Drumgo v. Burris et al

Filing 34

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 28 MOTION for Emergency Injunction & Transfer & Return of Legal Documents filed by De Shawn Drumgo. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 6/3/14. (cla, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
DE SHAWN DRUMGO,

)
)

Plaintiff,

)
)
) Civ. Action No. 12-068-GMS
)
)
)
)

v.
C.O. ROOP, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
At Wilmington, this

;

,..Aday of Q ~
-

, 2014;

I. INTRODUCTION
The plaintiffDeShawn 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 on January 24,2012, followed by amendments. On February 11,2014, Drumgo
filed a motion for injunctive relief complaining that his legal materials have been seized, his legal
materials are being read and given to other individuals, and seeking a transfer. (D.I. 28.) The
motion is opposed. (D.I. 32.)

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 Enterprises, Inc.,
176 F.3d 151, 153 (3d Cir. 1999) ("NutraSweet If'). The elements also apply to temporary
restraining orders. See NutriSweet Co. v. Vit-Mar Enterprises., Inc., 112 F.3d 689, 693 (3d Cir.

1997) ("NutraSweet f') (a temporary restraining order continued beyond the time permissible
under Rule 65 must be treated as a preliminary injunction, and must conform to the standards
applicable to preliminary injunctions). "[F]ailure to establish any element in [a plaintiffs] favor
renders a preliminary injunction inappropriate." NutraSweet II, 176 F.3d at 153. Furthermore,
because of the intractable problems of prison administration, a request for injunctive relief in the
prison context must be viewed with considerable caution. Rush v. Correctional Med. Services,
Inc., 287 F. App'x 142, 144 (3d eir. 2008) (unpublished) (citing Goffv. Harper, 60 F.3d 518,
520 (8th eir. 1995)).

III. DISCUSSION
Drumgo asserts that Michael Little ("Little") the VeC's legal administrator, seized his
legal mail, and read his legal documents outside of his presence. In addition, Drumgo asserts that
Little sent copies of his legal documents to the State.
The defendants presented evidence that in February of2014, Drumgo had seven boxes of
legal documents. (D.I. 32, ex. A.) Inmates housed at the vee are allowed to possess three
boxes oflegal documents and other personal effects. Id. The limit on the number of boxes is
necessary to safeguard against fire hazards and contraband. Id. Little met with Drumgo on
February 18,2014, so that Drumgo could purge his documents. (Id.) Drumgo reduced his boxes
from seven to three. In addition, Little denies Drumgo's assertion that he reads and reviews legal
documents from Drumgo's attorney and sends copies to the State. (Id.)
Upon review of the allegations made by Drumgo, the court concludes that he has not
demonstrated the likelihood of success on the merits inasmuch as Little's affidavit refutes
Drumgo's allegations. Nor has Drumgo produced evidence of irreparable harm. Finally, the
2

court notes that Drumgo has repeatedly sought transfer to another DOC facility and his efforts to
obtain an order compelling his transfer have been repeatedly denied. The court will no longer
entertain such requests. Drumgo is placed on notice that future duplicative motions for
injunctive relief will be docketed but not considered.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the court denies Drumgo's motion for injunctive relief. (D.I. 28.)

GE

3