Drumgo v. Markell et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 7/17/15. (klc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE
) Civ. Action No. 14-1134-GMS
CPL MATTHEW DUTTON, et al.,
The plaintiff DeShawn Drumgo ("Drumgo"), a prisoner incarcerated at the James T.
Vaughn Correctional Center ("VCC"), Smyrna, Delaware, filed a complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.c. § 1983 on September 5, 2014. On March 26, 2015 and May 18,2015, Drumgo filed
emergency motions for injunctive relief complaining of retaliation, seeking a transfer, and
seeking medical treatment. (D.I. 33,45.)
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A party seeking a preliminary injunction must show: (1) a likelihood of success on the
merits; (2) that it will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is denied; (3) that granting
preliminary relief will not result in even greater harm to the nonmoving party; and (4) that the
public interest favors such relief. Kos Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700, 708
(3d Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). "Preliminary injunctive relief is 'an extraordinary remedy' and
'should be granted only in limited circumstances. ", Id. (citations omitted). Because of the
intractable problems of prison administration, a request for injunctive relief in the prison context
must be viewed with considerable caution. Abraham v. Danberg, 322 F. App'x 169, 170 (3d Cir.
2009) (unpublished) (citing Goffv. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995».
Drumgo contends he has been threatened by the defendant Cpl. Matthew Dutton
("Dutton") with disciplinary action for filing grievances on the issue of whether there is a
recurring gas leak. He also states that he suffers from severe "sinus aches" and is refused
Tylenol Sinus by the physician. He contends that he is "being intentionally misdiagnosed" by a
doctor whom he describes as disrespectful, unprofessional, and fascist. Drumgo states that, as of
May 12,2015, he had been seen by the same physician three times. Drumgo takes exception to
the treatment received from the physician and seeks outside medical treatment. Drumgo states
that the sinus condition is a result of the gas leak and dirty ventilation combined with asbestos.
Warden Pierce opposes the first emergency motion noting that Drumgo continues to take
issue with alleged presence of gas, vaguely references threatened disciplinary actions, and takes
issue with his medical care. Warden Pierce relies upon his response to Drumgo's first motion for
injunctive relief, denied by the court on October 15, 2015. (See D.L 15, 16.) Therein, evidence
was presented of a leak identified by facility maintenance mechanics on September 16, 2014 and
repaired on September 22, 2014. (ld.) Warden Pierce is unaware of any other leaks. He notes
that Drumgo's own motion indicates that Drumgo is abusing the grievance process, but provides
no evidence that he has been disciplined for filing a grievance. Finally, with regard to medical
care, Warden Pierce notes that those claims are not a part of this action. 1
IThe court notes that Drumgo's second motion does not demonstrate deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need. Rather, the facts as set forth by Drumgo indicate that he
receives medical care, albeit not to his liking. See Lasko v. Watts, 373 F. App'x 196,203 (3d
Given the record before the court, Drumgo has not demonstrated the likelihood of success
on the merits. Inasmuch as Drumgo has failed to show the likelihood of success on the merits,
the court will deny the emergency motions for injunctive relief. (D.I. 33,45.)
For the above reasons, the emergency motions for injunctive relief (D.I. 33,45) will be
denied. Drumgo will be placed on notice that future motions raising the same claims will be
docketed, but not considered.
An appropriate order will be entered.
_<-J_--,-~-+-_ _, 2015
Cir. 2010) (unpublished) ("a prisoner has no right to choose a specific form of medical
treatment," so long as the treatment provided is reasonable.).
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?