Krahn v. State Of Delaware

Filing 123

MEMORANDUM ORDER - denying re 110 Letter Motion for Injunctive Relief. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 3/19/12. (rwc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
JEFFREY KRAHN,
Plaintiff,

v.

Civ. No. 1O-140-LPS

SCOTT MEIXELL, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's letter/motion for injunctive relief. (0.1. 110) For
the reasons given below, the Court will deny the motion.

I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Jeffrey Krahn ("Krahn"), a prisoner housed at the James T. Vaughn Correctional

Center ("VCC") in Smyrna, Delaware, filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. On
February 22, 2012, he filed a letter/motion for injunctive relief seeking mental health care for his
deteriorating mental condition. (0.1. 110) Defendants ask the Court to deny the motion on the
grounds that Krahn has not met the criteria for injunctive relief. Krahn has filed numerous
motions for injunctive relief in this case.

II.

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
A.

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 hann 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. See

Abraham v. Danberg, 322 F. App'x 169, 170 (3d Cir. Apr. 24,2009) (not published) (citing Go.ff
v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995»).

B.

Discussion

Krahn received a write-up for assault on a correctional officer, was found guilty, and
sanctioned to ninety days in isolation. He stated that he was psychotic when the event happened
and did not appeal the decision. An exhibit provided by Defendants indicates that Krahn
receives regular mental health treatment and takes medication for his condition. When Krahn
exhibited suicidal ideation, prison staff took immediate action and he received an additional
mental health assessment. The assessment indicates that at the time of the assessment Krahn was
stable. (D.L 119) Krahn wishes to be transferred to the special needs unit for the mentally ilL
Given the exhibits submitted to the Court, Krahn has not demonstrated the likelihood of
success on the merits. While Krahn seeks a transfer to a different unit, the Delaware Supreme
Court has recognized that prison officials have discretion to house inmates at the facilities they
choose. See Walls v. Taylor, 856 A.2d 1067,2004 WL 906550 (DeL 2004) (table) (citing

2

Brathwaite v. State, No. 169,2003 (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. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 251 (1983). In addition, the record fails to
support Krahn's claims that he is not provided with appropriate mental health treatment. The
record indicates that Krahn's mental health condition is monitored by the staff.
There is also no indication that, at the present time, Krahn is in danger of suffering
irreparable harm. Krahn having failed to demonstrate either the likelihood of success on the
merits or irreparable harm to justify the issuance of emergency injunctive relief, the Court will
deny his motion.

III.

CONCLUSION
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs letter/motion for

injunctive relief (D.I. 110) is DENIED.

L,J,
UNITED TATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: March 19,2012

3