# BROWN v. WOLF

> District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · August 12, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10416842

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** August 12, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10416842

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ALTON D. BROWN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Civil No. 16-cv-1081
)
TOM WOLF, et. Al. , )
)
Defendants. )

OPINION and ORDER
This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy for pretrial
proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and Local
Rule of Civil Procedure 72. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Alton D. Brown’s request for
Preliminary Injunctive Relief. A hearing on the request was held on February 23, 2021. ECF No.
379. Testifying at the hearing were Eric Jetson Lyons, Dr. Mathew Miceli, Andre Jacobs, and
Alton Brown. Numerous exhibits were entered into evidence at the hearing, and the Court also
considered numerous exhibits filed on the record. For the reasons that follow, the request for
preliminary injunctive relief will be denied.
I. Background
Mr. Brown initially sought Preliminary Injunctive Relief on September 1, 2017. ECF No.
17. The initial motion sets forth the basic subject matter relevant to the request for injunctive
relief. In summary, Mr. Brown was diagnosed with prostate cancer in January 2016. He was told
of his diagnosis, offered an oral medication treatment protocol and was told treatment would
begin after he underwent a biopsy. Mr. Brown, as is his right, declined to proceed with the
1
suggested course of treatment or to undergo a biopsy.1 Instead, Mr. Brown wanted to review his
pertinent medical records, review other medical information, and to take sufficient time to
consider his treatment options. Mr. Brown alleges that he is not being given enough information
to allow him to provide his informed consent. 2 He alleges that he is being denied such
information as retaliatory punishment. He further alleges that Defendants have unfairly

characterized Mr. Brown’s desire to obtain and review medical information before deciding on a
treatment, as Mr. Brown “refusing treatment.” Mr. Brown alleges that the failure to provide him
with adequate information has resulted in his inability to be treated and his inability to make an
informed decision regarding the recommended treatments. In this initial request for preliminary
injunctive relief, Mr. Brown sought to enjoin prison officials from retaliating against him for his
decisions as to his medical treatment.
As the case has progressed and factual circumstances have shifted, Mr. Brown has
supplemented and updated his initial request. The Court, as well as Defendants, have recognized
that Mr. Brown’s request for preliminary injunctive relief and his arguments and evidence in

1 Prisoners have a constitutionally protected Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest in remaining
free from unwanted medical treatment. Cruzan by Cruzan v. Dir., Missouri Dep't of Health, 497 U.S. 261,
278 (1990) (“The principle that a competent person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in
refusing unwanted medical treatment may be inferred from our prior decisions”); Riggins v. Nevada, 504
U.S. 127, 134 (1992) (prisoner’s “interest in avoiding involuntary administration of antipsychotic drugs
was protected under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause”); Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S.
210, 221-222 (1990) (prisoners possess “a significant liberty interest in avoiding the unwanted
administration of antipsychotic drugs under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”).

2 “Prisoners have a right to such information as is reasonably necessary to make an informed decision to
accept or reject proposed treatment, as well as a reasonable explanation of the viable alternative treatments
that can be made available in a prison setting.” White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103, 113 (3d Cir. 1990).
“However, that right is limited, and medical staff ‘simply must provide a prisoner with such information as
a reasonable patient would find necessary to making an informed decision regarding treatment options.’”
Dykeman v. Ahsan, 560 F. App’x 129, 132 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Pabon v. Wright, 459 F.3d 241, 250
(2d Cir. 2006)).
2
favor of his request are contained within various pleadings throughout the docket. The Court has
considered the following pleadings as related to Mr. Brown’s request for preliminary injunctive
relief:
e Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief: ECF No. 17.
e Motion to Expedite Adjudication of the Motion for Preliminary Injunctive
relief: ECF No. 26.
e Defendants’ Response Briefs: ECF Nos. 38 & 41.
e Mr. Brown’s Reply Brief: ECF No 114.
e Defendants’ Supplemental Briefs: ECF Nos. 125 & 128.
e Mr. Brown’s Supplemental Petitions in support of his request for injunctive
relief: ECF Nos. 140, 141, 148, 150, 191, 192, and 273.
e Mr. Brown’s Motion for a Hearing: ECF No. 223.
Mr. Brown has also referred to his request for preliminary injunctive relief in many other filings
that were not solely concerned with his request for preliminary injunctive relief, all of which have
been read and considered by this Court. A review of all such pleadings resulted in this Court
summarizing Mr. Brown’s request for preliminary injunctive relief, and the scope of the hearing,
as follows:
the subject matter of the hearing 1s limited to Mr. Brown’s allegations regarding
the alleged failure to treat his prostate cancer and related health problems, the
actual treatment provided for Mr. Brown’s prostate cancer, the alleged failure to
properly manage Mr. Brown’s pain and symptoms, the alleged denial of medical
care, and the alleged retaliatory conduct specifically related to Mr. Brown’s
medical care and treatment (including conduct allegedly designed to discourage
Mr. Brown from accepting medical care). The issue of retaliation in the upcoming
hearing is also limited to specific alleged retaliatory conduct directed at Mr. Brown
solely as it relates to his medical care and treatment at SCI-Fayette.
Mem. Order, Feb. 4, 2021, at 2-3, ECF No. 366.

