CLD-281 NOT PRECEDENTIAL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
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
1
Ball 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.
2
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).
3
(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.
4