Drumgo v. Brown et al

Filing 136

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 135 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 11/18/13. (cla, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

DESHAWN DRUMGO,
Plaintiff,
v.

)

)

)

)

) Civ. Action No. 08-592-GMS
)

CPL. REGINALD BROWN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)

)

MEMORANDUM ORDER
I. Introduction
The plaintiff, DeShawn Drumgo ("Drumgo"), a prisoner incarcerated at the James T.
Vaughn Correctional Center ("VCC"), Smyrna, Delaware, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.c.
§ 1983. Pending before the court is Drumgo's motion for injunctive and/or immediate transfer or
interstate compact. (D.I. 135.)

II. Background
Drumgo claims that he is being retaliated against as a result of filing this lawsuit. His
motion contains a litany of complaints of actions taken by correction personnel, all of which
Drumgo claims are in retaliation. He seeks a transfer from the VCC.

III. Discussion
"A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted only if:
(1) the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) denial will result in irreparable harm to the
plaintiff; (3) granting the injunction will not result in irreparable harm to the defendant; and
(4) granting the injunction is in the public interest." NutraSweet Co. v. Vit-Mar Enters., Inc., 176
F.3d 151,153 (3d Cir. 1999). Because of the intractable problems of prison administration, a
request for injunctive relief in the prison context must be viewed with considerable caution.

Abraham v. Danberg, 322 F. App'x 169,170 (3d Cir. 2009) (unpublished) (citing Goffv. Harper,
60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995)).
Drumgo requests a transfer to a different correctional facility. The Delaware Supreme
Court has recognized that prison officials have discretion to house inmates at the facilities they
choose. Walls v. Taylor, 856 A.2d 1067,2004 WL 906550 (Del. 2004) (table) (citing Brathwaite v.

State, No. ] 69,2003 (Del. Dec. 29, 2003). Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court has held
that an inmate has no due process right to be incarcerated in a particular institution whether it be
inside the state of conviction, or outside that state. Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 251(1983).
Drumgo's request goes directly to the manner in which the Delaware Department of Correction
operates it prison, and an injunction would substantially harm the defendant. See Carrigan v. State

ofDelaware, 957 F. Supp. 1376, 1385 (D. Del. 1997). Additionally, granting injunctive reIiefis in
contravention of the public's interest in the effective and orderly operation of its prison system. Id.
Drumgo has not demonstrated the likelihood of success on the merits. Additionally, there is
no evidence that at the present time, Drumgo is in danger of suffering irreparable harm. Drumgo
has neither demonstrated the likelihood of success on the merits, nor has he demonstrated
irreparable harm to justify the issuance of immediate injunctive relief. Therefore, the court will
deny his motion.
IV. Conclusion
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for injunctive relief is de

JUDGE

O_v---,,-lc.(-,--_, 2013

_ _A:...Jo.L..2

Wilmington, Delaware

2