ROMAN v. WETZEL

CA. No. 16-299 Erie.

ROMAN, Plaintiff, v. WETZEL, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1983pr
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Nature of Suit: 555 Prisoner Civil Rights (Prison Condition)
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

ANIBAL ROMAN, Plaintiff, represented by Samuel P. Reger , K&L Gates LLP.

ANIBAL ROMAN, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher M. Verdini , K&L Gates LLP & Jared A. Kephart , K&L Gates LLP.

JOHN E. WETZEL, Defendant, represented by John P. Senich, Jr. , PA Office of Attorney General.

MICHEAL D. OVERMYER, Defendant, represented by John P. Senich, Jr. , PA Office of Attorney General.

D.F. OBERLANDER, Defendant, represented by John P. Senich, Jr. , PA Office of Attorney General.

PAUL A. ENNIS, Defendant, represented by John P. Senich, Jr. , PA Office of Attorney General.

KIM SMITH, Defendant, represented by John P. Senich, Jr. , PA Office of Attorney General.

ROBERT MAXA, Defendant, represented by Meghan K. Adkins , Weber Gallagher Simpson Stapleton Fires & Newby & Samuel H. Foreman , Weber Gallagher Simpson Stapleton Fires & Newby.


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN, District Judge.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff Anibal Roman's motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order (Dkt. No. 4), the oral Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Susan P. Baxter, United States Magistrate Judge, (Dkt. Nos. 11 and 13), and the balance of the record, does hereby find that:

(1) Plaintiff alleges that he received a kidney transplant in May of 2000, he attempted suicide in 2015, he has been robbed and assaulted by fellow inmates and cellmates, the most recent incident being a year and a half ago, his left arm was permanently damaged during an assault by a fellow inmate, he is diagnosed with PTSD, he is currently housed in the Special Needs Unit, and he is being treated by both a medical doctor and a psychiatrist; (2) Plaintiff further alleges that he fears that "he is one assault away in losing his (kidney transplant) or even worse death." Dkt. No. 4 at ¶ 3 (parentheticals in original). Therefore, he requests that the Court order that Plaintiff be placed on Single Cell Status (Medical Z Code under DC-ADM-006); (3) The Magistrate Judge concluded in the Report and Recommendation that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or that he is likely to face irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction. In reaching her decision, she noted that it has been over seventeen years since Plaintiff received his kidney transplant and nearly two years since Plaintiff was assaulted and attempted suicide. The Magistrate Judge further noted that Plaintiff is currently housed on the Special Needs Unit and is being followed by both a medical doctor and a psychiatrist for his medical concerns. Therefore, the Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a real or immediate danger of irreparable harm. (4) This Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Objections to the Report and Recommendation and nothing in the Objections persuades this Court that the Report and Recommendation should not be adopted. Plaintiff simply reasserts his fear that he is "one assault away in losing his [Kidney Transplant] or even worse death." Dkt. No. 14 at ¶ 3 (brackets in original). While the Court is sympathetic with Plaintiff's concern, he has not presented any evidence that he is in imminent danger of harm. See McCahon v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Com'n, 491 F.Supp.2d 522, 527 (stating that "the moving party must establish that the harm is imminent and probable"). It is not enough for Plaintiff to claim that he is at risk of irreparable harm; he must demonstrate that the risk is "immediate." ECRI v. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 809 F.2d 223, 226 (3d Cir. 1987); 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); Bieros v. Nicola, 857 F.Supp. 445, 446 (E.D. Penn. 1994) (same). Plaintiff has presented no such evidence. He admits that the last time he was assaulted was a year and a half ago and he presents no evidence that suggests a current increased risk of harm. (5) Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation; and (6) The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff, Defendants, and to Judge Baxter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases