2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

10-7-2010

Dawn Ball v. Dr. Famiglio

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 10-1700

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2010 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Dawn Ball v. Dr. Famiglio" (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 465.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/465
CLD-281 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-1700

___________

DAWN MARIE BALL,

 Appellant

v.

DR. FAMIGLIO; GLORIA DIGGAN, R.N.; NURSE DILLELA; VANESSA NICOLA,

Hygienist; NELMS, Dentist; NURSE GREEN; BRIAN MENCH, Nurse; MRS. MENCH;

MS. JARRET; MS. BROWN; MS. WELL CHANCE; NURSE BOYER; P.A. EGAN;

P.A. HIMELSBACH; ERICA STROUP; EYE DOCTOR; MS. JOHNSON;

MAJOR SMITH; DR. FABIAN; CAPTAIN PINARD; MS. GAMBLE; DR. WOODS;

DR. SHIPTOWSKI; SGT. RAGAR; SGT. SAAR; SGT. JOHNSON; LT. BOYER

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civ. No. 08-cv-00700)

District Judge: Honorable Yvette Kane

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C.

' 1915(e)(2)(B) and Possible Summary Action

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

September 2, 2010

Before: BARRY, FISHER and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges.

(Filed: October 7, 2010 )

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM
2

Dawn Marie Ball appeals from the District Court=s order denying her motion for a 

preliminary injunction. We will affirm. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4 (2008); 3d Cir. I.O.P. 

10.6.

I.

Ball, a Pennsylvania prisoner proceeding pro se, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 

against twenty-eight prison medical personnel. Her amended complaint may be liberally 

construed to allege that defendants exhibited deliberate indifference to her serious 

medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. She alleges, among other things, 

that defendants denied her dental care, a cane and wheelchair, physical therapy and sick 

calls; delayed providing her with eyeglasses; and either denied her medication or, 

alternatively, gave her the wrong medication, which caused Asevere major breakdowns.@

By order entered March 26, 2009, the District Court directed Ball to file a second 

amended complaint to permit defendants to respond to the specific allegations against 

them. Ball did not file a second amended complaint. Instead, she filed a motion for 

preliminary injunctive relief. In that motion, Ball sought an injunction against various 

parties not named as defendants in her amended complaint and asserted claims and 

injuries largely unrelated to those alleged in that complaint.1 Among other things, she 

 

1Ball included in the caption of her motion the civil action numbers of both this 

suit and M.D. Civ. No. 08-cv-00701. Many of the allegations contained in her motion 

relate to her complaint in that suit, and this identical motion was docketed in that suit and 

remains pending as of the date of this memorandum.
3

alleged that a corrections officer, not named as a defendant, assaulted her and sought an 

order directing him to Astay away from me,@ and she complained of the search of her cell 

and confiscation of her property and sought its return.

The District Court denied the motion by order entered February 4, 2010. In doing 

so, the District Court noted that Ball=s motion sought relief against parties not named as 

defendants, that Ball could file a separate action against those individuals if she wished, 

and that certain of her allegations had become moot or were otherwise legally deficient. 

Ball appeals.

II.

We have jurisdiction to review the denial of preliminary injunctive relief pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. ' 1292(a)(1).2 We do so for abuse of discretion, though we review 

underlying conclusions of law de novo. See Adams v. Freedom Forge Corp., 204 F.3d 

475, 484 (3d Cir. 2000). A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, and the 

party seeking it must show, at a minimum, a likelihood of success on the merits and that 

they likely face irreparable harm in the absence of the injunction. See id. As these 

elements suggest, there must be A>a relationship between the injury claimed in the party=s 

motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.=@ Little v. Jones, 607 F.3d 1245, 1251 

 

2

The District Court=s February 4 order also denied motions that Ball had filed for 

the appointment of counsel and entry of a default judgment. Our jurisdiction does not 

extend to those rulings. See Smith-Bey v. Petsock, 741 F.2d 22, 26 (3d Cir. 1984); 

Murphy v. Helena Rubenstein Co., 355 F.2d 553, 553 (3d Cir. 1965).
4

(8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994)); see also

Adams, 204 F.3d at 489-90 (affirming denial of injunction where plaintiffs= harm was 

Ainsufficiently related to the complaint and [did] not deserve the benefits of protective 

measures that a preliminary injunction affords@).

We agree that Ball failed to satisfy these requirements here. As the District Court 

noted, the individuals whose conduct she sought to enjoin are not named as defendants in

this action. In addition, most of the relief she requests is completely unrelated to the 

allegations contained in her amended complaint. See Devose, 42 F.3d at 471 (affirming 

denial of injunction sought on the basis of Anew allegations of mistreatment that are 

entirely different from the claim raised and the relief requested in [plaintiff=s] inadequate 

medical treatment lawsuit@). The only requests for relief arguably related to her 

complaint are that she Awant[s] medical treatment when requested@ and for her Ameds not 

to be stopped[.]@ With respect to those requests, however, she has not alleged any reason 

to believe that any particular medical care or medication will not be provided in the future 

or that, if it is not, any resulting harm would be irreparable. See Adams, 204 F.3d at 488 

(Athe risk of irreparable harm must not be speculative@). Thus, the District Court did not 

abuse its discretion in denying her motion for injunctive relief.

Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. Ball=s motion for 

the appointment of counsel on appeal is denied.