Desmond et al v. Phelps et al

Filing 118

MEMORANDUM - Signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson on 6/16/14. (rwc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CHRISTOPHER DESMOND, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PERRY PHELPS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Civ. No. 12-1120-SLR

)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM
1. Background. Plaintiffs, inmates housed at the James T. Vaughn
Correctional Center ("VCC"), Smyrna, Delaware, filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. They proceed
prose and have paid the filing fee. The matter proceeds on counts 1 through 14 and
18 of the complaint. (See D.I. 1, 28) These counts raise claims on behalf of plaintiffs
who belong to the Sunni-Salafi orthodox denomination of Islam, with count 2 as the only
count that includes a free exercise of religion claim for those plaintiffs who practice
Catholicism. (D.I. 1 at 7) At least two of the plaintiffs, Christopher Desmond
("Desmond") and Joseph M. Walls ("Walls") (together "plaintiffs"), practice Catholicism.
(See D.I. 15 at 3, D.I. 28)
2. Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunctive relief to restrict defendants
from retaliating against them based upon their religion. (D. I. 79, 90) Defendants filed
an opposition to the motion and, on April 16, 2014, the court ordered defendants to file
a supplemental response. Thereafter, Desmond filed a motion to alter or amend the
April 16, 2014 order. (See D.I. 99)

3. Motion for reconsideration. The court construes Desmond's motion to alter
or amendment judgment as a motion for reconsideration. The purpose of a motion for
reconsideration is to "correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly
discovered evidence." Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d
669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). "A proper Rule 59(e) motion ... must rely on one of three
grounds: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new
evidence; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest
injustice. Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing N. River Ins.
Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995). Desmond raises
several grounds for reconsideration, none of which are availing. The court finds that
Desmond has failed to demonstrate that reconsideration of the court's April 16, 2014
order is appropriate. Therefore, the motion will be denied.
4. Injunctive relief. 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-MarEnterprises, Inc., 176 F.3d 151, 153 (3d Cir. 1999)
("Nutrasweet//"). "[F]ailure to establish any element in [a plaintiff's] 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.

2

Correctional Med. Services, Inc., 287 F. App'x 142, 144 (3d Cir. 2008) (unpublished)

(citing Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995)).
5. Discussion. Plaintiffs state that defendants have discriminated against them
based upon their Catholicism and that they are denied access to Catholic services and
religious leaders when compared to other religions. Desmond claims that
discrimination occurred in the past against him, the St. Dismas Catholic community, its
volunteers, priest, and anyone associated with social concerns or social teachings of
the Catholic church, because he brought defendants' mismanagement of the prison
system to the attention of others. (D.I. 79) According to Desmond, the discrimination
resulted in his transfer to SHU/MAX and St. Dismas volunteers were banned from the
VCC. Desmond anticipates there will be further retaliation as a result of his November
2013 publication "legislative agenda 2014 sentencing reforms." Desmond seeks the
reinstatement of the banned St. Dismas Catholic volunteers and the programs they
provided. Plaintiffs further contend that prison policies have gutted core sacraments of
the Catholic mass or prayers, prohibited Catholic dietary foods and feast practices,
eviscerated Catholic social justice programs and education, eliminated access to
Catholic information or education sources, and discriminated between secular or
Protestant beliefs and Catholic beliefs. (D.I. 90)
6. Walls' affidavit states that: (1) he was told that defendant James
Scarborough ("Scarborough") was targeting Catholics, because they think they are
above everybody and need to be put in their place; (2) defendant Perry Phelps
("Phelps") transferred Walls to SHU in retaliation for Walls praying for prison officials
during a mass held in February 2012; and (3) the prison grievance chairperson stated

3

that Catholics were her least favorite religion and she agreed that Catholics should be
run out of prison. (D.I. 91, ex. A) Desmond's affidavits basically clarifies issues and
discusses the law. (D.I. 92, ex. B; D.I. 93)
7. Defendants counter plaintiffs' claims with the affidavits of defendant Frank
Pennell ("Pennell"), who has been employed as a chaplain at the VCC since 1983, and
Ron Hosterman ("Hosterman"), who is the supervisor of Pennell. (D.I. 114, exs. A, B)
The affidavits refute plaintiffs' claims, as follows: (1) the treatment of religious
volunteers at the VCC is the same regardless of religious denomination; (2) the
volunteers who were banned from the VCC were barred for failure to comply with VCC
policies and not for their religious views or expressions; (3) there is no interference with
Catholic religious requirements; (4) there is no favoritism shown to any particular
religion and great efforts are made to ensure that inmates have adequate (and to the
extent possible) equal access to programs and worship opportunities; (5) inmates are
allowed to have up to three books in their cell, the VCC library's religious educational
resources include many Catholic resources and, upon request, inmates have access to
religious television and video programs; (6) there are no religious programs at the VCC
that entitle an inmate to good time credit upon completion; and (7) housing records do
not support plaintiffs' contentions that they were transferred to a higher security housing
unit for speaking out in furtherance of their Catholic faith.
8. Upon review of the allegations made by plaintiffs and the evidence
submitted, the court concludes that plaintiffs have not met the requisites for injunctive
relief. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated the likelihood of success on the merits. Nor
does the record reflect that denial of their motion will result in irreparable harm. Finally,

4

granting injunctive relief is in contravention of the public's interest in the effective and
orderly operation of its prison system. Carrigan v. State of Delaware, 957 F. Supp.
1376, 1385 (D. Del. 1997).
9. Conclusion. For the above reasons, the court will deny the motion to alter or
amend judgment (D.I. 99), construed by the court as a motion for reconsideration, and
will deny the motions for injunctive relief (D. I. 79, 90). A separate order shall issue.

Dated: June

/lo , 2014

5