IVY v. WETZEL

Opinion

INT HEU NITESDT ATEDSI STRICCOTU RT FORT HEW ESTERND ISTRIOCFTP ENNSYLVANIA GLAVIINVY , ) ) Plaintiff ) CasNeo 1.: 21-cv(E-ri0e0)1 09 ) vs. ) ) HON.R ICAHRDA .LA N ZILOL JOHNW ETZAeLta l., ) UNITESDT ATEMSA GISTRAJTUED GE ) Defendants ) ) MEMORANDUOMP INION ) ECF No.6 Presebnetfolrtyeh C eo uirastM otiofonr P relimin InjunficltieobdnyP lainGtilfafv in ary I ("I")E.C FN o.6 .B ecaIushea nso dte monstarnia rtreedp haarrahimbs,lm eo tiwoillnb e vy vy vy DENIE.D. I. Factuaanld ProBcaecdkugrraolu nd I iasn in matceu rreinntclayr caettr haSett eadt e CorIrnesctittiauotFtin ooarnle ( s"tS CI­ vy ForesHte"a )l.l eignhe iCsso mplthaaittnh tDe e fendahnatvvsei olhaitcsei dvri iglhb tysd enying him accetsols e graels emaartcehri naelcse stso" mainthaiicsno ucrats ienls i gohftt h Ceo vid-19 ary pandemSiecEe.C "FN o.5 ,,r 6I. filetdhin es tamnott ifoorni njunrcetilvaiere gufi tnhgse a me. vy ECFN o.6 .H ea lletghehaseth asse vecraasplee sn d"ibnegfo trhece o urotfPs e nnsylwvhainciha arlee gitimaItd.ep,..1 "( ciCtinogm pla,rin7 t)H,.e c laimtsoh avseu ffearcetdlu eaglia nlj iunor nye casaen "di lsi kteosl uyff meorr ient hfuet urIed.( "c iCtinogm plaatin,r t,r2 3-3H1e)c .o ntends thaalt thothueDg ehf endhaanvmteas d e accommtoomd eaetiotot nhnsee re odfst hien mate populattihoehnya, vf ea itloae cdc ommodhaintsee e tdoa ccetshpseri solnal wi brIadrp.y.2 ..I vy acknowltheadhtg eie cssu rrepnetrlmyil timitteeliddb racceosnse -hpoeuwrre eakn tdh rough ary thseu bmisosfii nomnar teeq ufoersmtfos r c opioefls e graels eiatrecmhHs ec. o ntehnodwse,v er thsautc inhd ividusaelriviizciseen d a deqaunadit,nae n eyv ecnots,pt r ohibIidti(.vsa eel.eEs CoF No. 5, § 19). As a result, Ivy claims that he is unable to meet court-imposed deadlines in various actions pending in both federal court and Pennsylvania state court. Id. p. 1. The Court has searched and reviewed the dockets of each matter identified in Ivy’s Complaint. ECF No. 5, 7. This research has yielded the following information: ord INP cmes aerator | DY Tcoy ms eimai itetey tatty Commonwealth v. Ivy, State court criminal 8/9/2021; appeal to Appeal from denial of No. CP-43-cr-1780- case; conviction of the Superior Court PCRA petition 2014 (Mercer County) | record pending (685 WDA pending; awaiting 2021) possible appointment of counsel Ivy v. Johnson, No. 1:18- | § 1983 prisoner civil | 5/23/2021 (motion Discovery to close on cv-1506 (M.D. Pa.) tights action fot extension of time | 8/26/2021; to complete discovery) | dispositive motions due by 9/24/2021 Ivy v. Kemp, No. CP- State court claims of 7/06/21 (motion for Pending on 31-cd-2020 (Forest retaliation, deliberate | pre-complaint undismissed 8" County) indifference (8" discovery filed) Amendment claim Amendment) and conversion Ivy v. Wetzal, No. 1:20- | § 1983 prisoner civil Brief in opposition Pending; motion to cv-265 (W.D. Pa.) rights actions filed 1/22/21 dismiss and response taken under advisement Ivy v. Wellpath, No. § 1983 prisoner civil Motion to extend time | pending 1:21-cv-61 (W.D. Pa.) | tights action to file certificate of merit; motion for appointment of counsel filed 8/2/21 Ivy v. Wetzal, No. 1:21- | § 1983 prisoner civil Brief tn opposition to | Pending cv-109 (W.D. Pa.) tights action motion to dismiss instant action) filed 7/27/21 Il. Standard of Decision “Tempotaty testraining orders and preliminary injunctions are governed under the same standard.” Scutella v. Erie Cty. Prison, 2020 WL 1140719, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 9, 2020). The party seeking such telief has the burden of demonstrating: (1) a reasonable probability of success on the merits; (2) irreparable hatm if the injunction is denied; (3) that the issuance of an inyunction will not

