampered with his mail, and that Defendants' actions are "unbecoming." (Doc.
45). For relief, Martin "seeks help or appointed counsel." (Id.). Martin has failed to satisfy
the four factors to support granting a preliminary injunction.
With regard to the first factor, it is not likely that Martin will prevail on the merits of
the claims. Martin's general allegations regarding the treatment of his mail are vague and
nonspecific. He provides no specific facts or proof that his mail is being read by any
particular unauthorized individual. See (Doc. 45) (stating that Defendants are "pos[s]ibly"
destroying his mail). Nor does Martin state that any of the named Defendants were
personally involved in the alleged mail tampering. As to his complaints that he was not
permitted to copy non-legal documents, Martin has provided documentation that the denial
was pursuant to official DOC policy. Martin has provided responses to his grievances
wherein prison administrators explained that DOC policy states, "[t]he library will only
3
photocopy legal materials for inmates housed in the RHU." (Doc. 46-1, p. 4). Martin has
thus failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits to constitute an
award of preliminary injunctive relief.
Regarding the second factor, Martin fails to explain how the alleged mail tampering
and inability to photocopy non-legal documents will cause his case irreparable harm. Martin
provides no direct relationship between the alleged individuals tampering with his mail, the
inability to photocopy, and the harm to his case. Rather, he sets forth conclusory
statements and speculation. Thus, the Court finds that Martin has not shown an immediate
irreparable harm justifying a preliminary injunction.
The Court next considers the third and fourth factors. Granting injunctive relief in the
instant action, which would effectively have the federal court making ad hoc and individual
decisions concerning a single prisoner, could harm both the Defendants' and the public's
interest. In the prison context, Defendants' interests and the public's interest in penological
order could be adversely effected if the Court began dictating that one particular inmate
could photocopy certain documents. Moreover, the Court declines to interfere with
photocopying policy and mail opening process that occurs in prison. Therefore,
consideration of "whether granting preliminary relief will result in even greater harm to the
nonmoving party; and ... whether granting the preliminary relief will be in the public
interest," Gerardi v. Pelul/o, 16 F.3d 1363, 1373 (3d Cir. 1994), weighs against Martin in
4
this case.
Ill.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Martin's motion for a preliminary injunction will be denied. A
separate Order shall issue.
Date: August
3:-Q ,2017
5
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?