Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-27-2008
Hartmann v. Maybee
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 08-1541
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Hartmann v. Maybee" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1136.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1136
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 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
HLD-115 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-1541
____________
DETLEF F. HARTMANN,
Appellant
v.
COMMISSIONER ANDREA MAYBEE-FREUD; JUDGE WILLIAM L. WYTHAM;
JUDGE WALSH; JUDGE HOLLAND; JUDGE BERGER; COMMISSIONER
STANLEY TAYLOR; THOMAS CARROLL; CAPTAIN MIKE MCCREANOR;
CORPORAL LISA M. MERSON; MICHAEL LITTLE, Legal Services Administrator;
PARALEGAL EDWARD JOHNSON; JANE M. BRADY, Former Attorney General;
PROSECUTOR MARTIN O’CONNOR; DIRECTOR OF STATE PUBLIC
LIBRARIES; DAVID JONES; CHRISTOPHER WITHERELL; CHRISTOPHER
TEASE, JR.; CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES; DELAWARE CENTER FOR
JUSTICE; FIRST CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
D.C. Civil Action No. 06-cv-00340
(Honorable Sue L. Robinson)
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Due to Jurisdictional Defect,
Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and Summary Action Pursuant to
Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
April 30, 2008
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, ALDISERT and GARTH, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: May 27, 2008)
________________
OPINION OF THE COURT
________________
PER CURIAM.
Detlef Hartmann, a Delaware state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from an
order of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware denying his motion
for a preliminary injunction. We will dismiss the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) to the extent that the order Hartmann appeals denied his motion for a
preliminary injunction. We will dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction to the extent
Hartmann appeals the dismissal of certain claims in his civil rights complaint.
Hartmann brought a civil rights action against prison personnel asserting numerous
constitutional violations related to the conditions of his confinement. The District Court
afforded Hartmann two opportunities to amend his complaint and then screened his
second amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The District Court allowed
certain medical claims and a denial of access to the courts claim to proceed and dismissed
Hartmann’s remaining claims. The District Court also denied Hartmann’s motion for a
preliminary injunction, noting that the motion was all-encompassing and spoke to claims
raised in the second amended complaint that would be dismissed. This appeal followed.
To the extent Hartmann seeks to appeal the District Court’s dismissal of some, but
not all, of his claims, the District Court’s order can not be appealed immediately. See
New York Football Giants, Inc. v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 349 F.3d 102, 105-06
2
(3d Cir. 2003). The District Court has not directed the entry of a judgment under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). Thus, we lack jurisdiction to review the District Court’s
order to the extent it dismissed certain claims and parties.
We have jurisdiction, however, of appeals from interlocutory orders “granting,
continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or
modify injunctions . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). An order denying a motion for a
preliminary injunction is appealable where the order relates to the relief ultimately sought
by the claimant. Hershey Foods Corp. v. Hershey Creamery Co., 945 F.2d 1272, 1277-78
(3d Cir. 1991). Hartmann sought a preliminary injunction ordering the defendants to stop
the constitutional violations alleged in his complaint. The District Court’s order denying
Hartmann’s motion relates to the relief he ultimately sought, and the order is appealable
under § 1292(a)(1).
The District Court did not err in denying Hartmann’s motion for a preliminary
injunction. As recognized by the District Court, Hartmann was required to show that he
was likely to succeed on the merits of his claims, that the denial of relief would result in
irreparable harm, and that granting the injunction would not result in irreparable harm to
the defendants and was in the public interest. Maldonado v. Houstoun, 157 F.3d 179, 184
(3d Cir. 1998). Hartmann did not make such a showing. He did not discuss the alleged
constitutional violations, and the District Court correctly stated that most of the requested
relief was related to claims that the District Court had dismissed.
3
Accordingly, we will dismiss Hartmann’s appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction
to the extent that he appeals the order dismissing certain claims and parties. We will
dismiss the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to the extent that the order
Hartmann appeals denied his motion for a preliminary injunction.
4