SCUTELLA v. COUSINS 3RD et al

Filing 30

ORDER: adopting 24 Report and Recommendation. The Court hereby ADOPTS 24 the Report and Recommendation, and DENIES 19 Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief. Signed by Judge Barbara J. Rothstein on December 12, 2016. (smb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JHEN SCUTELLA,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
v.
)
)
)
PATROLMAN JAMES COUSINS III,
)
PATROLMAN ROBERT E. WILLIAMS )
& LIEUTENANT WILLIAM GOOZDICH, )
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No.

1:15-cv-00253-BR-SPB

MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Jhen Scutella brings this civil rights action against Defendants Patrolman James
Cousins III, Patrolman Robert E. Williams, & Lieutenant William Goozdich. 1 Before the Court is
the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter that denies Plaintiff’s
Motion for Injunctive Relief. After reviewing the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s
Objections, Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiff’s Objections, and the record, the Court ADOPTS
the Report and Recommendation. The Court’s reasoning follows.
Plaintiff Scutella asserts that he is in fear of retaliation from Defendant Cousins, and thus
seeks injunctive relief to protect him from anticipated abuse. (Doc. No. 19, at 1-2). As Magistrate
Judge Baxter points out, injunctive relief is an “extraordinary remedy that is not to be routinely
granted.” Intel Corp. v. ULSI Sys. Tech., Inc., 995 F.2d 1566, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see also
Hoxworth v. Blinder, Robinson & Co., Inc., 903 F.2d 186, 189 (3d Cir. 1990). Before it can be
granted, the Court must consider whether the party seeking the injunction can meet the following
four requirements: “(1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) he or she will suffer irreparable

1

The factual background is set forth in greater detail in the Order Adopting Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation to Deny Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. No. 17).

1

harm if the injunction is denied; (3) granting relief will not result in even greater harm to the
nonmoving party; and (4) the public interest favors such relief.” Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. v.
Botticella, 613 F.3d 102, 109 (3d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Applying those principles, Magistrate Judge Baxter concluded that Plaintiff’s request for
injunctive relief should be denied because Plaintiff fails to meet the requirement of irreparable
injury. (Doc. No. 24, at 3). In response, Plaintiff objects, arguing that he will suffer irreparable
injury because he already suffered harm when Defendant Cousins previously assaulted him. (Doc.
No. 25, at 1-2).
In reviewing Plaintiff’s objection de novo pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (2012), the
Court cannot agree with Plaintiff.

Specifically, Plaintiff Scutella’s anticipation of future

misconduct by Defendant Cousins is too speculative to warrant the granting of a preliminary
injunction. See City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111 (1983) (explaining that the
requirement of irreparable injury “cannot be met where there is no showing of any real or
immediate threat that the plaintiff will be wronged again”). Plaintiff’s request becomes even more
speculative given the questionable factual background he provides. The Court therefore agrees
with Magistrate Judge Baxter’s conclusions.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation; and

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 12, 2016

BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2