2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 3-11-2010 

# Rob e r t Rega v

. J eff rey B e ard P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-4348

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Ro be r t Re ga v

. J eff r ey Be ar d " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1734. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/17341

D L D - 132 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N os . 09- 4348 & 09- 4416 ( C ons ol i dat ed)

___________ RO BE RT GE NE RE GA,

A ppel l ant v . J E F F RE Y A. BE AR D, S e c r e t a r yo f th e D. O. C. ; L OUI S F OL I NO, Super i nt endent/ S. C . I . G r eene ; J E FFR E Y M A R T I N , C apt ai n; B R E N D A A . M A R T I N , U ni tM anage r ; PA T R I C K O D D O , C apt ai n; M IC H E L L E M U C C IN O , C a p ta in ; D A V ID L . G A IN E Y , R .H .U ., L t.; T H O M A S M . A R M S T R O N G , S g t. ; T O D D B A R C L A Y , O ff icer; J O D Y L E A C H , O f

f ic e r; L E O N M O O R E , C .H .C .A .; M IC H E L L E L U C A S , P .A .; J O H N M C A N A N Y , N u rs e S u p e r.; E D W A R D D R I SK I L L , R eg. N ur s e; J A M E S C A R A M A N N A , Phy s i ci an; B . H E N D E R SO N , O ffi cer

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 08- 00156) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le T erren ce F . M cV erry

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed forPoss i bl e D i s m i s s al Pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) or S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 February25, 2010 B efor e: FU E N T E S, J O R D A N and H A R D I M A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ar ch 11, 2010)

_________2 OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM R ober tG ene Rega, a Penns y l vani a s t at e pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s fr om a n o rd e r o f

th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia deny i ng hi s m ot i ons foran “e m er gencyr es t r ai ni ng or der , ” a pe r m anenti nj unct i on, and f o r a p p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n s e l. W e w ill d is m is s th e a p p e a l in p a rt p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) and i n par tforl ack of j ur i s di ct i on. R ega br oughta § 1983 C om pl ai ntagai ns tpr i s on per s onnel , w hi ch he a m ended tw ice , as se rtin g n u m e ro u s c o n stitu tio n a l v io latio n s re late d to th e c o n d iti o n s o f h is c o n f in e m e n t. In p a rticu lar , h e c laim e d th a t h e w a s a ss a u lted in h is c e ll b ya n o th e r in m a te in 2 0 0 7 , h e re c e iv e d p o o r m e d ica l trea tm e n t f o r h is in ju rie s im m e d iate lya f

ter th e a ss a u lt, and ther e w as an unnec es s aryei ght - daydel ayi n pr ovi di ng hi m w i t h Pr i l os ec f ortr eatm ent of hi s s er i ous gas t r oes ophagea l r efl ux di s eas e ( “G . E . R . D . ”) condi t i on i n 2007. R ega f i l ed m ot i ons foran emer gencyr es t r ai ni ng or derand fora perm anenti nj unct i on, cl ai m i ng t hat hi s s i x- m ont h s uppl yof Pr i l os ec r an outon J une 23, 2009, and thatthe medi cal s t aff fai l ed t o r eor derhi s pr es cr i pt i on of Pr i l os ec i n t i m e, caus i ng hi m gr eatdi s comforton J une 25. T he def

endant s r es ponded thatbot h m ot i ons s houl d be deni ed. T he M agi s t r at e J udge t r eat ed the perm anenti nj unct i on and emer gencyr es t r ai ni ng or derm ot i ons as a r eques tfor a pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on and deni ed r el i ef, rul i ng thatR ega f ai l ed t o s how thats uch r el i ef w as w arr ant ed bec aus e he ha d r ece i ved hi s m edi cat i on on J une 26. B yor derent er ed on3

O ct ober7, 2009, t he D i s t r i ctC our toverrul ed R ega’ s obj ect i ons , adopt ed and a ppr oved t he M agi s t r at e J udge’ s R epor t , and deni ed R ega’ s m ot i ons . R ega a l s o fi l ed tw o m ot i ons forappoi nt m entof couns el , w hi ch the M agi s t r at e J udge deni ed. B yor derent er ed N ovember10, 2009, t he D i s t r i ctC our toverrul ed and di s m i s s ed R ega’ s obj ect i ons t o the M agi s t r at e J udge’ s or der . T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. W e have j ur i s di ct i on of appe al s fr om i nt er l ocut oryor der s “gr ant i ng, cont i nui ng, m odi fy i ng, r efus i ng ordi s s ol vi ng i nj unct i ons , orr efus i ng t o di s s ol ve orm odi fy injun cti o n s . . . . ” 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 2 (a)(1). A n o rde r de n y ing a m o ti o n fo r a p reli m inary i nj unct i on i s appea l abl e w her e the or derr el at es t o t he r el i ef ul t i m at el ys oughtbythe cl ai m ant . H er s heyFoods Corp. v. H er s heyC r eameryC o. , 945 F. 2d 1272, 1277- 78 ( 3d C i r . 1991) . R ega s oughta pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on or der i ng the def endant s t o s t op the co n sti tuti o n al vio lat ion s related to tho se a ll eg ed in h is co m p lai n t. T h e D istri ct C o u rt ’s o rd e r d e n y in g R e g a ’s m o tio n re late s to th e re lief h e u lti m a telyso u g h t. T h u s, th e o rd e r is ap p ea lable u n d er § 1 2 9 2 (a)(1). T h e D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t err i n d en y ing R eg a’s m o ti o n fo r a p reli m inary in ju n c tio n . R e g a w a s re q u ire d to sh o w th a t h e w a s lik e lyto su c c e e d o n th e m e rits o f h is cl ai m , t hatt he deni al of r el i ef w oul d r es ul ti n i r r epar abl e harm , and thatgr ant i ng the in ju n c tio n w o u ld n o t re su lt i n irre p a ra b le h a rm to th e d e f e n d a n ts a n d w a s in th e p u b lic i nt er es t . M al donado v. H ous t oun, 157 F. 3d 179, 184 ( 3d C i r . 1998) . W e agr ee w i t h t he M agi s t r at e J udge’ s concl us i on t hatR ega f ai l ed t o m ake s uch a s how i ng as he ca nnot4

demonstr at e thatdeni al of r el i ef w oul d r es ul ti n i r r epar abl e harm . T he pr i s on w as i n t he p roc ess o f re o rde ri n g the p resc ri p ti o n w h en R eg a re q u ested the D istri ct C o u rt ’s i m m edi at e i nt ervent i on. T he dayaft erhe fi l ed the mot i on, the pr i s on pr ovi ded hi m w i th a s i x- m onth s uppl yof Pr i l os ec. T o t he ext entt hatR ega a ppeal s fr om the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derdeny i ng appoi nt m entof couns el , w e w i l l di s m i s s the appe al w i t houtpr ej udi ce f orl ack of j ur i s di ct i on beca us e the or deri s notappea l abl e atthi s t i m e. See 28 U . S. C . § 1291; Sm i thB eyv. Pet s ock, 741 F. 2d 22, 26 ( 3d C i r . 1984) ( concl udi ng thata di s t r i ctcour tor der deny i ng a mot i on forappoi nt m entof couns el m aynor m al l ybe r evi ew ed onl yaft era fi nal jud g m en t has b ee n en tered in the ca se). A c c o rd in g ly, w e w ill d is m is s th e a p p e a l in p a rt p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) , and i n par tforl ack of j ur i s di ct i on.