A. Relevant Evidence
The evidence related to the request for preliminary injunctive relief, as filed within the
docket throughout the course of this action and as introduced during and after the hearing, is
substantial. Following the hearing, Mr. Brown filed a “Notice of Documents of Court Records
that Support his Evidence Produced at 2/23/21 Hearing,” in which Mr. Brown attached sixty-eight

records. ECF Nos. 389, 394.3 The Court has also considered this evidence. Mr. Brown has also
filed a “Request for Court to Consider Exhibits related to Injunction Hearing.” ECF No. 419. In
this Request, Mr. Brown attaches two Inmate’s Request to Staff Members forms (DC-135A).
ECF Nos. 419-1 & 419-2. The Court has also considered this evidence, and therefore will grant
the Motion to Consider said exhibits. Mr. Brown also filed two Motions directed to the
Magistrate Judge that address exhibits relevant to his request for preliminary injunctive relief.
ECF Nos. 395 & 398. In ECF No. 395, Mr. Brown requested reconsideration of the Magistrate
Judge’s Order denying his “Motion for Potentially Life Saving Relief (Inter Alia) and Request for
Production of Documents” filed at ECF No. 340. The Magistrate Judge had denied said Motion

because the issues raised in it were “presently before the Court on the preliminary injunction
record.” ECF No. 382. Mr. Brown attached several exhibits to said Motion (ECF No. 340), and
this Court has relied upon the attached exhibits in considering the preliminary injunction motion,
including exhibits within the record but which were not specifically introduced as evidence during

3 In this “Notice,” Mr. Brown explains, among other things, how the exhibits relate to his request for
preliminary injunctive relief and how certain exhibits refute or impeach Dr. Miceli’s testimony. Mr.
Brown also explains the proper interpretation of certain exhibits, explains how some prior submitted
exhibits were not complete or were only included in error, and explains how some attached exhibits were
originally meant to be included in support of his request for injunctive relief. He also refers to and/or
incorporates relevant pleadings and exhibits from Civil Actions 17-321 & 18-1130, which were
consolidated with the present action.
4
the preliminary injunction hearing. In ECF No. 398, Mr. Brown moved for an “Order Requiring
the Defendants to [Provide Mr. Brown] with all Medical Records from 2019- 2021.” In response,
the Magistrate Judge noted that Mr. Brown’s medical records were introduced into evidence at the
preliminary injunction hearing, and that he had filed Objections to said medical records. ECF No.
402 (referring to Objections filed at ECF No. 396). Said Objections are addressed below.

In summary, the Court has reviewed all evidence related to Mr. Brown’s request for
preliminary injunctive relief and has considered all relevant and admissible evidence in
determining whether preliminary injunctive relief is warranted. The evidence will be considered
insofar as it is relevant to Mr. Brown’s allegations regarding the alleged failure to treat his
prostate cancer and related health problems, the actual treatment provided for Mr. Brown’s
prostate cancer, the alleged failure to properly manage Mr. Brown’s pain, symptoms and side-
effects, the alleged denial of medical care, and the alleged retaliatory conduct specifically related
to Mr. Brown’s medical care and treatment (including conduct allegedly designed to discourage
Mr. Brown from accepting medical care).

