ANGLE v. CARTER et al

Filing 54

ORDER denying 53 Motion for Injunctive Relief. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo on 11/14/2018. (dm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BRIAN ANGLE, II
Plaintiff,
V.

)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1: 16-cv-00276

)
CAPT. CARTER, ET AL.
Defendants.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
RICHARD A. LANZILLO

)
)
)
)

ORDER

Plaintiff Brian Angle (Angle), a prisoner incarcerated with the Pennsylvania Department
of Corrections at the State Correctional Institution at Forest (SCI-Forest), has filed a prose
motion entitled "Motion for Injunctive Relief/T.R.O." ECF No. 53. Upon consideration, the
motion is DENIED.
Because the purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to prevent irreparable injury
pending the resolution of the underlying claims on their merits, "the injury claimed in the motion
for preliminary injunctive relief must relate to the conduct alleged and permanent relief sought in
the plaintiffs complaint." James v. Varano, 2017 WL 895569, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 7, 2017).
In other words, "there must be a connection between the underlying complaint and the relief
requested in the motion for a preliminary injunction." Id. (citing Ball v. Famiglio, 396 Fed.
Appx. 836, 837 (3d Cir. 2010)). A district court "should not issue an injunction when the
injunction in question is not of the same character and deals with a matter lying wholly outside
the issues in the suit." Kaimowitz v. Orlando, Fla., 122 F.3d 41, 43 (11th Cir. 1997) (citing De

Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945)).
Here, Angle's request for injunctive relief does not relate to any of his claims raised in
this action. The Complaint alleges that the Defendants retaliated against him for filing

1

grievances related to an alleged incident of sexual assault. ECF No. 4, at 2-3. His motion for
injunctive relief, however, contends that he was retaliated against for failing to stand for a
prisoner count. He also indicates that he is hearing disabled and that his legal papers are
missing, allegations which are unrelated to the claims raised in his Complaint. See ECF No. 53.
Therefore, the Plaintiffs motion injunction is DENIED. For the same reasons, the
Plaintiffs request for a temporary restraining order is DENIED. See, e.g., Eckes v. Byrd, 2018
WL 4001737 at *2 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 22, 2018) (citing Ball v. Famiglio, 396 Fed. Appx. 836, 835
(3d Cir. 2010).

It is so ordered.
. .

····-··--·)
,.,,...,/

~

~DK~kil61

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Date:

dv /

i

;7,tJ/ ()

, 2018

2