2007 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 Third C ircuit 6-11-2007 

# Y oung v . Medden P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-4117

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://digit alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc ircuit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s by 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 Third C ircuit at V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Digit al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s by an authori z e d a dmini s trat or of V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Digit al Reposit ory

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

w . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Y oung v . M e dde n" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 964. http://digit alc ommon s .l a

w . vill anova . e du/thirdc ircuit_2007/9641

H L D - 113 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 O . 06- 4117

________________ W IL L IE L . Y O U N G J R ., A ppel l ant

vs. J. T . M E D D E N ; J. A . W R IG H T , E T A L . ; C H IC K C O V IA C T , O ff icer; D . O . C . S . C . I. GR AT E RF OR D, ( T HE N) ; DONAL D VAUG HN, S u p e r i n t e n d e n t( NOW) ; D. DI GUGL I E L M O, S u p e r i n t e n d e n t ; L AR ANZ O, De p u ty ; AR OL YO, De p u ty ; BI Z Z E RE D, M a jo r; R O B E N S O N , L t.; J O H N S O N ; R A D L E , L t.; M E D D E N , L t.; H A T C H E R , M s .; S IL V E R , C O I; Q U IC K , C O I; A N D R E W S , C O I; C L A R K , C O I; M E D A Z , C O I; C A M P B E L L , C O I, E T A L .; S .C .I. H U N T IN G D O N ; J . G R A C E , S u p e ri n te n d e n t; R .H .U S T A F F ; W IL T S , L t.; A T T A M A N S H A F E R , C a p t.; W A L T E R S , L t.; H O U S E , S g t.;

SHO EM AK ER, Sg t . ; HA ND , CO I ; PARK S, CO I , ET AL.

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt F o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( E . D . Pa. C i v. N o. 03- cv- 05432) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le M a ryA . M c L a u g h lin

_______________________________________ Subm i tt ed ForPoss i bl e D i s m i s s al due t o J ur i s di ct i onal D efe ctand Pos s i bl e D i s m i s s al Un d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B)

J une 1, 2007 BEFORE: CH I EF J UD GE SCI RI CA , W EI S a n d GA RTH , CI RCU I T J UD GES (F il ed Ju n e 1 1 , 2 0 0 7 )

_______________________ OP I NI ON

_______________________T h e D istri ct C o u rtn o ted in it s F eb rua ry2 0 0 6 o rde r th at i t had g ran ted Y o u n g ’s 1 m ot i on forappoi ntm entof couns el i n J ul y2004, butno att orneyhad agr eed t o r epr es ent hi m . T he D i s tr i ctC ourts t at ed thati tw oul d agai n tryt o fi nd couns el forY oung, and p la c e d th e p ro c e e d in g s in c iv il s u s p e n s e . 2 P E R C U R I A M.

W i l l i e Y oung, pr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s fr om an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D istric t C o u rt f

o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia g ra n tin g in p a rt a p a rtial m o tio n to dis m i ss hi s com plai nt and de ny i ng his m oti on for a prel i m i naryi njunct i on . Y ou ng al so appea l s fr om an or derdeny i ng hi s m ot i on t o vaca t e thator der . W e w i l l di s m i s s thi s appea l in p art fo r l ac k o f ju ri sd ict ion an d in p art pu rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ).

Y oung fi l ed a c i vi l r i ght s act i on agai ns tnum er ous pr i s on empl oy ees c laim in g c o n stitu tio n a l v io latio n s a risin g f ro m p h y sic a l as sa u lts, v e rb a l h a ra ss m e n t, m i s handl i ng of gr i evanc es , r et al i at i on, deni al of ac ces s t o the court s , and mi s handl i ng of m ai l . I n February2006, the D i s tr i ctC ourtgr ant ed i n partand deni ed i n partthe pr i s on empl oy ees ’ part i al m ot i on t o di s m i s s the compl ai nt . T he D i s tr i ctC ourtdi s m i s s ed manyof the d efen dan t s fr om the acti on , bu tcon cl ud ed thatY ou ng st at ed at l easton e cl ai m against m anyof the otherdefe ndant s . T he D i s tr i ctC ourtal s o deni ed i n i t s February2006 or der Y oung’ s m ot i on fora pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on, and l at erdeni ed hi s m ot i on t o vaca t e the c o u rt ’s o rd e r. T h is a p p e a l f o llo w e d . 1 W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n o f a p p e a ls f

ro m a ll f in a l d e c is io n s o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u rt s . 28 U . S. C . § 1291. T he rul e of f i nal i tyr equi r es thatthe j udgm entbe fi nal as t o al l part i es3

a n d c a u s e s o f

a c tio n to b e a p p e a la b le . M e llo n B a n k , N .A . v . M e tr o C o m m u n ic a tio n s , In c ., 945 F. 2d 635, 640 ( 3d C i r . 1991) ( ci t i ng A ndr ew s v. U ni t ed St at es , 373 U . S. 334, 340 (1 9 6 3 )). Y o u n g se e k s to a p p e a l an o rd e r d ism iss in g so m e , b u t n o t all, o f th e d e f e n d a n ts in h is case . B ec au se a fin al ord er h as n o t bee n en tered as to all p arti es, an d the D istri ct C o u rt h a s n o tc e rt i f

i e d i t s F e b ru a ry2 0 0 6 o r d e ru n d e rF e d e r a l Ru l e o f Ci v i l P r o c e d u r e 5 4 ( b ) , we la c k ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w th e p a rt ia l d is m is s a l o f th e c o m p la in t. W e h av e jurisdicti o n , h o w ev er, of ap p ea ls from interl o cu toryo rde rs