result in greater harm to the non-moving patty; and (4) that the public interest would best be served by gtanting the injunction. Id, citing Council of Alternative Political Parties v. Hooks, 121 F.3d 876, 879 (3d Cit. 1997); Opticians Ass'n of America v. Independent Opticians of America, 920 F.2d 187, 191-92 3d Cir. 1990). An injunction should issue only if the movant produces evidence sufficient to convince the trial judge that all four factors favor preliminary relief. Opticians, 920 F.2d at 192 (citing ECRI ». McGraw-Hill, Inc., 809 F.2d 223, 226 (3d Cir. 1987)). Further, in the prison context, a request for 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.”” Willams v. Wolf, 2020 WL 8181695, at *3 (W.D. Pa. July 2, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 147045 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 15, 2021) (citing Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Ctr. 1995) (quoting Rogers v. Scurt, 676 F.2d 1211, 1214 (8th Cir. 1982). “The purpose of the preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo until the rights of the parties can be fairly and fully investigated and determined by strictly legal proofs and according to the principles of equity.” Scwtella at *1 (quoting Wezel v. Edwards, 635 F.2d 283, 286 (4th Cir. 1980)). The grant of injunctive relief is an “extraordinary remedy which should be granted only in limited circumstances.” American Telephone C» Telegraph Co. v. Winback and Conserve Program, Inc., 42 F.3d 1421 Gd Cir. 1994) (quoting Frank’s GMC Truck Center, Inc. v. General Motor Corp., 847 F.2d 100, 102 (3d Cir. 1988)). The facts must support a finding that immediate and irteparable injury will result to the movant if preliminary relief is dented. United S tates v. S tazola, 893 F.2d 34, 37 n. 3 Bd Cir. 1990). The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing an irreparable injury. Hohe v. Casey, 868 F.2d 69, 72 (3d Cir. 1989) (it is not enough to merely show itrepatable harm: the plaintiff has the burden of showing immediate irtepatable injury, which is more than metely serious or substantial harm and which cannot be redtessed with money damages). Absent a showing of immediate, irreparable injury, preliminary injunctive relief will be denied. See Acierno, 40 F.3d at 655.

Ill. Discussion An irreparable harm must be imminent and actual. Wiliams v. Nyberg, 2021 WL 1624319, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Apt. 27, 2021). Here, Ivy fatls to demonstrate either. First, Ivy has not shown an imminent injury. The dockets in Ivy’s active cases, supra., reveal that he has no pending deadlines—nor has he missed any—in any of his federal or state cases. See, Martin v. Wetzel, 2021 WL 2926005, at *17 (W.D. Pa. July 12, 2021) (“actual injury for an access to courts claim includes the inability to file a complaint), see also Townsend v. Palmer, 2012 WL 5986964, at *3 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 26, 2012), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Townsend v. Carlmichael, 2012 WL 5987398 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 29, 2012); Cobea v. Adams, 2009 WL 4017138, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2009), report and recommendation adopted, 2010 WL 1660518 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2010). Because itrepatable harm must be imminent, Ivy’s lack of any pressing court deadlines negates the need for a preliminary injunction. See DeFranco v. Miller, 2021 WL 3168665, at *1 (W.D. Pa. July 27, 2021). Further negating any inference of immediate or irreparable harm, Ivy has not demonstrated that the time he is permitted to use the prison law library is insufficient to conduct any reseatch that may be necessary to develop his legal positions or comply with future deadlines. Second, Ivy has not shown any actual harm. Since the filing of the Complaint, Ivy has continued to file documents in this case and his other pending cases without material impediment due to COVID-telated restrictions. On July 16, 2021, he filed a Brief in Opposition to the motion to dismiss in this action which is neatly typed with relevant argument and appropriate case citations. See ECF No. 17. This Court as well as others have also liberally extended deadlines when presented with a COVID-rtelated or library restriction-related request. See, e.g., Scutella, 2020 WL 1140719, at *2-3 (citing Camps v. Lyons, 1990 WL 40881, *2 0.3 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 4, 1990) (refusing to dismiss complaint given plaintiffs allegation of a denial of sufficient law library time). Such accommodations have been extended to Ivy. For example, on May 23, 2021, he filed a request to extend discovery in

