WHITENIGHT v. WETZEL et al
Filing
188
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER re 20 MOTION for Order to Show Cause MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by SHAWN WHITENIGHT. As explained in the Memorandum Opinion, Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Injunction is DENIED as moot and the injunctive relief claims are dismissed against all of the Defendants. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy on 12/14/2017. (bsc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SHAWN WHITENIGHT,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN WETZEL, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-1864
United States Magistrate Judge
Cynthia Reed Eddy
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER1
At the time Plaintiff filed his request for injunctive relief, ECF No. 20, he was a prisoner
at SCI-Greene. In his motion, Plaintiff seeks an order directing Defendants to provide a
medically appropriate course of medical treatment for his back problems. In particular, Plaintiff
wants an examination by a qualified neurosurgeon-specialist.
Since filing the motion, Plaintiff has been released and is apparently residing in a private
residence in Berwick, PA. Defendants Norris, Wetzel, R. Clites, Dr. Herbik, Dr. Jin, Dr. Alpert,
Raj Mahli, Dr. Park, Ester Mattes, Elan Mwaura and Correct Care Solutions, Inc., have
responded to the motion arguing that Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief are moot. (ECF No.
155, 160). Plaintiff filed a reply in which he argues that he has obtained a medical card / health
insurance through the Commonwealth Access system, and that the Commonwealth Access
system should not be liable for Defendants’ “wanton actions and medical treatment denials . . . .”
(ECF No. 187).
All parties who have been served have consented to jurisdiction before a United States
Magistrate Judge; therefore, the Court has the authority to decide dispositive motions, and to
eventually enter final judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 636, et seq. See ECF Nos. 57, 101, 105, 113,
165, 168, 170, and 185. The only parties who have not been served are John / Jane Doe
defendants.
1
1
After consideration of the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that because Plaintiff has
been released from DOC custody, his claims for injunctive relief are, in fact, moot. The rule is
that where a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief for prison conditions that he is no longer subject to,
there is no longer a live controversy and a court cannot grant that injunctive relief. See AbdulAkbar v. Watson, 4 F.3d 195, 206 (3d Cir. 1993). Hence, the injunctive relief claims should be
dismissed against all of the Defendants.
An appropriate Order follows.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 14th day of December, 2017, it is hereby ORDERED, ADUDGED
AND DECREED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Injunction is DENIED as moot and the
injunctive relief claims are dismissed against all of the Defendants.
s/Cynthia Reed Eddy
Cynthia Reed Eddy
United States Magistrate Judge
cc:
SHAWN WHITENIGHT
182 Evansville Road
Berwick, PA 18603
(via U.S. First Class Mail)
All counsel of record
(via ECF electronic notification)
2
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?