SCUTELLA v. ERIE COUNTY PRISON et al, No. 1:2019cv00245 - Document 56 (W.D. Pa. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER re 49 MOTION Transfer Evidence filed by JHEN SCUTELLA, 54 MOTION for Sanctions filed by JHEN SCUTELLA, 50 MOTION Injunctive Relief MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by JHEN SCUTELLA, 53 MOT ION to Extend Time to request for evidence filed by JHEN SCUTELLA. Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 50) is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion to Transfer Evidence (ECF No. 49) is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 53) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to the Motions to Dismiss is now due on or before Wednesday, March 25, 2020. Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 54) is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo on 3/10/2020. (dm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
SCUTELLA v. ERIE COUNTY PRISON et al Doc. 56 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT· FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JHEN SCUTELLA, ) ) Plaintiff vs. ERIE COUNTY PRISON, LT. STEVENS, AMANDA HOLBY, AMBER, CHAFFEE, MEDICAL DIRECTORER JANE DOE, WEXFORD HEALTH SERVICES, Defendants Case No. 1:19-cv-00245 (Erie) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) RICHARD A. LANZILLO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE OMNIBUS OPINION AND ORDER ON ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND OTHER PENDING MOTIONS ECFNO. ECFNO. ECFNO. ECFNO. 49 50 53 54 This omnibus order resolves four motions (ECF Nos. 49, 50, 53, and 54) that Plaintiff Jhen Scutella (Scutella) has filed at this case number. The Parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge in this case, including the entry of final judgment. ECF No. 28; ECF No. 32. See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). I. Introduction Scutella's pro se Complaint in this action alleges that the Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious dental condition while he was incarcerated in the Erie County Prison. ECF No. 5. Id. The Defendants have filed motions to dismiss, which are currently pending. See ECF I No. 30; ECF No. 38. This Court granted Scutella injunctive relief, ordering the prison to provide Scutella with appropriate dental care. See ECF No. 46. Subsequently, Scutella filed another motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 50), a motion to transfer evidence (ECF No. 49), a motion for 1 Dockets.Justia.com extension of time to respond to the motions to dismiss (ECF No. 53), and a motion for sanctions (ECF No. 54). Each motion is addressed below. II. Motion for Temporary Restraining Order- ECF No. 50 Scutella filed a motion seeking a temporary restraining order on February 14, 2020. ECF No. 50. He first states that Deputy Warden Holman has threatened to "write him up" if he files grievances. Id. at p. 1. Scutella then alleges that he did indeed file a grievance on February 12, 2020, but that instead of receiving a response to his grievance, a Lt. Amis "spoke to me regarding a 3 way scheme which I had no clue about nor did I complain about having my pin stolen." Id. Scutella further alleges that he was taken to the Restricted Housing Unit (RHU) "for making 3 way calls months prior to February 5 as retaliation for filing this lawsuit." Id. Scutella claims that this limited his access to courts, his legal materials, and prevented him from responding to deadlines imposed by this Court. Id. He asks for a hearing and a restraining order "against Deputy Warden Holman," "an extension of time on both civil suits until he is released from prison," and "immediate release from RHU." Id. This motion for a temporary restraining order is denied because Deputy Warden Holman is not a party to this lawsuit and, therefore, the Court cannot order injunctive relief against him. "A non-party cannot be bound by the terms of an injunction unless the non-party is found to be acting 'in active concert or participation' with the party against whom injunctive relief is sought." Elliott v. Kiesewetter, 98 F.3d 47, 56 (3d Cir.1996) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 65)). Moreover, injunctive relief would not be warranted because Scutella will not suffer any irreparable harm. He is free to pursue a separate legal action against the Deputy Warden wherein he can seek appropriate relief. See, e.g., Williams v. Lackawanna Cry. Prison, 2014 WL 3507296, *3 (M.D. Pa. July 14, 2014). Finally, because the purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to prevent irreparable injury pending the resolution of the underlying claims on their merits, "the injury claimed in the motion for preliminary injunctive 2 relief must relate to the conduct alleged and permanent relief sought in the 'plaintiff's complaint." James v. Varano, 2017 WL 895569, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 7, 2017). In other words, "there must be a connection between the underlying complaint and the relief requested in the motion for a \ preliminary injunction." Id. (citing Ball v. Famiglio, 396 Fed. Appx. 836, 837 (3d Cir. 2010)). A request for injunctive relief must, therefore, be dismissed if "the injunction in question is not of the / same character, and deals with a matter lying wholly outside the issues in the suit." Kaimowitz v. Orlando, Fla., 122 F.3d 41, 43 (11 th Cir. 1997) (citing De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945)). Here, the matters of which Scutella complains in his instant motion are not of the same character as those that are the subject of his Complaint. Therefore, Scutella's request for a temporary restraining order is DENIED. III. Motion to Transfer Evidence-ECF No. 49 Scutella has filed a "Motion to Transfer Evidence." He asks the Court to transfer evidence he filed in another case number ("Exhibit F," filed in case number 1:19-cv-168) to this action. ECF No. 49, p. 1. The motion is DENIED. "As a general rule, a court may not take judicial notice of proceedings or records in another cause so as to supply, without formal introduction of evidence, \ facts essential to support a contention in a cause then before it." M/ V Am. Queen v. San Diego Marine Constr. Corp., 708 F.2d 1483, 1491 (9th Cir. 1983). If Scutella wishes this Court to consider exhibits at this case number, he must file them anew, and not ask that evidence from one case be transferred to this one. IV. Motion to Extend Time and Request for Evidence - ECF No. 53 Scutella has filed a motion seeking an extension of time to file a "sur-reply" brief until such time as he is released and can use his home computer. ECF No. 53, p. 1. The Court construes this motion as one seeking an extension of time to file a response in opposition to the Defendants' motions to dismiss. Such response was due on or before March 5, 2020, and as of this date has not 3 been led. See ECF No. 44. The moion or extension of ime is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court wl grant Scutella a 20-day extension to respond to the moions to isiss. His response n opposiion to he moions is now due on or beore Wednesday, March 25, 2020. Scutella's request or an extension unil he is released rom he Eie County Pison is DENIED. V. Moion or Sanctions - ECF No. 54 Scutella has led a Moion or Sanctions, which again complains of the puported acions of Deputy Warden Homan that allegedly prevented him rom iling grievances. ECF No. 54, p. 1. As noted above, Holman is not a party to this action. Such moions lodged against a non-party are without efect. See Daniek v. Duda, 2016 L 4445677, *2 D.NJ. Aug. 17, 2016). Thereore, this moion is DENIED. VI. Order The Court orders as ollows: 1. Painifs Moion or a Temporay Restraining Order (ECF No. 50) is DENIED. 2. Plainif's Moion to Transer evidence (ECF No. 49) is DENIED. 3. Plainti's Moion or Extension of Time (ECF No. 53) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plainif's Response in Opposiion to the Moions to Dismiss is now due on or beore Wednesday, March 25, 2020. 4. Planif's Moion or Sancions (ECF No. 54) is DENIED. Ordered and entered this 10th day of March, 2020. ¼hM RICHARD A. LANZILLO United States Maistrate Judge 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