B. Objections to the Evidence
Both Mr. Brown and the Defendants have challenged portions of evidence introduced at
the hearing. As directed by the Court, the Medical Defendants4 filed a “Concise Statement of
Position on Plaintiff’s Exhibits from February 23, 2021 Hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for
Preliminary Injunction” (ECF No. 408), to which Mr. Brown filed a Response (ECF No. 417).
Mr. Brown filed “Objections to Defendants’ Medical Record Exhibits for the Preliminary

4 The Medical Defendants are Dr. Alpert, Pa. N. Austin, Correct Care Solutions, Jay Cowan, Darla
Cowden, Mike Hice, Byunghak Jin, Dr. Carl Keldie, S. Liberatore, Dr. Malhi, Dr. Miceli, Elon Mwaura,
and Dr. Park.

5
Injunction Hearing of 2/23/21” (ECF No. 396), to which the Medical Defendants filed a Response
(ECF No. 410). Mr. Brown then filed a Reply to the Response.
To the extent consideration of Mr. Brown’s Exhibits 1, 5-7, 9-11 is limited to showing Mr.
Brown’s complaints as raised in his requests for preliminary injunctive relief and in his
Grievances, the Medical Defendants have no objection. The Medical Defendants do object to the

use of said exhibits to the extent they are offered/intended to detail Mr. Brown’s medical
treatment, history, diagnosis, or any medical opinions of his treating providers. As to the
Grievance exhibits, the Medical Defendants object to said exhibits insofar as they are intended to
detail Mr. Brown’s personal view of the facts regarding his medical treatment, history, diagnosis,
medical opinions, and similar matters because the Medical Defendants assert such Grievances are
not evidence of the truth of such matters.
In response, Mr. Brown states that Exhibit 1, a July 17, 2019 request slip, was identified
by Dr. Miceli and was introduced to show that Mr. Brown was denied medical care for the
adverse side effects of medication used for hormone therapy. In the July 17, 2019 request slip,

Mr. Brown states that he is having adverse side effects of hot flashes and urinary infection, that he
continues to have difficult and painful urination, and that he requested a new pain medication.
Dr. Miceli’s written response to Mr. Brown’s Inmate Request was, “Expected Side effects.”
Thus, the Court will consider Exhibit 1 as Mr. Brown’s proof that he requested treatment for his
side effects and related pain and that Dr Miceli told him that the side effects were expected. The
Medical Defendants’ Objections to admission of Exhibit 1 are overruled. Exhibit 1 is admitted
into evidence.

6
Next, Mr. Brown argues that the Grievances in Exhibits 5-7 and 9-11, along with the
prison’s responses to said Grievances, are all medically based grievances which are investigated
by Medical Department Staff and reviewed by the Health Care Services Director. The Court will
consider the grievances and responses to Grievances to the extent that they are admissible and
relevant to Mr. Brown’s request for preliminary injunctive relief. The Medical Defendants’

Objections are overruled. Exhibits 5, 6, 7, and 9 are admitted into evidence (Exhibits 10 & 11
were admitted during the hearing).
Finally, the Medical Defendants object to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, and 8. Exhibit 2 is a history of
Plaintiff’s criminal case and appeal litigation. Exhibits 3, 4 and 8 are publications from the
American Cancer Society, the National Institute of Health, and a section from the Pennsylvania
Code. At the hearing, Dr. Miceli stated that the National Institute of Health document (Exhibit 4)
was authoritative. The Court will consider such exbibits to the extent they are admissible and
relevant to Mr. Brown’s request for preliminary injunctive relief. The Medical Defendants’
Objections are overruled. Exhibits 3 and 4 are admitted into evidence (Exhibits 2 & 8 were

admitted during the hearing).
The Medical Defendants introduced 239 pages of Mr. Brown’s Medical Records as
Defendants’ Exhibit A. ECF No. 380 (attaching the 239-pages of documents). Mr. Brown
objects to the Medical Defendants’ Exhibit A for several reasons. First, he objects that the
documents within Exhibit A are not identified by page number. Next, he objects that the
documents are computer printouts instead of the actual medical records. He further objects to
redactions made in some of the documents. He also argues that the Medical Defendants
intentionally chose not to introduce medical records at the hearing in an attempt to prevent Mr.

