Stile v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons
| Decision Date | 19 June 2017 |
| Docket Number | CIV. NO. 16-3832 (RMB) |
| Parties | JAMES STILE, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
APPEARANCES:
JAMES STILE
FCI-Fort Dix
P.O. Box 2000
Fort Dix, New Jersey 08640
Plaintiff, pro se
JESSICA ROSE O'NEILL
Office of the U.S. Attorney
District of New Jersey
401 Market Street, 4th Floor
P.O. Box 2098
Camden, NJ 08101
On behalf of Defendants
This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff's motions for a temporary restraining order (ECF Nos. 7, 25, 33) in this prisoner civil rights action. For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies Plaintiff's motions. The Court also denies Plaintiff's second request for an extension of time to file a reply to Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment. (ECF No. 45.)
On October 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed an amended prisoner civil rights complaint, and this Court permitted several claims to proceed and dismissed the remaining claims. (Opinion, ECF No. 8 at 29-30.) Plaintiff is a prisoner in FCI Fort Dix. His FTCA and Bivens claims arise out of Plaintiff's requests for time off from his work assignment to spend in the law library, and his allegation that his work assignment exceeds his medical limitations. (Am. Compl., ECF No. 5.)
The Court allowed one of Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claims against his work supervisor, Corrections Officer Colina, to proceed. (Opinion, ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff alleged that Colina filed a disciplinary report against him on December 2, 2015, in retaliation for Plaintiff filing a grievance against Colina that same day. (Id. at 20.) In the disciplinary report, Colina alleged Plaintiff offered him a bribe in exchange for agreeing not to reduce Plaintiff's work hours. (Id.) The Court permitted this retaliation claim to proceed. (Id.)
The Court also allowed Plaintiff's "class of one" equal protection claim against Colina and Burns to proceed. (Id. at 21.) Plaintiff alleged Colina and Burns discriminated against him by docking his pay by up to one-hour per day when hereceived his medications, more than any other inmate's pay was docked for the same reason. (Id. at 21.)
The Court permitted Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims to proceed against several defendants. (Opinion, ECF No. 8 at 22-23.) First, Plaintiff alleged that Colina compelled him to perform work that was prohibited by his work limitations given by the Fort Dix medical department. (Id. at 23.) Second, Plaintiff alleged the assistant medical director, Wilkes, was aware that Plaintiff was being forced to work beyond his medical limitations. (Id. at 24.) Wilkes failed to obtain Plaintiff's medical records for many months, refused to review Plaintiff's MRI reports, and refused to review the Social Security Administration's ruling on Plaintiff's disability. (Id.)
Third, Officer Kwartin was in charge of job changes in the area of the prison where Plaintiff worked. (Id.) Plaintiff alleged Kwartin refused to authorize a job change for Plaintiff after he was advised of Plaintiff's disability. (Id.) Fourth, Plaintiff alleged his mental health provider, Rehwinkle, denied his requests for more frequent mental health treatment based on exacerbation of his panic disorder and PTSD; and that Rehwinkle caused him undue suffering by delaying the recommendation that he be removed from his job assignment. (Id. at 25-27.) Finally, the Court allowed Plaintiff's FTCA claim(s) to proceed. (Id. at 28.)
Plaintiff filed his first motion for a TRO before the amended complaint was served on the defendants. (Mot. for TRO Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 ("Pl's First Mot. for TRO") ECF No. 7.) The gravamen of Plaintiff's motion is that "mass punishment" against Fort Dix prisoners based on the action of one prisoner, such as the suspension of TRULINCS [email privileges]; 4 p.m. curfews; lockdowns; and reduced hours of law library access; interferes with Plaintiff's access to the courts. (Id. at 12.) Plaintiff alleged:
As should be readily apparent to this Court at this time, this Petitioner has a case load of litigation that some small law firms do not and cannot entertain even with modern day tools such as computer word processing programs, databases, internet, online access to the Electronic Court Filing System (ECF), secretaries, and paralegals.
(Id. at 4.)
