Desmond et al v. Phelps et al

Filing 98

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 81 MOTION for Default Judgment and 89 MOTION for Access to Law Library and Materials. Signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson on 4/15/14. (cla, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

CHRISTOPHER DESMOND, et aI.,

)
)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

) Civ. No. 12-1120-SLR

PERRY PHELPS, et aI.,

)
)

)

Defendants.

)

MEMORANDUM ORDER
At Wilmington this \':Jrday of April, 2014, having considered the pending motions
(D.1. 81, 89);
IT IS ORDERED that the motions 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. They proceed pro se
and have paid the filing fee.
2. Motion for default judgment. Plaintiff Joseph Walls ("Walls") has filed a

motion for default judgment. (D.1. 81) The court will deny the motion. Entry of default
judgment is a two-step process. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a), (b). A party seeking to obtain a
default judgment must first request that the Clerk of the Court "enter. ..the default" of
the party that has not answered the pleading or "otherwise defend[ed]," within the time
required by the rules or as extended by court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Timely
serving and filing a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), precludes entry of

default. See Francis v. Joint Force Headquarters Nat'! Guard, 2006 WL 2711459
(D.N.J. Sept. 19,2006). Even if default is properly entered, the entry of judgment by
default pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2) is within the discretion of the trial court. Hritz

v. Woma

Corp., 732 F .2d 1178, 1180 (3d Cir. 1984). There has been no entry of default.
Therefore, the motion for default judgment is premature. In addition, defendants have
appeared and answered the complaint. (See 0.1. 80)
3. Letterlmotion for injunctive relief. Plaintiff Christopher Desmond
("Desmond") moves for injunctive relief on the grounds that he is not afforded adequate
access to the law library. (0.1. 89) Defendants respond that Desmond is afforded
adequate law library access. The court will deny the motion.
4. Standard. 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)
(UNutraSweet I"). The elements also apply to temporary restraining orders. See
NutriSweet Co. v. Vit-Mar Enterprises., Inc., 112 F.3d 689, 693 (3d Cir. 1997)
(UNutraSweet /") (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). U[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

-2­

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 Gir. 2008)
(not published) (citing Goffv. Harper, 60 F.3d 518,520 (8th Gir. 1995».
5. Discussion. Desmond had twenty-five appointments to visit the law library
from January 1 to March 21, 2014. (0.1. 94, Little aff.) Of those twenty-five visits,
Desmond use the law library seventeen times. Desmond missed two appointments and
the law library was closed the remaining six times due to snow, holidays or
maintenance. (Id.) Desmond has received notary public services, photocopy services,
and has accessed legal materials.
6. Prisoners must be allowed "adequate, effective and meaningful" access to the
courts. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 822 (1977) (holding that prisons must give
inmates access to law libraries or direct legal assistance). "Many courts have found a
cause of action for violation of the right of access stated where it was alleged that
prison officials confiscated and/or destroyed legal materials." Zilich v. Lucht, 981 F.2d
694,695 (3d Gir. 1992) (citations omitted). However, a violation of the First
Amendment right of access to the courts is only established where a litigant shows that
he was actually injured by the alleged denial of access. 1 The actual injury requirement
is a constitutional prerequisite to suit. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996);
Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002) (explaining that the constitutional

right of access is "ancillary to the underlying claim, without which a plaintiff cannot have
suffered injury by being shut out of court").

1An actual injury is shown only where a nonfrivolous, arguable claim is lost.
Christopherv. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002).

-3­

7. Upon review of the allegations made by Desmond, the court concludes that
he has not demonstrated the likelihood of success on the merits. The record reflects
that Desmond has had adequate access to the law library. Moreover, there is no
evidence of injury as is required for a denial of access to the courts claim. Desmond
has failed to demonstrate any of the elements required for injunctive relief.

-4­