7
Brown from relying on said evidence to support his position. Finally, he objects to the
introduction of the Medical Defendants’ Exhibit A on the grounds that the Court denied Mr.
Brown’s motions seeking production of his medical records. The Medical Defendants assert that
Exhibit A consists of the entirety of Mr. Brown’s medical chart, with the exception of redacted
mental health information and any information that was not available at the time of the hearing

(such as CT and Bone Scan results from February 8, 2021 and February 17, 2021). The Court has
reviewed the Medical Records. There is no valid reason to justify exclusion of Exhibit A. Mr.
Brown’s Objections are overruled. The Medical Defendants’ Exhibit A is admitted into evidence.
On April 13, 2021, Mr. Brown also filed a post-hearing “Motion for Court Order”,
in which he:
(1) expresses his concern that a memo introduced at the hearing regarding
Housing in the Psychiatric Observation Cells has gone missing;

(2) speculates that the Defendants are intentionally “sabotaging” his
correspondence with the American Cancer Society (ACS), because he has not
received a document related to side-effects of hormone therapy that he had
requested, which document the ACS told him would be forthcoming; and

(3) requests that the Court issue an order directing that Mr. Brown be sent to the
UPMC Hillman Cancer Center for medical care.

ECF No. 412. With regard to the memo concerning the Psychiatric Observation Cells, Mr.
Brown’s evidence does contain a memo titled, “POC Admission Procedure.” This memo was
contained within Mr. Brown’s Exhibit 4. In addition, while the Court understands Mr. Brown’s
argument against the use of the Psychiatric Observation Cells in relation to medical treatment, the
Court concludes that resolution of the request for injunctive relief is not dependent on the housing
conditions in the Psychiatric Observation Cells. Next, as there is no evidence to establish
sabotage regarding the ACS’s correspondence with Mr. Brown, the Court declines to take any
8
action. Finally, the Court has no basis or authority to Order the prison to send Mr. Brown to
UPMC Hillman Cancer Center. Accordingly, the Motion filed at ECF No. 412 will be denied.
II. Applicable Law
The Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2), limits the authority of courts
to enjoin the exercise of discretion by prison officials, providing, in part, that “[p]reliminary

injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm
the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct
that harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). Injunctive relief in any form is an extraordinary remedy
that should be granted in “limited circumstances.” AT & T v. Winback and Conserve Prog. Inc.,
42 F.3d 1421, 1427 (3d Cir. 1994). 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 preliminary relief will be in the public interest.’” Am. Exp. Travel

Related Services, Inc. v. Sidamon–Eristoff, 669 F.3d 359, 366 (3d Cir. 2012) (quoting Crissman
v. Dover Downs Entertainment Inc., 239 F.3d 357, 364 (3d Cir. 2001). The burden lies with the
plaintiff to establish every element in his favor, otherwise the grant of a preliminary injunction is
inappropriate. P.C. Yonkers, Inc. v. Celebrations the Party and Seasonal Superstore, LLC, 428
F.3d 504, 508 (3d Cir. 2005).
Where the requested preliminary injunction “is directed not merely at preserving the
status quo but … at providing mandatory relief, the burden on the moving party is particularly
heavy.” Punnett v. Carter, 621 F.2d 578, 582 (3d Cir. 1980). Mandatory injunctions should be

9
issued only sparingly. United States v. Price, 688 F.2d 204, 212 (3d Cir. 1982). Thus, a request
for any form of mandatory prospective relief in the prison context “must always be viewed with
great caution because judicial restraint is specially called for in dealing with the complex and
intractable problems of prison administration.” Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (3d Cir. 1995).
Inmates have frequently sought preliminary injunctive relief compelling prison officials to take

certain actions with respect to them during the pendency of a lawsuit. Such requests are rarely
embraced by the courts, with courts frequently holding that the inmates have not shown that they
are entitled to use a motion for preliminary injunction as a vehicle to compel prison officials to
provide them with some specific relief and services pending completion of their lawsuits. See,
e.g., Goodwin v. Glunt, 2013 WL 5202088 (W.D. Pa. 2013); Messner v. Bunner, 2009 WL
1406986 (W.D. Pa. 2009); Brown v. Sobina, 2008 WL 4500482 (W.D. Pa. 2008); and Emile v.
SCI-Pittsburgh, 2006 WL 2773261, at *6 (W.D .Pa. 2006). In particular, courts have been
reluctant to accept inmate invitations to use preliminary injunctions as a means to judicially
prescribe specific medical courses of treatment for inmates. In such instances, courts have

typically declined such requests citing the inmate’s failure to either demonstrate irreparable
harm; Rivera v. Pennsylvania Dep't Of Corrections, 346 F. App’x 749 (3d Cir. 2009), Rush v.
Correctional Medical Services, Inc., 287 F. App’x 142 (3d Cir. 2008), or show a likelihood of
success on the merits. Quinn v. Palakovich, 204 F. App’x 116 (3d Cir. 2006).
III. Discussion
Mr. Brown alleges that the Medical Defendants have failed to properly treat his prostate
cancer and related health problems, as well as respond to his related pain and side effects. He
alleges that the Medical Defendants have failed to properly manage his pain and symptoms and