“ g ra n tin g , co n tin u in g , m o d if y in g , ref u sin g o r d iss o lv in g in

ju n c tio n s, o r re f

u sin g to d iss o lv e o r m o d if

yin ju n c tio n s . . . . ” 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 2 (a )(1 ). In o rd e r to b e a p p e a lab le u n d e r § 1 2 9 2 (a )( 1 ), t h e o rd e r m u s t r e la te to th e re lie f u ltim a te ly so u g h t b yth e c la im a n t. H e rs h e yF o o d s C o rp . v . H e rs h e yC re a m e ry C o ., 9 4 5 F .2 d 1 2 7 2 , 1 2 7 7 -7 8 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). Y oung fi l ed a mot i on fora t empora ryr es tr ai ni ng or der , w hi ch the D i s tr i ctC ourtcons trued a s a m o tio n f

o r a p re lim in a ryin

ju n c tio n a n d c o n sid e re d o n th e m e rits a f terth e d e f

e n d a n ts fi l ed a r es pons e t o the mot i on. I n hi s m ot i on, Y oung s oughtt o enj oi n al l eged c ont i nui ng cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i ons thatw er e the s ubj ectof hi s ci vi l r i ght s compl ai nt . T he D i s tr i ct C o u rt’s o rd e r d e n y in g in ju n c tiv e re lief

re late s to th e re lief

Y o u n g u lti m a telyso u g h t in h is c o m p la in t, a n d th e o rd e r i s a p p e a la b le u n d e r § 1 2 9 2 (a )( 1 ).

I n deny i ng Y oung’ s m ot i on, the D i s tr i ctC ourts t at ed thati tcoul d not concl ude atthi s t i m e thatY oung had s how n a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i tyof s ucce s s on the m e rits, as h e h a d n o t p ro v id e d a n ye v id e n c e , o u tsid e o f h is a lleg a tio n s, to su p p o rt h is4

cl ai m s of w r ongdoi ng. T he D i s tr i ctC ourtal s o concl uded thati tw as notcl earthatY oung w oul d be i rr epar abl yharm ed abs enti nj unct i ve r el i ef. Fi nal l y , the D i s tr i ctC ourtnot ed that, ev en if th e p o ssibil ityo f irrep ara b le ha rm w eigh ed sli g h tl yin f av o r of p reli m inary in ju n c tiv e re lief

, the o th e r a p p lica b le f

a c to rs – h a rm to th e n o n m o v in g p a rtya n d th e p u b lic interest – w eigh ed ag ains t th e issu an ce o f a p reli m inaryinjun cti o n . T h e D istri ct C o u rt e x p lain e d th a t Y o u n g ’s a lleg a tio n s w e re so w id e ra n g in g , tha t a g ra n t o f re lief w o u ld in f rin g e o n th e d e f

e n d a n ts’ a b ili tyto ru n th e p riso n a n d c a u se th e c o u rt to b e o v e rly in v o lv e d in th e p ri s o n ’s m a n a g e m e n t.

Y o u n g p ri m aril yall eg ed in h is m o ti o n that p ri so n em p loy ee s w ere m i s handl i ng hi s out goi ng and i ncomi ng m ai l and di vul gi ng per s onal i nform at i on about hi m and hi s fami l y . I n a l at eramendm entt o hi s m ot i on, Y oung cl ai m ed thatpr i s on em p loy ee s d en ied h im reli g iou s, cu ltu ral, an d o ther w ri tt en m aterial s. T h e D istri ct C o u rt c o n sid e re d th e p ro p e r f a c to rs in e v a lu a tin g Y o u n g ’s m o tio n , an d w e c o n c lu d e th a t itd id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n , co m m it an o b v io u s e rro r o f law , o r m a k e a se rio u s m ista k e in co n side ri n g the p roo f. S ee C am p b ell S o u p C o . v . C o n A g ra, I n c., 9 7 7 F . 2 d 8 6 , 9 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) ( s e ttin g f

o rt h s ta n d a rd o f

re v ie w o f

d e n ia l o f

in ju n c tiv e re lie f

). A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill d ism iss Y o u n g ’s a p p e a l f o r la c k o f

a p p e llate ju risd ictio n to th e e x ten t h e a p p e a ls f ro m th e o rd e r g ra n tin g in p a rt th e p a rtial m o tio n to d ism iss his co m p lai n t. W e w il l dism iss th e a p p ea l pu rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B )W e a lso d e n yY o u n g ’s m o tio n f o r a p p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n se l. 2 5 t o the ext entY oung appea l s fr om the or derdeny i ng hi s m ot i on fora pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on an d the o rde r de n y ing h is m o ti o n to v ac ate tha t ord er. 2

___________________________