Drumgo v. Little et al

Filing 31

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 6/23/15. (etg, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
DE SHAWN DRUMGO,

)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,

) Civ. Action No. 14-1136-GMS

V.

)
)
)
)

MIKE LITTLE, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM
I. INTRODUCTION
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 17, 2015, Drumgo filed a motion for injunctive
relief complaining ofretaliation through an assault and destruction of personal property. (D.I.
21.) The motion is opposed. (D.I. 27.)

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
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-Mar Enterprises, Inc.,
176 F.3d 151, 153 (3d Cir. 1999) ("NutraSweet If'). 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 f') (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

'

I
I
>

f

l

applicable to preliminary injunctions). "[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Inc., 287 F. App'x 142, 144 (3d Cir. 2008) (unpublished) (citing Goffv. Harper, 60 F.3d 518,
520 (8th Cir. 1995)).

III. DISCUSSION
Drumgo asserts that he was assaulted and, more recently, "as retaliation Shannon Corbett
came into his cell and broke his television . . . and destroyed family photos." (D .I. 21.) Drumgo
asserts that C/O Kirlin continually harasses him and has assaulted him. Drumgo also asserts that
threats have been made to place him in the hole for filing a civil lawsuit and grievances "by any
means necessary." The motion does not seek any relief.
Drumgo does not indicate when the alleged retaliatory conduct took pace. The warden
presented evidence dated August 4, 2014, that "closely mirrors" Drumgo's allegations. The
evidence indicates that following a shakedown of Drumgo' s cell, he incurred several disciplinary
violations including demonstrations, disorderly or threatening behavior, creating a health, safety
or fire hazard, disrespect, failing to obey an order, and off limits. (D.I. 27.) Capstun was used to
help gain Drumgo's compliance. During the disciplinary hearing, Drumgo stated that he faced
retaliation from the officers who were not in his cell to conduct a shakedown, but to read his
grievances and civil suit. Drumgo was found guilty of numerous violations, was sanctioned to
isolated confinement, and confinement to quarter. (Id.) He did not appeal.

2

Upon review of the allegations made by Drumgo, the court concludes that he has not
demonstrated the likelihood of success on the merits inasmuch as evidence presented by the
warden refutes Drumgo's allegations. Nor has Drumgo produced evidence of irreparable harm.

IV. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the court will deny the motion for injunctive relief.
separate order shall issue.

I
I

_'1_""""-~..___'V_)__, 2015
Wilmington, Delaware

I

!

I
I
I

3