Desmond et al v. Phelps et al

Filing 140

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson on 09/10/14. (etg)

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

)
)
)
)

) Civ. No. 12-1120-SLR

v.

PERRY PHELPS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM
1. Background. Plaintiffs, inmates housed at the JamHs 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
pro se 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) Currently pending are numerous motions filed by plaintiffs
and non-party James Hardwick ("Hardwick"). (D.I. 104, 111, 1·15, 122, 126, 130, 132,
133)
2. Motion for joinder and motion to amend. Hardwick moves the court to join
and amend the original complaint. (D.I. 104) Plaintiff Christopher Desmond moves the
court to amend to add a 42 U.S.C. § 1985 retaliatory transfer claim. (D.I. 111) The

court will grant the motions. Hardwick indicates that, as the only recognized Jew at the
VCC, he has been hindered, restrained, or denied various aspects of his sincerely held
religious beliefs. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 20, persons may join in one action if:
(1) they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or
arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or
occurrences; and (2) any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the
action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a). This case raises issues with regard to the practice of
religion at the VCC.
3. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), a party may amencl his pleading once as a
matter of course within twenty-one days after serving it or, if the pleading is one to
which a responsive pleading is required, twenty-one days after service of a responsive
pleading or twenty-one days after service of a Rule 12(b), whichever is earlier.
Otherwise, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written
consent or the court's leave. Rule 15 provides that court should freely give leave to
amend when justice so requires. The Third Circuit has adopted a liberal approach to
the amendment of pleadings to ensure that "a particular claim will be decided on the
merits rather than on technicalities." Dole v. Arco Chem. Co., 921 F.2d 484, 486-87 (3d
Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). Plaintiffs will be ordered to file an amended complaint
that incorporates the proposed amendments and that reflects the claims that remained
after screening as set forth in the court's November 5, 2012 memorandum order. (See
D.I. 28)
4. Letter/motion for injunctive relief. Desmond asserts retaliation by
defendants and seeks injunctive relief to return him to his prior status and to allow him

2

to practice his religion without intimidation. (D. I. 115) The court will deny the motion. 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//"). "[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. 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)). Upon review of the allegations mad«:! by Desmond and the
evidence submitted by the parties, the court concludes that Desmond has not met the
requisites for injunctive relief. He has not demonstrated the likelihood of success on
the merits. Nor does the record reflect that denial of his motion will result in irreparable
harm. Finally, granting injunctive relief is in contravention of the public's interest in the
effective and orderly operation of its prison system. Carrigan

11.

State of Delaware, 957

F. Supp. 1376, 1385 (D. Del. 1997).
5. Motion for extension of time. Plaintiff Joseph M. \Nalls moves for an
extension of time to file a reply brief. (D.I. 122) The court will deny the motion as moot
given that the underlying motion for injunctive relief was denied on June 17, 2014.
6. Motions for reconsideration and motions for sanctions. The court

3

construes Desmond's motions to alter or amendment judgment and motion to vacate
memorandum and order as motions for reconsideration of the court's June 16, 2014
memorandum and order (D. I. 118, 119) that denied motions for reconsideration and
motions for injunctive relief. (D.I. 126, 130) Desmond contends that defendants
provided fraudulent affidavits in opposition to the motions for injunctive relief. In
addition, plaintiffs move for sanctions on the grounds that defendants submitted false
and fraudulent affidavits which resulted in "winning favorable decisions" in the court's
June 17, 2015 memorandum and order, opposed by defendants. (D.I. 132, 133) The
court will deny the motions.
7. The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to "correct manifest errors of
law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Max's SE1afood Cafe ex rel. LouAnn, 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
June 17, 2014 order is appropriate. Moreover, the court finds that sanctions are not
appropriate. Therefore, the motions will be denied.
8. Clarification. Desmond asks for clarification of filin£1s by defendants claiming
that he is confused on several issues. (D.I. 138) The court cannot provide the

4

clarification that Desmond seeks, as it would be improper for the court to provide him
legal advice. See e.g., Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 129, 244-45 (3d Cir.
2013).
9. Conclusion. For the above reasons, the court will grant the motions to join
and amend (D.I. 104, 111) and deny the remaining pending motions (D.I. 115, 122,
126, 130, 132, 133). A separate order shall issue.

Dated: September

Jo , 2014

UNITED STATLsoiSTRlcT JUDGE

5