Desmond et al v. Phelps et al

Filing 159

MEMORANDUM - Signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson on 10/29/14. (rwc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

CHRISTOPHER DESMOND, et aI.,
Plaintiffs,

v.
PERRY PHELPS, et aI.,
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
pro se and have paid the filing fee. The matter proceeds on counts 1 through 14 and
18 of the complaint. (See 0.1. 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. (0.1. 1 at 7) Plaintiffs Christopher Desmond ("Desmond") and James
Hardwick were given leave to amend the complaint. (0.1. 141) Currently pending are
numerous motions filed by the parties. (0.1. 142, 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 154)
2. Motion to compel. Desmond filed a letter/motion regarding discovery served
upon defendants, construed by the court as a motion to compel. (0.1. 142) The motion
will be denied without prejudice. Defendants have objected to certain discovery
requests on the basis of 11 Del. C. § 4322 (c) and (d). (See 0.1. 134, 139) Desmond
wishes to brief the constitutionality of the statute in an attempt to obtain the discovery.

Briefing the issue of the constitutionality of § 4322 is not necessary. Plaintiffs are to
abide by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when seeking to compel discovery. The
court is unable to rule on discovery issues when it does not have before it the particular
requests to which Desmond seeks a response.
3. Motion for access to legal materials. Desmond filed a letter/motion to
compel defendants to provide him with copies of legal documents requested from the
law library,1 to compel defendants to produce discovery, to brief the issue of 11 Del. C.

§ 4322 (c) and (d) (as discussed in paragraph 2 above), to transfer Desmond from
SHU,2 and the reinstatement of all Catholic volunteers. The motion will be granted to
the extent that defendants shall provide Desmond with copies of the legal documents
which consists of briefs filed before the United States Supreme Court, insofar as the
request complies with Delaware Department of Correction rules and regulations with
regard to legal research and the numbers of copies allowed an inmate, and will be
denied in all other respects.
4. Motion to amend. Walls moves to amend the original complaint to add a
defendant and incorporate clarifications as set forth in previously filed motions for
injunctive relief. (0.1. 144) The motion will be denied without prejudice. Pursuant to D.

'The legal materials consist of briefs filed before the United States Supreme
Court in Holt v. Hobbs, No. 13-6827, a case that raises the following issue: "Whether
the Arkansas Department of Correction's grooming policy violates the Religious Land
Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000,42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq., to the extent
that it prohibits petitioner from growing a one-half-inch beard in accordance with his
religious beliefs." Holt v. Hobbs, _U.S._, 134 S.Ct. 1512 (2014).
2The court does not consider Desmond's request for a transfer from SHU. (See
0.1. 58, "filings raising issues unrelated to the instant complaint will be docketed, but not
considered.").

2

Del. LR 15.1 (b), when seeking to amend, the proposed amended pleading shall
indicate in what respect it differs from the pleading which it amends, by bracketing or
striking through materials to be deleted and underlining materials to be added. Here,
Walls did not provide a proposed amended complaint for the court's review. The court
will consider a renewed motion to amend upon Walls' compliance with the local rules of
this court.
5. Motion for sanctions. Walls has filed a motion to continue with motion for
sanctions and to remove Deputy Attorney General Scott W. Perkins. (D.I. 145) The
motion will be denied. The motion is a continuation of a previously filed motion for
sanctions found at docket item 133 that was denied at docket item 141.
6. Motion for extension of time. Plaintiff James Hardwick' motion for an
extension of time to file an amended complaint will be granted. (D.1. 147)
7. Motion for injunctive relief. Desmond asserts retaliation by defendants and
seeks injunctive relief for defendants to provide him with legal materials and sanctions.
(D.I. 148) 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." NutraSweetCo. v. Vit-MarEnterprises, Inc., 176 F.3d 151,153 (3d Cir.

1999) ("NutraSweet /I"). "[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

3

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 Goffv. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995)). Upon review of the allegations
made by Desmond, the court concludes that Desmond has not met the requisites for
injunctive relief. Desmond is provided legal materials, but not to the extent he desires.
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. 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 De/aware, 957 F. Supp. 1376, 1385 (D. Del. 1997).
Finally, sanctions are not appropriate.
8. To date, Desmond has filed numerous letters or motions seeking injunctive
relief. (See 0.1. 20, 25, 42, 79, 83, 89, 112, 115, 143, 148) Many raise the same
issues and all have been denied. Given Desmond's proclivity for filing, he is placed on
notice that the court will docket the letters and motions that seek injunctive relief, and
then review the filing to determine whether it will be considered.
9. Motion to strike. Defendants move to strike the amended complaint filed by
Desmond. (0.1. 154) The court will grant the motion. The court granted Desmond and
Hardwick leave to amend. Plaintiffs were admonished that the court would strike the
amended complaint should they fail to abide by the September 10, 2014 order. (See
0.1. 141) Desmond did not heed this admonishment. In addition, the amended
complaint is not signed by all plaintiffs as is required by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

4

10. Conclusion. For the above reasons, the court will: (1) grant in part
Desmond's letter/motion for legal materials, discovery and injunctive relief (0.1. 143);
(2) grant Hardwick' motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint (0.1.
147); (3) grant defendants' motion to strike (0.1. 154); (4) deny the remaining pending
motions (0.1. 142, 143, 144, 145, 148); and (5) docket the letters and motions seeking
injunctive relief filed by Desmond and review the filings to determine whether they will
be considered. A separate order shall issue.

Dated: October

dJ1

,2014

5