2008 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 5-27-2008 

# H ar tm ann v

. M a y b ee 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 . 08-1541

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_2008

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 2008 D e c i sion s b y an authori 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 " H ar tm ann v

. M a y be e " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1136. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1136HL D- 1 1 5 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. 08- 1541

____________ DE T L E F F . HAR T M ANN, A ppel l ant

v. C O MMI S S I O N E R A N D R E A MA Y B E E - F R E U D ; J U D G E W I L L I A M L . W Y T H A M; J UD GE W ALSH ; J UD GE H OLLA ND ; J UD GE B ERG ER; CO M M I SS I ON ER S TANLE Y TAYLOR; THOM AS C ARROLL ; CAP TAI N M I KE M CCRE ANO R; C O R P O R A L L IS A M . M E R S O N ; M IC H A E L L IT T L E , L eg al S erv ices A d m inistrator; P A R A L E G A L E D W A R D JO H N S O N ; JA N E M . B R A D Y , F o rm e r A tto rn e yG e n e ra l; P R O S E C U T O R M A R T IN O ’C O N N O R ; D IR E C T O R O F S T A T E P U B L IC LI BRA RI ES; DA VI D J ON ES; CH RI STOPHER W I THER ELL; CH RI STOPHER T E AS E , J R. ; CO RR E CT I ONAL M E DI CA L S E RV I CE S ; DE L AWARE CE NT E R F OR

J USTI CE; FI RST COR RECTI ON AL M EDI CA L SERVI CES

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fo r th e D istri ct of

D elaw are D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 06- cv- 00340 ( H onor abl e Sue L. R obi ns on)

_______________________________________ S u b m itt e d F o r P o ss ib le D ism iss a l D u e to Ju risd ictio n a l D e f e c t, P o ss ib le D ism iss a l U n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )(2 )(B ), an d S u m m a ryA c tio n P u rsu 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

A pr i l 30, 2008 B efore: S C IR IC A , C hief J ud ge, A L D ISE R T and G A R T H , C i rcui tJudg es. ( Fi l ed: M ay27, 2008)2 ________________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

________________ P E R C U R I A M. D et l ef H art m ann, a D el aw ar e s t at e pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s fr om an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ctof D el aw ar e deny i ng hi s m ot i on f o r a p re lim in a ry in

ju n c tio n . W e w ill d is m is s th e a p p e a l p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ) t o the e x tent that the o rde r H artm an n ap p ea ls de n ied h is m o ti o n fo r a pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on. W e w i l l di s m i s s the appe al forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on t o the ext ent H a rtm a n n a p p e a ls th e d ism iss a l o f c e rta in c laim s in h is c iv il righ ts c o m p lain t. H art m ann br oughta ci vi l r i ght s act i on agai ns tpr i s on per s onnel as s ert i ng num er ous co n sti tuti o n al vio lat ion s related to the co n d it ion s o f h is co n fin em en t. T h e D istri ct C o u rt a f f o rd e d H a rtm a n n tw o o p p o rtu n iti e s to a m e n d h is c o m p lain t an d th e n sc re e n e d h is s econd a m ended c om pl ai ntpur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1915A . T he D i s tr i ctC our tal l ow ed cert ai n m edi cal cl ai m s and a de ni al of ac ces s t o the court s cl ai m t o pr ocee d and di s m i s s ed H artm an n ’s rem ainin g claim s. T h e D istri ct C o u rtalso d en ied H artm an n ’s m o ti o n fo r a p r e l i mi n a ryi n

j u n c t i o n , n o t i n g th a tth e mo t i o n wa s a l l - e n c o mp a s s i n g a n d s p o k e t o c l a i ms r ai s ed i n the s econd a m ended c om pl ai ntthatw oul d be di s m i s s ed. T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. T o t he ext entH art m ann s eeks t o appea l the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of s om e, but notal l , of hi s cl ai m s , the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or dercan notbe appe al ed i m m edi at el y . See N ew Y or k Footbal l G i ant s , I nc. v. C om m ’ rof I nt ernal R evenue , 349 F. 3d 102, 105- 063

( 3d C i r . 2003) . T he D i s tr i ctC our thas notdi r ect ed the entryof a j udgm entunderFeder al R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re 5 4 (b). T h u s, w e lac k juri sd ict ion to rev iew the D istri ct C o u rt ’s order t o the ext ent i tdis m i ssed cert ai n clai m s and p art i es. W e have j ur i s di ct i on, how ever , 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 or m o d ifyinjun 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 pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on i s appea l abl e w her e the or derr el at es t o the r el i ef ul t i m at el ys ought bythe 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) . H art m ann 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 cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i ons al l eged i n hi s compl ai nt . T he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or derdeny i ng H a rtm a n n ’s m o tio n re late s to th e re lief h e u lti m a telyso u g h t, an d th e o rd e r is a p p e a lab le u n d e r § 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 H artm an n ’s m o ti o n fo r a p reli m inary i nj unct i on. A s r ecogni zed bythe D i s tr i ctC our t , H art m ann w as r equi r ed t o s how thathe w a s lik e lyto su c c e e d o n th e m e rits o f h is c laim s, th a t th e d e n ial o f re lief w o u ld re su lt i n irre p a ra b le h a rm , an d th a t g ra n tin g th e 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 the def endant s and w as i n t he publ i c i nt er es t . M al donado v. H ous t oun, 157 F. 3d 179, 184 ( 3d C i r . 1998) . H art m ann di d notm ake s uch a s how i ng. H e di d notdi s cus s the al l eged cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i ons , and the D i s tr i ctC our tcorr ect l ys t at ed thatm os tof the r eques t ed r el i ef w as r el at ed t o cl ai m s thatthe D i s tr i ctC our thad di s m i s s ed.4

A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l di s m i s s H art m ann’ s appea l forl ack of appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on to th e e x ten t th a t h e a p p e a ls th e o rd e r d ism iss in g c e rta in c laim s a n d p a rties . W e w ill di s m i s s the appe al pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) t o the ext entthatthe or der H art m ann appe al s deni ed hi s m ot i on fora pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on.