1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BRIAN RAUPP, )

Petitioner )

)

vs. ) C.A.No. 06-223 Erie

) District Judge McLaughlin

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al. ) Magistrate Judge Baxter

Respondents )

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

I RECOMMENDATION

It is respectfully recommended that Petitioner’s motion for injunctive relief [Document #

4] be denied.

II REPORT

On September 27, 2006, Petitioner, a federal inmate acting pro se, filed the instant

petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner raises issues relating to his eligibility for placement

in a Community Corrections Center prior to his release.

On October 18, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion for injunctive relief. Petitioner claims

that following an incident on October 15, 2006, involving two other inmates who wandered

away from the prison camp the wooded outskirts of the Prison Camp, the prison staff have

changed their “means of managing the camp population”:

... the Respondents suspended all visits, turned off the phones, and forbade the

use of both the recreational facilities and the law library. The Respondents’

newly implemented management procedure is un constitutional because it

prevents Petitioner and others from accessing the courts. The Respondents’

suspension of all visits is particularly injurious since Petitioner will be unable to

visit with attorneys to discuss the above-captioned case. Wherefore , Petitioner

prays that this Honorable Cort grant him injunctive relief enjoining the

Respondents from unlawfully punishing him for the acts of others.

Document # 4. 

Case 1:06-cv-00223-SJM-SPB Document 8 Filed 10/27/06 Page 1 of 3
2

In order to obtain a preliminary injunction, the district court must consider: (1) the

likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the extent of irreparable injury from the alleged

misconduct; (3) the extent of harm to the movant; and (4) the effect on public interest. Clean

Ocean Action v. York, 57 F.3d 328, 331 (3d Cir. 1995); Opticians Ass'n of America v.

Independent Opticians of America, 920 F.2d 187, 191-92 (3d Cir. 1990). The preliminary

injunction remedy "must be reserved for extraordinary circumstances...." Hoxworth v. Blinder,

Robinson & Co. Inc., 903 F.2d 186, 189 (3d Cir. 1990). If the record does not support a finding

of both irreparable injury and a likelihood of success on the merits, then a preliminary injunction

cannot be granted. Marxe v. Jackson, 833 F.2d 1121 (3d Cir. 1987). Irreparable injury is

established by showing that Petitioner will suffer harm that "cannot be redressed by a legal or an

equitable remedy following trial." Instant Air Freight Co. v. C.F. Air Freight, Inc., 882 F.2d

797, 801 (3d Cir. 1989)("The preliminary injunction must be the only way of protecting the

plaintiff from harm"). Petitioner bears this burden of showing irreparable injury. Hohe v. Casey,

868 F.2d 69, 72 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 848 (1989). In fact, Petitioner must show

immediate irreparable injury, which is more than merely serious or substantial harm. ECRI v.

McGraw-Hill, Inc., 809 F.2d 223, 226 (3d Cir. 1987). The case law provides some assistance in

determining that injury which is irreparable under this standard. "The word irreparable connotes

'that which cannot be repaired, retrieved, put down again, atoned for...'." Acierno v. New Castle

County, 40 F.3d 645, 653 (3d Cir. 1994)(citations omitted). Additionally, "the claimed injury

cannot merely be possible, speculative or remote." Dice v. Clinicorp, Inc., 887 F.Supp. 803, 809

(W.D.Pa. 1995). An injunction is not issued "simply to eliminate a possibility of a remote future

injury...." Acierno, 40 F.3d at 655 (citation omitted). 

Petitioner’s request for injunctive relief is unrelated to the underlying petition for writ of

habeas corpus. Petitioner cannot show that he will suffer any immediate and irreparable harm as

he is not currently under any deadline to file any pleading in this court and so he is not being

denied access to the courts. Additionally, Petitioner does not have counsel and so any

limitations he many face in regards to visitation are purely speculative at this point in time. 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for injunctive relief should be denied.

Case 1:06-cv-00223-SJM-SPB Document 8 Filed 10/27/06 Page 2 of 3
3

III CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully recommended that the motion for

preliminary injunction [Document # 4] be denied.

In accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and Local

Rule 72.1.4B, the parties are allowed ten (10) days from the date of service to file written

objections to this report. Any party opposing the objections shall have seven (7) days from the

date of service of objections to respond thereto. Failure to timely file objections may constitute

a waiver of any appellate rights.

S/ Susan Paradise Baxter 

SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER

Chief United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: October 27, 2006

Case 1:06-cv-00223-SJM-SPB Document 8 Filed 10/27/06 Page 3 of 3