Filed: Jul. 22, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: DLD-183 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 11-1571 _ GERARD LOUIS, Appellant, v. WARDEN B.A. BLEDSOE; ASSOCIATE WARDEN D. YOUNG; UNIT MANAGER D. HOLLENBACH _ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civ. No. 11-cv-00328) District Judge: Honorable A. Richard Caputo _ Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
Summary: DLD-183 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 11-1571 _ GERARD LOUIS, Appellant, v. WARDEN B.A. BLEDSOE; ASSOCIATE WARDEN D. YOUNG; UNIT MANAGER D. HOLLENBACH _ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civ. No. 11-cv-00328) District Judge: Honorable A. Richard Caputo _ Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 ..
More
DLD-183 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 11-1571
____________
GERARD LOUIS,
Appellant,
v.
WARDEN B.A. BLEDSOE; ASSOCIATE WARDEN
D. YOUNG; UNIT MANAGER D. HOLLENBACH
__________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 11-cv-00328)
District Judge: Honorable A. Richard Caputo
__________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
May 12, 2011
Before: BARRY, FISHER and ROTH, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: July 22, 2011)
____________
OPINION
____________
PER CURIAM
Appellant Gerard Louis, a federal prisoner incarcerated at the United States
Penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, filed a civil rights action in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, in which he claimed that his cell
conditions constituted a substantial risk to him of serious bodily harm. He stated that he
was a transsexual inmate who displayed an “effeminate” appearance, and, insofar as he
had been raped twice before while in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (although at
different prisons), the BOP was aware of the need to protect him. Nevertheless, he was
currently housed with an aggressive homosexual inmate, who was sexually harassing him
and engaging in sexually abusive behavior. No money damages were sought; Louis
requested to cell alone for the remainder of his sentence. Louis also filed a motion for a
temporary restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction, seeking a single cell
assignment.
Within a week of the filing of the complaint and motion, the District Court held a
hearing on Louis’s motion. Louis admitted, via teleconference, that, almost immediately
after complaining, he was separated from his cellmate and transferred to the Special
Management Unit (“SMU”). See N.T., 2/25/11, at 27. Nonetheless, although he was no
longer paired with the person he feared, Louis testified that he still feared being raped in
the SMU because dangerous inmates are housed there, see id. at 30-31. He also was
dissatisfied with the restrictions and considered the placement a punishment. On cross-
examination, Louis testified that his cellmate had fondled his buttocks. See
id. at 33.
Frank Perrin, a Special Investigative Agent at USP-Lewisburg, testified that he
investigated Louis’s allegations, and, immediately upon receiving his complaint, BOP
staff instituted the sexual abuse protocol, which included, among other things, separating
Louis and his cellmate. See id. at 37. Perrin testified that, upon his release from SMU,
2
Louis would no longer be housed with his cellmate. See id. at 43. With respect to
Louis’s assertion that his placement in lockdown was a punishment, Perrin testified that
placement in the SMU for the time being, about two weeks, was the only way that
Louis’s safety could be guaranteed. See
id. at 44-45, 47.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the District Court denied the motion for a
temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction. The court reasoned that,
because of the transfer to the SMU, Louis could not show irreparable harm. The court
determined that Louis’s claim that he was too isolated and restricted in the SMU was not
part of his original complaint, and could be addressed during the course of the litigation,
and, in any event, his current placement appeared reasonable under the circumstances.
See id. at 49-51.
Louis appeals. Our Clerk granted him leave to appeal in forma pauperis and
advised him that the appeal was subject to summary dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) or summary affirmance under Third Cir. LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. He
was invited to submit argument in writing, and he has done so.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Interlocutory orders granting
or denying injunctions are appealable where the order relates to the relief ultimately
sought by the claimant. Hershey Foods Corp. v. Hershey Creamery Co., 945 F.2d 1272,
1277-78 (3d Cir. 1991).
We will summarily affirm the order of the District Court because no substantial
question is presented by this appeal, Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. To obtain a
3
preliminary injunction, the moving party must demonstrate both (1) a likelihood of
success on the merits, and (2) the probability of irreparable harm if relief is not granted.
See Hoxworth v. Blinder, Robinson & Co., 903 F.2d 186, 197 (3d Cir. 1990). Both
prerequisites must be satisfied before an injunction will be granted. See
id. The District
Court should also take into account (3) the possibility of harm to other interested persons
from the grant or denial of the injunction, and (4) the public interest. See
id. at 198
(citing Morton v. Beyer,
822 F.2d 364, 367 n.3 (3d Cir. 1987)). We review an order
denying a preliminary injunction for an abuse of discretion, an error of law, or a clear
error on the facts. See ECRI v. McGraw-Hill, Inc.,
809 F.2d 223, 226 (3d Cir.1987).
The District Court properly denied preliminary injunctive relief, because Louis
failed to show immediate irreparable injury. See Continental Group, Inc. v. Amoco
Chemicals Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 359 (3d Cir. 1980) (risk of irreparable harm means clear
showing of immediate irreparable injury or presently existing actual threat). Louis was
moved away from his cellmate immediately after he complained. He is no longer in
danger from that inmate and he presented no evidence, other than his own speculation,
that he is currently in any kind of danger in the SMU. For this reason alone, denial of
preliminary injunctive relief was proper. See
Hoxworth, 903 F.2d at 197.
For the foregoing reasons, we will summarily affirm the order of the District
Court, denying the motion for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary
injunction.
4
