1

BLD-138 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-4608

___________

RYSHEEN A. JACKSON,

 Appellant

v.

MARGARET GORDON, Chief State Dietitian at Department of 

Corrections; TERESA LAW, Health Care Administrator of the Correctional 

Institution at Camp Hill; MARTIN LASKEY, Medical Director at the 

SCI Camp Hill; COLLEEN NEWFIELD, Chief Physician Assistant at SCI 

Camp Hill; WILLIAM HARRIS, Food Service Manager at SCI Camp 

Hill; THOMAS JAMES, Chief Grievance Coordinator at the Department 

of Corrections; SHARON BURKS, Acting Chief Grievance Coordinator 

of the Department of Corrections; DONALD KELCHNER, Superintendent of 

SCI at Camp Hill; MS. MAGEE, Food Service Manager of SCI Camp Hill

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civ. No. 03-cv-01725)

District Judge: Honorable James M. Munley

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

March 15, 2012

Before: SCIRICA, SMITH and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: April 6, 2012)

_________

OPINION

_________
2

PER CURIAM

Rysheen A. Jackson appeals pro se from the orders of the District Court denying 

his motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) or preliminary injunction and his 

motion for reconsideration of that ruling. We will affirm.

I.

Jackson filed a civil rights complaint in 2003 while he was an inmate at SCI-Camp 

Hill. He asserted numerous claims against the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections 

Central Office Dietitian, as well as numerous SCI-Camp Hill employees, arising from 

defendants’ alleged refusal to provide him with a therapeutic diet (i.e., a vegetarian diet 

free of lactose and eggs that he claims to require because of allergies). Jackson also filed 

a motion for a TRO or preliminary injunction seeking immediate provision of that diet. 

The District Court denied the motion and dismissed Jackson’s claims in 2004. In 

2005, we affirmed the denial of Jackson’s motion for an injunction but remanded for 

further proceedings on certain of his claims. See Jackson v. Gordon

Nothing further transpired in this matter until Jackson filed a motion to reopen in 

2011. Jackson, who had since been transferred to SCI-Huntingdon, asserted that SCIHuntingdon personnel had refused to let him store legal materials pertaining to this action 

in his cell on the ground that the action was closed. He also filed another motion for a 

TRO or preliminary injunction seeking an order directing SCI-Huntingdon personnel 

, 145 F. App’x 774, 

776 (3d Cir. 2005). Following our remand, Jackson filed a motion to stay proceedings in 

the District Court pending his petition for a writ of certiorari. The District Court granted 

Jackson’s motion for a stay. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in 2006.
3

(who are not named in this action) to provide him with (1) his legal materials, and (2) the 

therapeutic diet. The District Court reopened the matter and directed defendants to 

respond, which they did. The District Court then denied the motion on September 30, 

2011. Jackson filed a motion for reconsideration, which the District Court denied on 

November 18, 2011. The action remains ongoing in the District Court. Jackson appeals.1

II.

Jackson challenges the denial of both aspects of his motion, but we perceive no 

reversible error. First, with respect to Jackson’s legal materials, the District Court denied 

his request on the ground that none of the SCI-Huntingdon employees named in 

Jackson’s motion are named parties to this action, which concerns events at SCI-Camp 

Hill. Jackson argues that the District Court’s power to enjoin is not limited to parties 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2). That rule provides that injunctions bind both named 

parties and those related to them in certain respects, such as their officers and agents and 

those in privity. See Marshak v. Treadwell, 595 F.3d 478, 486 (3d Cir. 2009). 

Employees of SCI-Huntingdon, however, are not in privity with or otherwise related to 

employees of SCI-Camp Hill for these purposes. Indeed, a prisoner’s transfer from one 

prison to another generally moots any equitable claims pending against employees of the 

former prison. See Sutton v. Rasheed

 1 Jackson styled his notice of appeal as an application for permission to appeal, but permission is 

not necessary to invoke our jurisdiction to review the denial of an injunction. See 28 U.S.C. § 

1292(a)(1). We review for abuse of discretion both the denial of a preliminary injunction, see

Brown v. City of Pittsburgh, 586 F.3d 263, 268 (3d Cir. 2009), and the denial of reconsideration, 

see Blystone v. Horn, 664 F.3d 397, 415 (3d Cir. 2011).

, 323 F.3d 236, 248 (3d Cir. 2003). In addition, 

Jackson’s allegations against employees of SCI-Huntingdon are not related to his 
4

underlying claims in this action. To the contrary, Jackson has filed a separate action 

against SCI-Huntingdon employees in which he alleges the same deprivation of legal 

materials and also seeks injunctive relief. Jackson v. Morrison

Second, Jackson argues that the District Court did not address his renewed request 

for an injunction regarding therapeutic meals. Any error in that regard was harmless, 

however, because there was no basis to grant injunctive relief. 

, M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 11-cv01791. His claims in that regard are more appropriately addressed in that action.

See

For these reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

28 U.S.C. § 2111. 

We affirmed the denial of Jackson’s request for therapeutic meals in 2005. Assuming 

without deciding that his claims against the Central Office Dietitian survive his prison 

transfer, Jackson has not shown that injunctive relief is any more appropriate now than it 

was then. To the contrary, the correction defendants argued that Jackson has gone almost 

eight years without the therapeutic diet he claims to need, and they attached evidence that 

he has suffered no adverse consequences and that there is no medical basis for the diet. 

Jackson has not meaningfully rebutted that showing. He argues that his situation recently 

became worse because he has again been transferred to a restrictive housing unit and can 

no longer supplement his meals. Jackson, however, alleged that he was in that same 

situation when we affirmed the denial of his last motion in 2005. If anything, Jackson 

made a stronger showing in support of that motion than he has in support of this one.