HAYES v. GILMORE et al

Filing 28

ORDER denying 20 Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiff and denying as moot 26 Motion for Hearing filed by Plaintiff. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 5/8/17. A copy of this order will be mailed this day, 5/8/17, to Plaintiff at his address of record. (ard)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
STEVEN HAYES,
Plaintiff,
v.
MIKE GILMORE, MR. DELASANDRO,
MS. TRACY SHAWLEY, MR. WAINE, MS.
LINDSEY, SHELLY MANKEY, MAJOR
CARO, LT. STICKLES, LT. FOX, and
JOHN/JANE DOES,
Defendants.

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

Civil Action No. 17-174
Chief Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly

Re: ECF Nos. 20 and 26

ORDER

Plaintiff Steven Hayes (“Plaintiff”), an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at
Greene, has presented a civil rights complaint which he has been granted leave to prosecute
without prepayment of costs.
Presently before this Court is a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 20, and a
Motion for an evidentiary hearing on the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 26. In the
Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiff requests that the Court order: (1) that Plaintiff
receive psychotherapy for two hours per week and (2) the reduction in “unjustified punishment”
Plaintiff is undergoing resulting in inadequate phone calls and commissary purchases. ECF No.
20 at 1. Also before the Court is Defendants’ Response to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction,
ECF No. 27.
Inmate pro se pleadings 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. Four factors govern a district court's decision in such

matters:
(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, 1373 (3d Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). Further, a request for
injunctive relief in the prison context must be viewed with great caution because of the complex
and intractable problems of prison administration. Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir.
1995).
In this case, review of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction leads the Court to
conclude that Plaintiff has not made the demanding showing required for this extraordinary form
of relief. As an initial matter, Plaintiff has not yet met his threshold obligation of showing
reasonable likelihood on the merits. In addition, Plaintiff has not made a showing of immediate
irreparable harm justifying a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff has not established the necessity for
the federal court to intervene and render an ad hoc individual decision which could adversely
affect the public’s interest in penological order.

Accordingly, the Motion for Preliminary

Injunction, ECF No. 20, is denied. The Motion for an evidentiary hearing thereupon, ECF No. 26,
is denied as moot.
AND NOW, this 8th day of May, 2017, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motions, ECF
No. 20 and 26, are DENIED.
BY THE COURT:

/s/ Maureen P. Kelly
MAUREEN P. KELLY
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2

cc:

Steven Hayes
MQ-5447
SCI Greene
175 Progress Drive
Waynesburg, PA 15370
All counsel of record via CM-ECF

3