WHITENIGHT v. WETZEL et al, No. 2:2016cv01864 - Document 188 (W.D. Pa. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER re 20 MOTION for Order to Show Cause MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by SHAWN WHITENIGHT. As explained in the Memorandum Opinion, Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Injunction is DENIED as moot and the injunctive relief claims are dismissed against all of the Defendants. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy on 12/14/2017. (bsc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA SHAWN WHITENIGHT, Plaintiff, v. JOHN WETZEL, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-1864 United States Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER1 At the time Plaintiff filed his request for injunctive relief, ECF No. 20, he was a prisoner at SCI-Greene. In his motion, Plaintiff seeks an order directing Defendants to provide a medically appropriate course of medical treatment for his back problems. In particular, Plaintiff wants an examination by a qualified neurosurgeon-specialist. Since filing the motion, Plaintiff has been released and is apparently residing in a private residence in Berwick, PA. Defendants Norris, Wetzel, R. Clites, Dr. Herbik, Dr. Jin, Dr. Alpert, Raj Mahli, Dr. Park, Ester Mattes, Elan Mwaura and Correct Care Solutions, Inc., have responded to the motion arguing that Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief are moot. (ECF No. 155, 160). Plaintiff filed a reply in which he argues that he has obtained a medical card / health insurance through the Commonwealth Access system, and that the Commonwealth Access system should not be liable for Defendants’ “wanton actions and medical treatment denials . . . .” (ECF No. 187). All parties who have been served 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. See ECF Nos. 57, 101, 105, 113, 165, 168, 170, and 185. The only parties who have not been served are John / Jane Doe defendants. 1 1 After consideration of the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that because Plaintiff has been released from DOC custody, his claims for injunctive relief are, in fact, moot. The rule is that where a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief for prison conditions that he is no longer subject to, there is no longer a live controversy and a court cannot grant that injunctive relief. See AbdulAkbar v. Watson, 4 F.3d 195, 206 (3d Cir. 1993). Hence, the injunctive relief claims should be dismissed against all of the Defendants. An appropriate Order follows. ORDER AND NOW, this 14th day of December, 2017, it is hereby ORDERED, ADUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Injunction is DENIED as moot and the injunctive relief claims are dismissed against all of the Defendants. s/Cynthia Reed Eddy Cynthia Reed Eddy United States Magistrate Judge cc: SHAWN WHITENIGHT 182 Evansville Road Berwick, PA 18603 (via U.S. First Class Mail) All counsel of record (via ECF electronic notification) 2
]]>
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.
