Parkell v. Lyons et al

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 3/22/18. (rwc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
OR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

DONALD D. PARK.ELL,
Plaintiff,
Civ. No. 17-1496-LPS

V.

MARIA LYONS, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM
I.

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Donald D. Parkell ("Plaintiff''), filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

alleging violations of his constitutional rights. (D.I. 1) At the time he commenced this action,
Plaintiff was incarcerated at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center ("VCC") in Smyrna,
Delaware. He appears prose and has been granted leave to proceed in Jonna pauperis. (D.I. 11)

II.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff was recently transferred to SCI Camp Hill in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. When he

was still housed at the VCC, he filed a motion for injunctive relief: (1) for Defendants to return
three portraits; (2) to stop the requirement of chains, cuffs, and shackles during Plaintiff's legal visits;
(3) to stop Defendants from looking at his legal papers before legal visits; and (4) to prohibit
Defendants from chaining an inmate to a wall for any reason. (D.I. S) Defendants oppose the
motion and argue it should be denied given Plaintiff's transfer from the Delaware Department of
Correction to the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. (D.I. 18) Plaintiff replies that
Defendants' response is "completely without justification." (D.I. 19) He also claims Defendant
Mike Little perjured himself in Defendants' response. (D.I. 20).

III.

STANDARDS OF LAW
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 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") (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).
"[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.July 31,
2008) (citing Gef.fv. I-Iarper, 60 F.3d 518,520 (8th Cir. 1995)).

IV.

DISCUSSION
Inasmuch as Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at the VCC and the injunctive relief he seeks

relates to his confinement there, injunctive relief may not issue. "The relevant inquiry is whether the
movant is in danger of suffering irreparable harm at the time the preliminary injunction is to be
issued." SI Handling 5_ys., Inc. v. I-Ieislry, 753 F.2d 1244, 1264 (3d Cir. 1985). Because Plaintiff is no
longer housed as the VCC, it is impossible for him to suffer irreparable with regard to the issues he
raises in seeking injunctive relief.

2

IV.

CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the Court will deny the motion for injunctive relief as moot. (D.I.

15)

An appropriate Order follows.

~c

UNITED S' ATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: March _ , 2018.

3