“alleged ongoing retaliation against [defendant] is an issue wholly outside whether the defendants violated the Eighth Amendment.”
How later courts described this case
- “alleged ongoing retaliation against [defendant] is an issue wholly outside whether the defendants violated the Eighth Amendment.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
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. )
MEMORANDUM 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. On March 24, 2022, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation, recommending denying Plaintiff Alton D. Brown’s Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order [and] Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 504) and denying Mr.
Brown’s Motion to Produce Relevant Documents and Things (ECF No. 528). ECF No. 529. The
parties were informed that objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by April 7,
2022 for the electronically registered Defendants, and by April 11, 2022 for the non-electronically
registered party Plaintiff. Mr. Brown timely filed “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report of
Recommendation Upholding the Defendant’s Retaliatory, Sabotaging Attacks of Plaintiff.” ECF
No. 533.
Also before the Court is Mr. Brown’s Appeal to the District Court Judge from
Magistrate’s Order Dated 4/22/22 (Doc# 539); and Request to Supplement his Motion for
Preliminary Injunction (Doc# 504) with his Motion for Assistance (Doc# 532) and Emergency
Motion for Court Order (Doc# 538). ECF No. 544. As is evident from the title of the Appeal, it
1
is related to Mr. Brown’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [and] Motion for Preliminary
Injunction (hereinafter “Motion for Injunctive Relief’). Directly related to resolution of Mr.
Brown’s Motion for Injunctive Relief and the Appeal are the following pleadings:
e Declaration in Support of Motion for Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 505);
e Brief in Support of Motion for Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 506);
e Exhibits in Support of Motion for Injunctive relief (ECF No. 507);
e Defendants’ Responses to Motion for Injunctive Relief (ECF Nos. 518, 519 &
520);
e Plaintiffs Reply to Defendants’ Responses (ECF No. 526); and
e Exhibits in Support of Plaintiff's Reply (ECF No. 527);
e Motion for Assistance (ECF No. 532); and
e Emergency Motion for Court Order (ECF No. 538).
The Magistrate Judge recommended that Mr. Brown’s Motion for Injunctive Relief be
denied because it raises issues “entirely different from those raised in the complaint.’” ECF No.
529, at 2 (quoting Lee v. Lindsay, No. 06-1824, 2007 WL 1120562, at *1 (M.D-Pa. April 13,
2007')). As summarized by the Magistrate Judge, the “claims in this case are limited to whether
Defendants have been deliberately indifferent and/or refused to properly treat Mr. Brown's serious
medical needs (prostate cancer) and his related health problems, including related pain and side
effects.” ECF No. 529, at 2. Mr. Brown seeks injunctive relief in the form of an Order
restraining Defendants (and others) from preventing and sabotaging Mr. Brown’s efforts to
prosecute his lawsuit. The instant alleged acts cited by Mr. Brown concern retaliatory and
abusive cell searches, physical assaults, restricting access to legal materials, and scattering and
disassembling Mr. Brown’s case files with other files.
' Attached as Exhibit A.
The Court agrees that Mr. Brown’s request for injunctive relief concerns matters outside
the issues in the present lawsuit. “[P]reliminary injunctions should not be granted when they deal
with issues ‘wholly outside the issues in the suit,’ and seek intermediate relief of a different
character than the relief ultimately sought.” Jones v. Sec’y Pennsylvania Dep't of Corr., 589 F.
App’x 591, 594 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212,
220 (1945)). The remaining claims in this lawsuit are claims of deprivation of the Eighth
Amendment right to medical care and one claim of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.2
In contrast, Mr. Brown’s request to restrain Defendants and others from alleged retaliatory
conduct, involves matters outside the issues of this case. Jones, 589 F. App’x at 594 (“alleged
ongoing retaliation against [defendant] is an issue wholly outside whether the defendants violated
the Eighth Amendment.”) Accordingly, injunctive relief was properly denied.
Similarly, Mr. Brown’s Appeal of the Magistrate Judge’s April 22, 2022 Text Order,
which denied Mr. Brown’s Motion for Assistance and his Emergency Motion for Court Order,
concerns events that are also unconnected to the issues in this lawsuit. Upon review of Mr.
Brown’s Appeal of the Denial of his related Motion for Assistance and Emergency Motion for
Court Order, the Court finds that the decision of the Magistrate Judge is not clearly erroneous,
contrary to law, or an abuse of discretion. .
2 Mr. Brown’s First Amendment retaliation claims have been dismissed. Op. and Order, Aug. 12, 2021,
ECF No. 448. The Court is aware that Mr. Brown intends to file a Motion for Reconsideration of the
August 12, 2021 Opinion and Order.
3
ORDER
AND NOW, this 4th day of May 2022, following a de novo review of the relevant
pleadings and documents in this case, together with the Report and Recommendation, and
Objections thereto, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Objections do not undermine the
recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 529,
dated March 24, 2022, is ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court. Mr. Brown’s Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order [and] Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 504) is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Brown’s Motion to Produce Relevant
Documents and Things (ECF No. 528) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Brown’s Appeal to the District Court Judge from
Magistrate’s Order Dated 4/22/22 (ECF No. 539) is denied.
This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.
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)