10
have actually denied him medical care. Further, he alleges that the above conduct is undertaken
in retaliation for Mr. Brown’s insistence on obtaining relevant medical information to make an
informed decision as to treatment and in retaliation for his litigious behavior. He further alleges
that the Defendants are retaliating against him in a manner designed to discourage him from
accepting medical care. He alleges that as a result, he suffers physical pain, mental and emotional
suffering, and an accelerated timeline of the progression of his diseases that will ultimately lead to
an early and preventable death. At the beginning of the hearing, Mr. Brown explained that he was
seeking injunctive relief related to his medical care in the form of an Order of Court that would:
e Direct the Defendants to provide him with medical care for his cancer,
e Direct the Defendants to provide medical care for the side effects of hormone
therapy,
e Direct the Defendants to provide medical care for pain relief,
e Direct the Defendants to provide medical care for infections he contracted during
surgery,
e Direct the Defendants to not place Mr. Brown into a Psychiatric Observation Cell
related to the provision of medical care, and
e Direct the Defendants to place Mr. Brown in the general prison population, instead
of the Restricted Housing Unit, which he avers will permit him to receive better
medical care.
The Court does not in any way diminish Mr. Brown’s deeply held concerns, as a patient, about
the medical treatment he receives for his serious conditions, troubling side-effects, and pain.
However, after review of the pleadings, the evidence of record on the docket prior to the hearing,
the evidence and testimony introduced at the hearing, and the pleadings and evidence entered
after the hearing, and in light of the exacting standards for issuing a preliminary injunction, the

1]

Court concludes that Mr. Brown’s request for injunctive relief must be denied because he cannot
show a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of his claims.
Mr. Brown’s claims relevant to his request for injunctive relief allege, in one way or
another, that the Defendants have refused to provide him with medical treatment, have been
deliberately indifferent to his serious illnesses, related side-effects and pain, and have engaged in

conduct designed to harm his ability to obtain medical care for his serious conditions in violation
of the Eighth Amendment. Mr. Brown claims that the Defendants have refused to provide him
with access to a pain specialist or to consider alternate medications; that the Defendants have
refused to provide him with medical care for his prostate cancer, side-effects from hormone
therapy and related conditions; that the Defendants have committed medical mistreatment related
to Mr. Brown’s prostate biopsy; that, through the use of Psychiatric Observation Cells, the
Defendants have prevented Mr. Brown from receiving medical care for bacterial infections and
from receiving medical care in general; and the Defendants have refused to provide medical care
in accordance with Policy 13.8 and the Settlement Agreement with the Disability Network.

“Although negligence in the administration of medical treatment to prisoners is not itself
actionable under the Constitution, failure to provide adequate treatment is a violation of the eighth
amendment when it results from ‘deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious illness or injury.’”
Inmates of Allegheny Cty. Jail v. Pierce, 612 F.2d 754, 762 (3d Cir. 1979) (quoting Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105 (1976)). “[D]eliberate indifference to serious medical needs of
prisoners constitutes the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,’ proscribed by the Eighth
Amendment.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104 (quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 173 (1976)).
An Eighth Amendment violation can be “manifested by prison doctors in their response to the

12
prisoner’s needs” or by “prison guards in intentionally denying or delaying access to medical
care.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104–05. Deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s medical needs must
rise above the level of “mere negligence,” Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 305 (1991), and cannot
be “inadvertent,” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105. The “deliberate indifference standard ‘affords
considerable latitude to prison medical authorities in the diagnosis and treatment of the medical

problems of inmate patients,’ we must ‘disavow any attempt to second-guess the propriety or
adequacy of [their] particular course of treatment’ so long as it ‘remains a question of sound
professional judgment.’” Pearson v. Prison Health Serv., 850 F.3d 526, 538 (3d Cir. 2017)
(quoting Pierce, 612 F.2d at 762).
Here, the record evidence demonstrates that the Defendants have either provided Mr.
Brown with direct medical treatment or they have provided Mr. Brown with opportunities to
accept medical treatment for his conditions, symptoms, side-effects and pain. Despite Mr.
Brown’s assertions to the contrary, there is no evidence that the Defendants have refused to
medically address his serious medical conditions and related side-effects and pain. At the

