Desmond et al v. Phelps et al

Filing 58

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 55 MOTION for Sanctions, denying 54 MOTION for Sanctions. Plaintiffs are placed on notice that filings raising issues unrelated to the instant complaint will be docketed, but not considered. Signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson on 7/16/13. (cla, )

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 ORDER

At Wilmington this l~ay of July, 2013, having reviewed the pending motions for
sanctions (D.I. 54, 55);
IT IS ORDERED that the motions (D.I. 54, 55) are denied, for the reasons that
follow:
1. Background. Plaintiffs, inmates housed at the James T. Vaughn
Correctional Center, Smyrna, Delaware, filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"). They
proceed prose, have paid the filing fee. Recently plaintiff Joseph M. Walls ("Walls")
was granted in forma pauperis status. (D.I. 50) On July 9 and 10, 2013, plaintiff
Christopher R. Desmond ("Desmond") filed two motions for sanctions (D. I. 54, 55),
construed by the court as motions for injunctive relief.
2. 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

I
i

[
interest." NutraSweetCo. v. Vit-MarEnterprises, Inc., 176 F.3d 151,153 (3d Cir. 1999)
("NutraSweet If'). "[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 Cir. 2008) (not published)
(citing Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995)).
3. Both motions complain of difficulty plaintiffs have had in obtaining the USM285 forms necessary to effect service. The court recently entered an order addressing
the issue. Therefore, with regard to relief sought in obtaining the correct forms, the
motions are moot.
4. The complaint alleges violations of plaintiffs' right to the free exercise of
religion under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution
and RLUIPA. (D.I. 1, 28) In addition to the service forms issue, the instant motions
speak to retaliation, seek transfer to different housing units, 1 and raise medical needs
claims on behalf of Desmond. 2 These issues have nothing to do with the claims raised
in the complaint. Plaintiffs, and most notably Desmond, may not inject issues unrelated
to the instant complaint through the filing of motions. Plaintiffs may seek to obtain the
relief they seek by opting to initiate new lawsuits. Finally, plaintiffs have not

1

The court previously denied a motion for injunctive relief for a transfer filed by
Desmond and Walls. (See D.l. 45)
2

Desmond, a frequent filer, has three strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
and, therefore, he cannot bring a new civil action in forma pauperis unless there are
allegations of imminent danger of serious physical injury.

2

demonstrated that injunctive relief is appropriate. Therefore, the court denies the
motions.
5. Plaintiffs are placed on notice that filings raising issues unrelated to the
instant complaint will be docketed, but not considered.

UNITED STA

3

S DISTRICT JUDGE