The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOHNSTOWN DIVISION
KEVIN WILSON, )
)
) Civil Action No.:
Plaintiff, )
3:24-CV-00183-CBB
)
vs. )
) Christopher B. Brown
C.O. GALLAHER, PAUL ENGLISH, ) United States Magistrate Judge
)
RONALD MOONEY, DR. LAUREL R.
)
HARRY, )
)
)
Defendants,
)
MEMORANDUM ORDER1 DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER, MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
ECF No. 37
Christopher B. Brown, United States Magistrate Judge
Pending is a motion for temporary restraining order and motion for
preliminary injunction filed by Plaintiff Kevin Wilson (“Wilson”), a state prisoner
housed at SCI-Houtzdale. ECF No. 37. The motion is DENIED for the following
reasons.
This case was initiated on August 5, 2024 by Wilson filing a motion for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis which was granted and his complaint was filed at ECF
No. 10. Thereafter, Wilson was granted leave to file an amended complaint and did
1 All parties 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.
so on December 9, 2024. ECF No. 15. In his amended complaint, he names four
defendants: Gallaher, a security officer at SCI-Houtzdale; Ronald Mooney, an
intelligence captain at SCI-Houtzdale; Paul English, a security lieutenant at SCI-
Houtzdale; and Dr. Laurel R. Harry, the secretary of Pennsylvania’s Department of
Corrections. ECF No. 15 at ¶¶ 6-9. In his amended complaint, Wilson alleges he
was subject to a cell and strip search and Gallaher destroyed personal property and
legal documents Wilson was going to use during another civil rights lawsuit, in
retaliation for filing the civil rights lawsuit. ECF No. 15 at ¶¶ 11-72. All
Defendants have been served and filed a pending motion to dismiss Wilson’s
amended complaint. ECF No. 29. The Court issued a briefing order indicating that
Wilson must file a response to the motion to dismiss or may amend his complaint by
May 14, 2025. ECF No. 31. Wilson responded to the motion to dismiss on April 15,
2025. ECF No. 36.
On May 16, 2025, Wilson filed a motion for temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction. ECF Nos. 37 & 38. In his filing, Wilson claims when he was
in the law library on an unspecified date, presumably between October 1, 2024
when he filed his complaint and December 9, 2024 when he filed his amended
complaint. See ECF Nos. 10, 15. It was then he was typing his amended complaint
to add new defendants that an inmate worker in the library monitored his computer
and saw him add Defendants English, Mooney and Harry to this lawsuit and
informed the law librarian who then informed the security office at SCI-Houtzdale.
ECF No. 37 at ¶¶ 2-8. Wilson claims he filed a grievance about this incident on
December 5, 2024 which was later dismissed, and alleges it was dismissed in
retaliation for filing lawsuits. Id. at ¶¶ 9-12. He added that he wants to access his
“deleted files,” wants the retaliation against him to stop and wants the inmate
worker transferred to another institution and not permit him to work in the library.
Id. at ¶ 13. The motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction
was signed and dated on April 7, 2025, i.e. four months later.
Wilson’s request for injunctive relief fails, as he has not articulated
immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage warranting immediate action.2
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a) (preliminary injunction); Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A) (temporary
restraining order). Instead, Wilson only alleges vague and conclusory allegations
that he suffered harm because his amended complaint was sent to the SCI-
Houtzdale security office before he could serve the new defendants. ECF No. 38 at 1.
That his proposed amendment became the subject of interest to a jailhouse
informant and, perhaps correctional staff, before it was filed and served is not the
type of irreparable injury, loss or damage that Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 was enacted to
prevent. See Drumgo v. Funk, No. 3:20-CV-01829, 2023 WL 2287727, at *4 (M.D.
Pa. Jan. 26, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:20-CV-01829, 2023
WL 2249972 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 27, 2023) (generalized harassment, retaliation, threats
2 A party seeking injunctive relief must show “(1) a reasonable probability of eventual success
in the litigation, and (2) that it will be irreparably injured ... if relief is not granted.... [In addition,]
the district court, in considering whether to grant a preliminary injunction, should take into account,
when they are relevant, (3) the possibility of harm to other interested persons from the grant or
denial of the injunction, and (4) the public interest.” Reilly v. City of Harrisburg, 858 F.3d 173, 176
(3d Cir. 2017) (cleaned up). If the moving party does not establish either of the first two factors, they
are not entitled to injunctive relief. Id.
of poisoning and destroying paperwork by corrections officers, and cell searches did
not state an existing actual threat of irreparable injury and did not support
injunctive relief) (collecting cases). Indeed, Wilson has not been prevented from
litigating this action and is actively doing so, as demonstrated by his filing of the
Amended Complaint on December 9, 2024 as well as numerous other filings since.
His litigation over the past four months makes clear that the harm he seeks to
redress is anything but irreparable and, as a result, the motion fails.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Wilson’s motion for temporary restraining
order, for preliminary injunction ECF No. 37 is DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 28th day of May, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
s/Christopher B. Brown
United States Magistrate Judge
cc: KEVIN WILSON
KU3715
SCI HOUTZDALE
P.O. Box 1000
209 Institution Drive
Houtzdale, PA 16698-1000
Counsel of record via CM/ECF electronic filing