MILLER v. KNIGHT et al

Filing 33

MEMORANDUM OPINION re 32 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by DARREN L. MILLER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo on 1/10/2022. (dm)

Case 1:20-cv-00234-RAL Document 33 Filed 01/10/22 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ERIE DIVISION
DARREN L. MILLER,
Plaintiff
vs.
C.OI. KNIGHT, SZELEWSKI, PAUL
ENNIS, BRIAN FLINCHBAUGH, C.OI.
BYERLY, LT. BEDNARO, MICHAEL
CLARK, JOHN WETZEL,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:20-cv-00234-RAL
RICHARD A. LANZILLO
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ECF NO. 32

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Darren Miller (Miller) has filed a motion for temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction. ECF No. 32. For the following reasons, the motion will be DENIED. 1
I.

Background
Miller, an inmate in the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC),

commenced this action against several individuals employed at the DOC’s State Correctional
Institution at Albion (SCI-Albion). His Complaint asserted claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
based on alleged violations of his rights under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. See
ECF No. 8. The Court granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss Miller’s Complaint but

This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. The parties have consented to
the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings in this case, including the entry of
final judgment, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 636. ECF Nos. 2, 13.

1

1

Case 1:20-cv-00234-RAL Document 33 Filed 01/10/22 Page 2 of 4

allowed him the opportunity to file an amended complaint to attempt to cure the deficiencies of
two claims: a First Amendment retaliation claim, and a Fourteenth Amendment Due Process
claim. See ECF No. 22. These claims relate to a misconduct charge Miller received while he
was incarcerated at SCI-Albion. Id. In contrast to the allegations and claims of his Complaint,
his pending motion seeks equitable relief relating to conduct that Miller alleges recently occurred
at the State Correctional Institution at Fayette (SCI-Fayette), where he is currently incarcerated.
See ECF No. 32. None of the individuals allegedly responsible for this recent conduct are
Defendants in this action. As equitable relief, Miller requests the “return of his legal materials,”
an extension of time to review his legal materials and to draft and file his Amended Complaint,
“Court monitoring in order to curtail continual retaliation,” and “[a]ccess to legal researching.”
Id., p. 3.
II.

Analysis
Injunctive relief is an “extraordinary remedy which should be granted only in limited

circumstances.” American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Winback and Conserve Program, Inc.,
42 F.3d 1421 (3d Cir. 1994) (quoting Frank’s GMC Truck Center, Inc. v. General Motor Corp.,
847 F.2d 100, 102 (3d Cir. 1988)). The purpose of the preliminary injunction is to preserve the
status quo until the rights of the parties can be fairly and fully litigated and determined by strictly
legal proofs and according to the principles of equity. Wetzel v. Edwards, 635 F.2d 283, 286 (4th
Cir. 1980). In deciding whether to grant injunctive relief, the Court considers four factors: (1)
the likelihood that the applicant will prevail on the merits; (2) the extent to which the movant is
being irreparably harmed by the conduct complained of; (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. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. v.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00234-RAL Document 33 Filed 01/10/22 Page 3 of 4

Botticella, 613 F.3d 102, 109 (3d Cir. 2010). As the moving party, Miller bears the burden of
producing evidence to support the first two factors. Acierno v. New Castle Cty., 40 F.3d 645,
653 (3d Cir. 1994). Absent support for either of the first two factors, a court must deny the
request for a preliminary injunction. Id.; Adams v. Freedom Forge Corp., 204 F.3d 475, 484 (3d
Cir. 2000).
Here, the Court need not reach the four-factor analysis for injunctive relief because
Miller’s motion is procedurally defective and facially inadequate. The motion is not based on
the conduct alleged or claims asserted in his Complaint. Indeed, none of the defendants in this
action is alleged to have been involved in the conduct identified in Miller’s motion. Because
preliminary injunctive relief is intended to prevent irreparable injury pending 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 plaintiff's 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)).
Miller’s requests for access to his legal materials, additional law library time, and court
monitoring of ongoing retaliation are unmoored from his original Complaint, see ECF No. 8, and
beyond the scope of the claims that the Court granted him leave to amend. See ECF Nos. 22, 23.
As such, the injunctive relief he requests is not available in this action. See Kaimowitz v.
Orlando, Fla., 122 F.3d 41, 43 (11th Cir. 1997) (rejecting injunctive relief where it “is not of the
same character, and deals with a matter lying wholly outside the issues in the suit”) (citing De
Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945)).

3

Case 1:20-cv-00234-RAL Document 33 Filed 01/10/22 Page 4 of 4

If Miller wishes to pursue claims based on the conduct alleged in his motion, he may
commence a separate lawsuit after he exhausts whatever administrative remedies may be
available to him at SCI-Fayette. To the extent Miller’s motion is complaining that individuals at
SCI-Fayette have prevented him from filing an amended complaint in this action, his remedy is
to seek a further extension of time to do so. The Court will conduct a telephone status
conference in this action to address whether a further extension or other accommodation is
appropriate. That conference will be scheduled by separate Order.
III.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for temporary restraining order and

preliminary injunction at ECF No. 32 will be DENIED. A separate Order accompanies this
Memorandum.
Dated: January 10, 2022
BY THE COURT:

RICHARD A. LANZILLO
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4