Nassir-Bey v. Phelps et al

Filing 51

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 8/10/2015. (klc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ZAKII MALIK NASSIR-BEY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civ. No. 12-1359-LPS

PERRY PHELPS, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, Zakii Malik Nassir-Bey (''Plaintiff'), a prisoner incarcerated at the James T. Vaughn
Correctional Center in Smyrna, Delaware, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending
before the Court is Plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief alleging retaliation in the form of a
shakedown of his cell and the confiscation of religious books. Plaintiffs seeks an order for the
return of the confiscated books and a location to store his religious books. (D.I. 38) Defendants
oppose the motion. In addition, Plaintiff filed a "motion for separation of religion from treatment,
education and program department." (D.I. 41)
II.

LEGAL STANDARDS
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. Vi(-Mar Enterprises, Inc., 176 F.3d 151, 153 (3d ·
Cir. 1999) (''NutraSweet II"). The elements also apply to temporary restraining orders. See

NutriSweet Co. v. Vit-Mar Enterprises., Inc., 112 F.3d 689, 693 (3d Cir. 1997) ("NutraSweet I") (stating
temporary restraining order continued beyond time permissible under Rule 65 must be treated as ·

preliminary injunction, and must conform to the standards applicable to preliminary injunctions).
"[F]ailure to establish any element in [a pfuintiff'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. See Rush v. Correctional Med Seroicef, Inc., 287 F. App'x 142, 144 (3d Cir. July 31,
2008) (citing Goff v. Haper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995)).

III.

DISCUSSION
Exhibits submitted by the parties indicate that on December 31, 2014, Plaintiff's cell was the

subject of a shake-down conducted by correctional officer Dean Edge and Sgt. Casey Phelps. (D.I.
38 Ex. A-1) The cell contained numerous books. Inmate housing rules allow an inmate to possess
four magazines, three reading books (including religious books), and one newspaper. (D.I. 40 Ex. A
at IV.5.a)) Plaintiff exceeded the allowed book limit by thirty-seven books. (D.I. 38 Ex. A-1) The
officers requested that Plaintiff hand over the books which exceeded the limit; Plaintiff gave the
officers seven books. (D.I. 38 Ex. A-1)
During the shakedown, Plaintiff advised the correctional officers that he was in court
fighting the right to keep all books containing religious content and that Deputy Warden
Scarborough ("Scarborough") knew about the lawsuit. : (Id) When asked about this, Scarborough
indicated that he knew Plaintiff but that he had no recollection of the books or the court case and
that he was required to follow the inmate housing guide rules. (Id.) Plaintiff was allowed to select
the three books he wished to keep. (Id.)

Th~

officers confiscated an additional thirty books and

they were taken off the tier. Plaintiff was issued a disciplinary report for possession of nondangerous contraband, lying, and failing to obey an order (when he failed to retrieve the proper
amount of books from his cell when ordered to do so). (Id.)

2

The books that were confiscated were inventoried on a form (mmate .acquired and
confiscated property form) and Plaintiff was given a copy. (Id. at Ex. B-3) The confiscated items
are held as evidence pending disciplinary proceedings. (D.I. 40 Ex. A) The items.are disposed of if
an inmate is found guilty. (Id.) If the items are allowable, they are returned to the inmate only if the
inmate is found not guilty of the disciplinary referral. (Id.) State Defendants indicate that Plaintiff
was found guilty of possessing a prohibited number of books. (D.I. 40 atiJ 6) Plaintiff did not
advise the Court of the outcome of the disciplinary proceeding.
Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he was a victim of retaliation due to a lawsuit he has
filed. When asked about Plaintiffs claim that the cell shake-down was due to his lawsuit,
Scarborough indicated that he was unaware of the lawsuit and that he was following prison
regulations. The record indicates that Plaintiffs cell wa~ sear_ched during a routine shake-down, at
which time it was determined that Plaintiff exceeded the number of allowable books. Plaintiff was
afforded an opportunity to go through his books to choose those he wished to keep in accordance
with prison rules. From the record before it, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to show
that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim.

In addition, Plaintiff has not met his burden to show that granting an injunction will not
result in irreparable harm to Defendants or that granting an injunction is in the public interest. The
relief sought by Plaintiff -- including return of the confiscated books, a separate location to store his
religious books, and the separation of religion/ church from the treatment, education and program
department at the VCC -- goes directly to the manner in which the Delaware Department of
Correction operates it prison, and the Court finds that the injunctive relief sought would
substantially harm Defendants. See Carrigan v. State ofDelaware,957 F. Supp. 1376, 1385 (D. Del.
1997). Finally, granting injunctive relief is in contravention of the. public's interest in the effective

3

and orderly operation of the prison system. See id. The.refore, the Court will deny Plaintiffs
motions. (D.I. 38, 41)

IV.

CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the Court will deny the motion for a preliminary injunction (D.I.38)

and will deny the motion for separation of religion from treatment, education, and program
department (D .I. 41).

An appropriate Order follows.

(~P.fl-

UNITED\ STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: August 10, 2015

4