Szubielski v. Pierce et al
Filing
23
MEMORANDUM -Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 7/1/2016.(aah)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
GERARD SZUBIELSKI,
Plaintiff,
v.
: Civ. No. 15-984-RGA
WARDEN DAVID PIERCE,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Gerard Szubielski is a prisoner incarcerated at the James T. Vaughn
Correctional Center, Smyrna, Delaware. He filed a Complaint (D.I. 3) on October 28,
2015, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983. On May 6, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for
injunctive relief and advised the Court that he is being retaliated against for filing law
suits. The alleged retaliation consists of excessive delay in the delivery of incoming
mail and the posting of outgoing mail.
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). "[F]ailure to establish any
element in [a plaintiff's] favor renders a preliminary injunction inappropriate." Id.
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) (citing Goff v.
Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995)).
Plaintiff commenced this case in October 2015. He alleges that in early
February 2016, he was informed, per the instructions of Defendant Warden David
Pierce, that he would not receive non-legal mail on a regular basis and instead, would
receive his mail once a week. Plaintiff contends that incoming non-legal mail is delayed
and outgoing non-legal mail is held from seven to twelve days, and sometimes longer,
all in violation of his First Amendment rights. 1 Plaintiff has not "officially" been told by
Pierce what is the cause for the delay, but staff members told Plaintiff that another
inmate indicated that Plaintiff was receiving contraband through the mail. Plaintiff
contends the excessive delay in receiving and sending his mail is in retaliation for filing
this complaint and because he is one of six inmates detailed in a civil action filed in this
Court against the Delaware Department of Correction by the ACLU, Community Legal
Aid Society, Inc. v. Coupe, Civ. No. 15-688-GMS.
Warden Pierce responds that Plaintiff's allegations are not the subject of his
underlying claim. In addition, Warden Pierce argues that Plaintiff does not meet the
requisites for injunctive relief. He states that, in the past, Plaintiff has received several
disciplinary write-ups for the possession of contraband. In addition, Plaintiff's mail has
been monitored since 2014 due to his involvement with contraband in the prison. 2
1
Plaintiff's mother complains that letters sent to her may not reach her for a week
or longer. (D.I. 16).
2
Plaintiff responds that the mail delay began in February 2016. He also notes
that Delaware Department of Correction Policy No. 4.0 provides that incoming and
outgoing letters are held no more than 48 hours and packages (if allowed) will be held
2
I
According to Pierce, the delay in receipt or delivery of mail is normally one week.
Finally, Pierce argues that legitimate penological interests are served in searching
Plaintiff's mail.
Prisoners have a First Amendment right to communicate with the outside world
by sending and receiving mail. Thornburg v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401(1989); Turner v.
Safely, 482 U.S. 78 (1987). An inmate's rights, however, "must be exercised with due
regard for the 'inordinately difficult undertaking' that is modem prison administration."
Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 407 (citing Turner, 482 U.S. at 85). Thus, prison regulations
may impinge upon an inmate's First Amendment right to receive or send mail so long as
it is "reasonably related to legitimate penological interests." Turner, 482 U.S. at 89.
Here, Warden Pierce indicates that the delay in incoming and outgoing mail is a
result of contraband concerns legitimately arising from Plaintiff's history. "The opening
and inspecting of [Plaintiff's] outgoing mail is reasonably related to the legitimate
penological interest of institutional security." Caldwell v. Beard, 305 F. App'x 1, 2 (3d
Cir. 2008) (citing Altizer v. Deeds, 191 F.3d 540, 547-48 (4th Cir. 1999). The Court
further notes that Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts suggesting that the Warden's
alleged actions caused him actual injury.
Upon review of the allegations made by Plaintiff and the evidence submitted, the
Court concludes that Plaintiff has not met the requisites for injunctive relief. Plaintiff has
not demonstrated the likelihood of success on the merits. Nor does the record reflect
that denial of his motions will result in irreparable harm. Finally, granting injunctive
no more than 72 hours. (D.I. 22 at 3).
3
relief is in contravention of the public's interest in the effective and orderly operation of
its prison system. Carrigan v. State of Delaware, 957 F. Supp. 1376, 1385 (D. Del.
1997).
For the above reasons, the court will deny the motion for injunctive relief. (D.I.
13). A separate order shall issue.
Dated: July
_J_, 2016
4
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?