preliminary injunction stage of this action, following thorough review of the evidence of record,
as well as the testimony and evidence introduced at the hearing and subsequent thereto, this Court
concludes that the Defendants have responded to Mr. Brown’s medical requests. Mr. Brown’s
Inmate’s requests to Staff, Mr. Brown’s Grievances, the Defendants’ Responses to the Grievances
and Mr. Brown’s actual Medical Records, suggest a severe and profound disagreement and
disconnect between the Defendants’ attempts to treat Mr. Brown and Mr. Brown’s views of how
he should be medically treated. Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 235 (3d Cir. 2004) (disagreement
as to proper medical treatment insufficient to state Eighth Amendment claim). For example, the

13
parties disagree about whether the medical treatment Mr. Brown is receiving is appropriate,
whether Mr. Brown has been given sufficient and relevant materials to review in order for him to
decide to consent to or refuse proposed medical treatment, whether he has been given sufficient
time to review such materials in conjunction with his own medical records, whether the
Defendants are withholding appropriate medical treatment, and whether the Defendants are

appropriately managing and treating his side-effects, pain and infection. However, the record
evidence does not show that the Medical Defendants or the Commonwealth Defendants have
prevented or denied Mr. Brown from receiving appropriate medical treatment. As previously
stated, the disputes here concern Mr. Brown’s preferred treatments, preferred protocols, preferred
types or dosages of medicine, and the like. The differences/disagreements between Mr. Brown
and the Defendants do not, at this stage, evidence a “clear showing” that Mr. Brown is likely to
succeed on the merits of his Deliberate Indifference Eighth Amendment claims. Milhouse v.
Fasciana, 721 F. App’x 109, 111 (3d Cir. 2018) (no strong showing of likely success on the merits
where “it appeared that his complaints concerned disagreement with the treatment he was
receiving, rather than deliberate indifference”).5

Finally, Mr. Brown requests preliminary injunctive relief to order the Defendants to
designate him for placement in the general prison population. Such request requires the Court to
intrude on prison administration matters implicating the prison’s interest in maintaining the

5 Mr. Brown also alleges denial of medical care because Defendants refused to allow Mr. Brown access to
medical marijuana and supplements. Mr. Brown did not plead this claim until his latest Amended
Complaint. It is not related to his claims of imminent danger for which he was granted in forma pauperis
status. Moreover, even if this claim were related to his imminent danger claims, the Court has previously
explained to Mr. Brown that the use of medical marijuana in prisons in Pennsylvania is not permitted.
Therefore, he cannot show a likelihood of success on this claim.

14
operation, safety, and security within the prison. Rush, 287 F. App’x at 144. Such requests for
mandatory injunctive relief “must always be viewed with great caution because judicial restraint
is especially called for in dealing with the complex and intractable problems of prison
administration.” Goff, 60 F.3d at 520. Given the deference accorded to prison officials in such
matters, the evidence at this stage does not show sufficient likelihood of success on the merits.

Having concluded that preliminary injunctive relief is not warranted on the basis that Mr.
Brown cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits, the Court need not address the
remaining factors. Ferring Pharms., Inc. v. Watson Pharms., Inc., 765 F.3d 205, 210 (3d Cir.
2014) (“The failure to establish any element ... renders a preliminary injunction inappropriate”)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
IV. Conclusion
After careful review of the pleadings, the extensive evidence of record, and the evidence
and testimony introduced at the hearing and subsequent thereto, Mr. Brown’s request for
preliminary injunctive relief is not warranted because he is unable to demonstrate a likelihood of

success on the merits.
Accordingly, the following Order is hereby entered.

ORDER
AND NOW, this 12th day of August 2021, as set forth in the Opinion accompanying this
Order, it is hereby ORDERED that Alton Brown’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, as
supplemented by his additional pleadings and petitions in support of his request for a preliminary
injunction, is DENIED.

15
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Brown’s Motion for Court Order (ECF No. 412) is
DENIED and Mr. Brown’s Request for Court to Consider Exhibits related to Injunction Hearing,
(ECF No. 419) is GRANTED.

Mech. Hora
Marilyn J. Horan
United States District Court Judge

ce: Alton D. Brown, pro se
DL-4686
SCI Fayette
48 Overlook Drive
LaBelle, PA 15450-1050
(via U.S. First Class Mail)

16

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10416842. Public record. Not legal advice.