WAREHAM v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
Filing
80
ORDER denying 77 Plaintiff's "Emergency Motion for Medical Treatment After Release From Incarceration". Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 12-17-13. (nam)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOSEPH WAREHAM,
Plaintiff,
v.
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-0188
United States Court Judge
Arthur J. Schwab
United States Magistrate Judge
Cynthia Reed Eddy
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Presently pending is Plaintiff’s “Emergency Motion for Medical Treatment After Release
from Incarceration” (ECF No. 77), and the Response in opposition filed by Defendant, the
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (ECF No. 78). After careful consideration, the
Emergency Motion will be denied.
Background
Plaintiff initiated this action on February 5, 2013, while he was a prisoner in the custody
of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (“DOC”). Plaintiff claims that Defendants
denied him certain accommodations and adequate medical care while he was incarcerated at SCIGreensburg in 2011 and, thereafter, upon his transfer to SCI-Fayette. The named Defendants
were involved in his medical care and/or custody.
Plaintiff has completed his sentence and was released from custody by the DOC on
November 2, 2013. He now resides in Florida. There is no dispute that upon Plaintiff’s release
1
the DOC issued him a thirty (30) day supply of medication. Plaintiff has also informed the Court
that he has applied for Social Security disability benefits, which includes medical coverage to
obtain the “long delayed necessary surgical repairs(s) to his left knee and probably for the
herniated disc in his back . . . .” Mot. at 3. Plaintiff asks the Court to require Defendants to
provide him with back and /or knee surgery even though he has completed his sentence and has
been released from DOC custody.
Standard of Review
The Court will construe Plaintiff’s motion, which seeks emergency injunctive relief, as a
motion filed under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pro se pleadings, like those
filed here, which seek extraordinary, or emergency relief, in the form of preliminary injunctions
are governed by Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and are judged against exacting
legal standards. As the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has explained:
Four factors govern a district court’s decision whether to issue a preliminary
injunction: (1) whether the movant has shown a reasonable probability of success
on the merits; (2) whether the movant will be irreparably injured by denial of the
relief, (3) whether granting preliminary relief will result in even greater harm to
the nonmoving party; and (4) whether granting the preliminary relief will be in the
public interest.
Gerardi v. Pelullo, 16 F.3d 1363 (3d Cir. 1994) (quoting SI Handling Systems, Inc. v. Heisley,
753 F.2d 1244, 1254 (3d Cir. 1985)).
A preliminary injunction is not granted as a matter of right. Kerschner v. Mazurkewicz,
670 F.2d 440, 443 (3d Cir. 1982). It is an extraordinary remedy. Given the extraordinary nature
of this form of relief, a motion for preliminary injunction places precise burdens on the moving
party. As a threshold matter, “it is a movant’s burden to show that the ‘preliminary injunction
2
must be the only way of protecting the plaintiff from harm.’” Emile v. SCI-Pittsburgh, No. 94974, 2006 WL 2773261 at *6 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 24, 2006) (quoting Campbell Soup Co. v.
ConAgra, Inc., 977 F.2d 86, 91 (3d Cir. 1992)). Thus, when considering such requests, courts
are cautioned that:
[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should
not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of
persuasion.” Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (emphasis
deleted). Furthermore, the Court must recognize that ‘an [i]njunction is an
equitable remedy which should not be lightly indulged in, but used sparingly and
only in a clear and plain case.’ Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Cleveland
Typographical Union #53, 520 F.2d 1220, 1230 (6th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 428
U.S. 909 (1977). As a corollary to the principle that preliminary injunctions
should issue only in a clear and plain case, the Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit has observed that ‘upon an application for a preliminary injunction to
doubt is to deny.” Madison Square Garden Corp. v. Braddock, 90 F.2d 924, 927
(3d Cir. 1937).
Emile, 2006 Wl 2773261, at *6.
Accordingly, for Plaintiff to sustain his burden of proof that he is entitled to a preliminary
injunction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, he must demonstrate both a reasonable
likelihood of success on the merits and that he will be irreparably harmed if the requested relief is
not granted. Abu-Jamal v. Price, 154 F.3d 128, 133 (3d Cir. 1998). If the movant fails to carry
this burden on either of these elements, the motion should be denied since a party seeking such
relief must “demonstrate both a likelihood of success on the merits and the probability of
irreparable harm if relief is not granted.” Hohe v. Casey, 868 F.2d 69, 72 (3d Cir. 1989)
(emphasis added).
3
Discussion
While the Court does not in any way diminish Plaintiff’s complaints and concerns, a
review of the motion for preliminary injunction leads the Court to conclude that Plaintiff has not
made the demanding showing required by Rule 65 for this extraordinary relief. At the outset, the
Court finds that Plaintiff has not yet met his threshold obligation of showing reasonable
probability of success on the merits.
The essence of Plaintiff’s argument is that Defendants’ constitutional obligation to
provide medical care to inmates extends even after the inmates are released from custody.
Plaintiff asks the Court to require Defendants to provide him with back and /or knee surgery even
though he has completed his sentence and has been released from DOC custody.
Plaintiff does
not cite, nor has the Court found through its own independent research, any Third Circuit or
United States Supreme precedent which establishes such a duty to provide medical care to an
inmate after he is released.
To support his position, Plaintiff relies upon the decision of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1164 (9th Cir. 1999). In
that case, the court of appeals was concerned with the period immediately following the inmate’s
release - the “transitional period” - during which an inmate may not, because of his recent
restriction on liberty, instantly acquire the ability to obtain medical care on his own upon release.
The appellate court held that “[a] state’s failure to provide medication sufficient to cover this
transitional period amounts to an abdication of its responsibility to provide medical care to those,
who by reason of their incarceration, are unable to provide for their own medical needs.”
4
Wakefield, 177 F.3d at 1164 (emphasis added). Such a mandate to cover this “transitional
period” immediately following release, even if applicable in this circuit, could likely not extend
to Plaintiff’s case.
Plaintiff, by his own admission, was given a thirty day supply of prescription pain
medication, which covered his needs during the “transitional period” addressed by Wakefield.
The relief sought in the instant motion closely parallels the claims made by Plaintiff in his
Complaint. The need for surgery remains very much in dispute in this case. Indeed, whether
knee surgery was necessary is at the very heart of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against the
Medical Defendants.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the
merits of his claims warranting a preliminary injunction in this case. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
motion for an injunction ordering Defendants to arrange for surgical repair of his left knee and
back should be denied.
CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, the Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiff is
DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 17th day of December, 2013.
s/ Arthur J. Schwab
Arthur J. Schwab
United States District Judge
cc:
JOSEPH WAREHAM
5
108 James Avenue
Interlachen, FL 32148-4104
Mary Lynch Friedline
Office of Attorney General
Email: mfriedline@attorneygeneral.gov
J. Eric Barchiesi
Eisenberg & Torisky
Email: eric.barchiesi@aig.com
6
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?