Ivy v. Johnson, which the Coutt granted. See Case No. 1:18-cv-1506 (M.D. Pa.). And, as recently as last week, he filed motions in Ivy ». Wellpath seeking extensions of time. See Case No. 21-cv-061 (Erie), ECF Nos. 23, 24. ‘Thus, Ivy cannot demonsttate that he has been itreparably harmed by curtent restrictions on access to the law library and related resources. At this point, any such harm is speculative, at best. Next, an injunction cannot be issued based on past harm. Croft v. Donegal Twp., 2021 WL 1110567, at *9 (WW.D. Pa. Mar. 23, 2021). Thus, Ivy cannot show imminent and actual harm based on the past dismissal of his claims in state court.’ See Stevens v. Dickey, 2019 WL 4749979, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 2019) (citing Monroe v. Beard, 536 F.3d 198, 205 (3d Cir. 2008) (prisoner must allege facts sufficient to show he suffered an “actual injury” in that he lost a chance to pursue a nonfrivolous or arguable claim). Finally, the United States Supreme Court has instructed that, when reviewing requests for injunctive telief, “the key word is irreparable ... the possibility that adequate compensatory or other cortective relief will be available at a later date, in the ordinary course of litigation.” Sampson v. Murray, 415 US. 61, 69 (1974). Ivy’s claim that he suffered an injury because meritorious claims in state court wete dismissed due to his inability “to research cases and issues taised,” is not an allegation of itreparable harm for injunctive purposes. See ECF No., 6, p. 2. If Ivy is able to establish that he lost his claims in state court because of an unconstitutional inability to access the prison law library, that injury can be remedied through an award of money damages. As the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held, “[t]he availability of adequate monetary damages belies a claim of irreparable injury.” Frank’s GMC Truck Cir, 847 F.2d at 102; see also In re Arthur Treacher’s

Here, Ivy cites a case he filed in Forest County, Pennsylvania, in which he sought compensation for lost property. ECF No. 5, § 24. Specifically, Ivy alleges that the DOC’s law library restrictions prevented him from researching caselaw that would have enabled him to overcome the Defendant’s affirmative defense of soveteign immunity. Id, □□ 28. The state coutt dismissed his claims based, in patt, on that affirmative defense. Id, 931. For purposes of Ivy’s pending motion, the Court need not determine the validity of that claim.

Franchisee Latig., 689 F.2d 1137, 1145 (3d Cir. 1982) (“[W]e have never upheld an injunction where the claimed injury constituted a ... loss capable of recoupment in a proper action at law.”). Here, Ivy’s Complaint asks not only for $1500.00 as damages for the loss of his property but also seeks $20,000.00 as compensatory and punitive damages for his dismissed claim in state court. ECF No. 5, 9 VI(C)()-(2). By acknowledging that this harm can be redressed by monetary compensation, Ivy has also acknowledged that any potential loss of his state court claims is an entirely reparable harm. IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Ivy’s motion for preliminary injunction will be denied. A separate order will issue. Entered this 10" day of August, 2021.

NS Ap Cf RICHARD A. LANZILLO United States Magistrate Judge