Opinion
1:21-CV-00357-RAL
08-25-2022
JOSEPH SHEGOG, Plaintiff v. OFFICER GRINELL, JENNIFER MOONEY, JENNIFER DEPLATCHETT, MS. SHRADER, MS. GILES, ALL SUED IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, Defendants
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMARY INJUNCTION
ECF NO. 34
RICHARD A. LANZILLO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This case is before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction. ECF No. 34. It is respectfully recommended that the motion be DENIED.
I. Background
Plaintiff Joseph Shegog ("Shegog"), an inmate in the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ("DOC") at its State Correctional Institution at Albion ("SCI-Albion"), commenced this action on December 23, 2021. See ECF No. 1. He was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and his Complaint was docketed on February 8, 2022. See ECF Nos. 7, 8. The Defendants, employees of the Department of Corrections ("DOC"), answered Shegog's Complaint (see ECF No. 20), and discovery is due to conclude on October 3, 2022. See ECF No. 30.
In his instant motion, Shegog claims that injunctive relief is warranted because his legal mail and/or "materials" are being "returned to sender." See ECF No. 34, p. 1. As evidence, he attaches what appears to be an internal prison form authored by "Dina Raubaugh" which states that a "piece of mail was received by Smart Communications and is being returned to sender due to the following reason: Legal Mail CONTROL NUMBER." ECF No. 34-1, p. 1. Shegog believes that this exhibit is evidence that "opposing counsel has used his authority to misdirect Plaintiffs legal mail." Id. His motion requests an order directing the DOC to allow his legal mail to be sent to him directly. Id. The Court should deny the motion.
II. Legal Standard
Motions for preliminary injunctive relief are governed by Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and are judged against exacting legal standards. To obtain a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order, a movant "must satisfy the traditional four-factor test: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) he or she will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is denied; (3) granting relief will not result in even greater harm to the non-moving party; and (4) the public interest favors such relief." Miller v. Mitchell, 598 F.3d 139, 147 (3d Cir. 2010). It is the movant's burden to show a likelihood of success on the merits. Campbell Soup Co. v. ConAgra Inc., 977 F.2d 86, 90 (3d Cir. 1992).
Pursuant to Rule 65(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a "court may issue a preliminary injunction only on notice to the adverse party." Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(a)(1). In contrast, a "court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney" if certain conditions are met. Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b)(1).
Preliminary injunctive relief is not granted as a matter of right. Kershner v. Mazurkiewicz, 670 F.2d 440, 443 (3d Cir. 1982). Generally, preliminary injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy that places precise burdens on the moving party, and "[t]he preliminary injunction must be the only way of protecting the plaintiff from harm." Instant Air Freight Co. v. CF. Air Freight, Inc., 882 F.2d 797, 801 (3d Cir. 1989). "It has been well stated 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). Further, where the requested preliminary injunctive relief "is directed not merely at preserving the status quo but... at providing mandatory relief, the burden on the moving party is particularly heavy." Punnet v. Carter, 621 F.2d 578, 582 (3d Cir. 1937). Mandatory injunctions should be used sparingly. United States v. Price, 154 F.3d 128, 133 (3d Cir. 1998); Kershner, 670 F.2d at 443.
For Shegog to sustain his burden of proof that he is entitled to preliminary injunctive relief under Rule 65, he must demonstrate both a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm if the requested relief is not granted. Abu-Jamal v. Price, 154 F.3d 128, 133 (3d Cir. 1998). As these elements suggest, there must be 'a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.'" Ball v. Famiglio, 396 Fed.Appx. 836, 837 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Little v. Jones, 607 F.3d 1245, 1251 (10th Cir. 2010)). To establish a reasonable probability of success on the merits, Shegog as the moving party, must produce sufficient evidence to satisfy the essential elements of the underlying cause of action. See, e.g., Sutton v. Cerullo, 2014 WL 3900235, at *5 (M.D. Pa, Aug. 28, 2014). To establish irreparable injury, "the moving party must establish that the harm is imminent and probable." Id. "The mere risk of injury is not sufficient to meet this standard." Id. And the burden of showing irreparable injury "is not an easy burden" to meet. Id. In assessing a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, a court must also consider the harm to the defendants and whether granting the preliminary injunction will be in the public interest. Messner v. Bunner, 2009 WL 1406986, at *4 (W.D. Pa. May 19, 2009).
III. Discussion
Here, Shegog has not shown an imminent irreparable injury justifying the grant of injunctive relief. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has explained the DOC's procedures regarding inmate mail: "The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections requires that non-privileged mail be sent to a contracted processing vendor in Florida, Smart Communications, which scans the mail. Inmates receive printed copies of these electronic scans." Weir v. Napiorski, 2021 WL 5320855, at *1 (3d Cir. Nov. 16, 2021). See also COMMONWEALTH OF PA. DEP'T OF CORR., Policy Statement DC-ADM 803: Inmate Mail & Incoming Publications, § 1(D)(3)(d) (2020). Privileged communication, that is, mail which "involves confidential attorney-client communications and court mail ... must have an attorney or court 'control number' on the envelope indicating that it is privileged legal correspondence that must be opened in the presence of the inmate." Mbewe v. Delbalso, 2022 WL 3370779, at *5 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 16, 2022) (citing DC-ADM 803 § 1(D)(1); Fontroy v. Beard, 559 F.3d 173, 174 (3d Cir. 2009)). This "control number is how prison officials determine that the mail must be opened in the inmate's presence and cannot be read." Id. Privileged mail is sent to the prison where the inmate is housed, entered into a log, opened and inspected by the facility Security Officer for contraband in the presence of the inmate to whom it is addressed, and delivered to the inmate if no contraband or policy violations are discovered. See Molina v. Kauffman, 2022 WL 1122840, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 14, 2022)
Shegog's assertion that "opposing counsel has used his authority to misdirect Plaintiffs legal mail" is incorrect. As explained above, rejection of legal mail is not within the authority of opposing counsel. Shegog's evidence, "Exhibit A," does not support his contention. For example, it does not indicate what document was "misdirected." Nor does Exhibit A indicate what date the mailing was received and/or rejected or who sent the document. The more likely scenario is that a piece of legal mail from the Court was sent to Shegog without the control number (or an incorrect control number) affixed to the envelope. The Court's docket does not reflect that any mailing from this Court was returned for lack of a control number. Out of an abundance of caution, the Court includes a copy of the docket for Shegog's review.
Upon review of the docket in this case, the Court has sent two pieces of legal mail to Shegog in the past two months: an order on June 2, 2022, regarding the taking of Shegog's deposition; and an order on July 5, 2022, extending the discovery period to October 3, 2022. See ECF Nos. 27, 30. The Court includes copies of both orders with this Report and Recommendation in the event Shegog did not receive them when originally mailed.
Thus, Shegog has failed to show he will suffer irreparable harm if an injunction is not issued, which is a prerequisite to preliminary injunctive relief. See, e.g., Dean v. Tice, 2020 WL 6264727, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 22, 2020). Accordingly, the motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 34) should be denied.
IV. Conclusion and Notice Regarding Objections
For all the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction [ECF No. 34] be DENIED.
Any party is permitted to file Objections to this Report and Recommendation to the assigned United States District Judge. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d) and 72(b)(2), and LCvR 72.D.2, Plaintiff, because he is a non-electronically registered party, must file objections to this Report and Recommendation within 18 days and Defendants, because they are electronically registered parties, must file objections, if any, within 14 days.
The parties are cautioned that failure to file Objections within this timeframe "will waive the right to appeal." Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n. 7 (3d Cir. 2011).