Biggins v. Danberg et al

Filing 141

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 12/20/2011. (lih)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE

JAMES ARTHUR BIGGINS,
Plaintiff,
v.

R. WILLEY, et aI.,
Defendants.

)

)
)
)
) Civ. Action No. 09-862-GMS
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM
I. Introduction
The plaintiff, James Arthur Biggins ("Biggins"), 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 Biggins' "motion of show cause" construed as a
motion for a preliminary injunction regarding the withholding of legal materials, legal mail, and
denial oflegal requests while he was held in isolation. (D.!.105.)

II. Standard of Review
"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). "The relevant inquiry is whether the movant is in danger of
suffering irreparable harm at the time the preliminary injunction is to be issued." SI Handling

Sys., Inc. v. Heisley, 753 F.2d 1244, 1264 (3d Cir. 1985). "Preliminary injunctive relief is 'an
extraordinary remedy' and 'should be granted only in limited circumstances.'" Id. (citations

omitted). It is the plaintiff's burden, in seeking injunctive relief, to show a likelihood of success
on the merits. Campbell Soup Co. v. ConAgra, Inc., 977 F.2d 86, 90 (3d Cir. 1992). 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) (not published) (citing Goffv. Harper, 60 F.3d 518,520 (8th Cir. 1995)).

III. Discussion
On June 13,2011, Biggins was transferred to isolation to serve a disciplinary sanction
imposed upon him. He was not allowed to take his legal materials with him, but was advised
that he could keep the materials in his cell once it was verified that he had an open legal case.
Prison personnel verified that Biggins had an active case and his legal materials were provided to
him on June 17,2011. On June 19,2011, Biggins submitted motions to the law library for
copying, envelopes and stamps, but he heard nothing within forty-eight hours, the usual time for
a response. According to Biggins, the policy is to withhold legal mail pending an inmate's
release from isolation. Biggins seeks injunctive relief to change the isolation policies, to enjoin
the defendants from punishing inmates twice for the same offense, to order his immediate release
from isolation, and for any other relief deemed appropriate.
Prisoners must be allowed "adequate, effective and meaningful" access to the courts.
Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817,822 (1977) (holding that prisons must give inmates access to law
libraries or direct legal assistance). "Many courts have found a cause of action for violation of
the right of access stated where it was alleged that prison officials confiscated and/or destroyed
legal materials." Zilich v. Lucht, 981 F.2d 694, 695 (3d Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). However,
a violation of the First Amendment right of access to the courts is only established where a

litigant shows that he was actually injured by the alleged denial of access.! The actual injury
requirement is a constitutional prerequisite to suit. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996);

Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002) (explaining that the constitutional right of
access is "ancillary to the underlying claim, without which a plaintiff cannot have suffered injury
by being shut out of court").
The defendants advise that Biggins was released from isolation and returned to his prior
housing status on June 27, 2011. Pursuant to prison rules, Biggins is limited to two storage
boxes. This district has previously determined that the prison regulation limiting the number of
boxes of personal effects an inmates can keep in his cells is reasonably related to legitimate
penological objectives as the regulation promotes fire safety, limits access to contraband and
clutter, and inmates have access to the prison's law library. Howard v. Snyder, 389 F. Supp. 2d
589 (D. Del. 2005). Inasmuch as Biggins is no longer housed in isolation, and his materials have
been returned to him in accordance with prison regulations, the court finds that Biggins' motion
is moot. The court further notes that Biggins attempts to gain a transfer from isolation. Inmates
have "no legitimate statutory or constitutional entitlement" to any particular custodial
classification even if a new classification would cause that inmate to suffer a "grievous loss."

Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 88 n.9 (1976). Biggins is no longer housed in isolation. Hence,
request is moot in addition to failing as a matter of law
Biggins has not demonstrated the likelihood of success on the merits. Additionally, he
failed to demonstrate that granting the injunction will not result in irreparable harm to the
defendant and that granting the injunction is in the public interest. Therefore, the court will deny

!An actual injury is shown only where a nonfrivolous, arguable claim is lost. Christopher
v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403,415 (2002).

his motion.

IV. Conclusion
For the reasons stated, the court finds that Biggins is not entitled to injunctive relief and
the motion for injunctive relief will be denied. (D.I. 105.)
An appropriate order will be entered.

_--'f1E.......A..::rL""'--'lG2L.:J1111iO:_ _, 2011
.
Wilmington, Delaware