Plaintiff supplemented his first motion for a TRO on November 7, 2015. (Supp. to Mot. for TRO Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff asserted he suffered irreparable harm when the Superior Court of Kennebec County in Maine denied his motion for an extension of time to file a reply to the Respondent's response. (Id. at 1.) Further, Plaintiffclaims that due to the sanctions imposed by F.C.I. Fort Dix, Plaintiff failed to timely file an appeal, and the Kennebec County Superior Court entered an order granting relief to the respondent. (Id.) Plaintiff then filed a motion to compel the Court to issue the requested TRO. (Mot. for U.S.D.C. to Grant TRO Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 as Was Motioned for by Pl. in ECF No. 7, ECF No. 25.) On February 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed an affidavit in support of his first motion for a TRO. (Aff. of Pl., ECF No. 29.)
Prior to service of the amended complaint, counsel for the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") made a special appearance to respond to Plaintiff's first motion for a temporary restraining order. (BOP Letter, ECF No. 14.) The BOP argued Plaintiff's first TRO motion is entirely based on his First Amendment right of access to courts claim, which the Court dismissed when screening the amended complaint. (Id.) Plaintiff opposes the BOP's letter response as untimely and improperly informal. (ECF No. 25.)1
On March 29, 2017, after Defendants filed an answer to theamended complaint and a motion for partial summary judgment, Plaintiff filed a second motion for preliminary injunctive relief. (Mot. for Restraining Order Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 ("Pl's Second Mot. for TRO") ECF No. 33.) Plaintiff seeks a TRO restraining Defendant Colina from retaliating against Plaintiff, and asks the Court to levy a monetary sanction against Colina as a deterrent. (Id. at 1.) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a), when there is notice of a motion for preliminary injunctive relief on the adverse party, as with Plaintiff's second motion, the Court may issue a preliminary injunction, rather than a temporary restraining order.
In support of this motion, Plaintiff alleges Colina goes out of his way to "encounter" Plaintiff when he is trying to avoid him, and during these encounters, Colina has said things like, "we will see who gets the last laugh." (Pl's Second Mot. for TRO, ECF No. 33 at 1-2.) Furthermore, on more than one occasion, Colina refused to serve Plaintiff dinner when Plaintiff arrived at "last call." (Id. at 3-5.) Plaintiff alleges these acts were in retaliation for Plaintiff filing this lawsuit. (Id.)
Plaintiff also alleges a retaliation claim against Dr. Steinberg. (Id. at 6-7.) Plaintiff contends that he voluntarily attended psychological services for one-and-a-half years, and in February 2017, he chose to discontinue, as was hisright under the Fourteenth Amendment. (Id.) On March 23, 2017, Dr. Steinberg summoned Plaintiff to see him, and Plaintiff declined. (Id. at 7.) Dr. Steinberg threatened to write an Incident Report, so Plaintiff complied. (Id.) Dr. Steinberg told Plaintiff if he did not continue in psychological services, he would be disciplined. (Id.) Dr. Steinberg wrote a Disciplinary Report against Plaintiff for refusing to obey an order. (Id. at 8.)
Plaintiff stated "[i]t is of significan[t] consequence that these actions against Stile are occurring at a time when Stile had filed a Motion for (TRO) Temporary Restraining Order to prohibit F.C.I. Fort Dix from imposing "mass punishment" against Plaintiff Stile and other inmates similarly situated at F.C.I. Fort Dix." (Id.)
The Federal Defendants responded by letter to Plaintiff's second motion for preliminary injunctive relief. (Fed. Defs' Letter, ECF No. 37.) The Federal Defendants argue that the retaliation claims in Plaintiff's motion are not connected to the claims in his amended complaint. (Id.) Before Plaintiff can amend his complaint to include new claims of retaliation, he must first exhaust his administrative remedies. (Id.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)-(b)(1) provides:
The same four-factor test is applied to requests for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction. See e.g. Opticians Ass'n of America v. Independent Opticians of America, 920 F.2d 187, 191-92 (3d Cir.1990)(preliminary injunction); DePinto v. Bayonne Bd. of Educ., 514...
To continue reading
Request your trial