United States District Court, D. Delaware
plaintiff DeShawn Drumgo ("Drumgo"), a former
inmate at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center
("VCC"), Smyrna, Delaware, recently transferred to
SCI Fruckville in Fruckville, Pennsylvania, filed this
lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He proceeds pro
se and has been granted leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. (See D.I. 12.) On May 9, 2017, the case
was closed upon Drumgo's motion to withdraw the
complaint. (See D.I. 18, 19.) Drumgo recently filed
a combined motion to reopen the case and to amend the
complaint (D.I. 23) and several motions for injunctive relief
Motion to Reopen.
court will grant the motion to reopen. (D.I. 23.) The
original complaint (D.I. 2) and its amendment (D.I. 7),
together, consist of the operative pleading.
Motion to Amend.
court will deny the motion to amend. (D.I. 23.) Pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), a party may amend its pleading once as a
matter of course within twenty-one days after serving it or,
if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is
required, twenty-one days after service of a responsive
pleading or twenty-one days after service of a Rule 12(b)
motion, whichever is earlier. Otherwise, a party may amend
its pleading only with the opposing party's written
consent or the court's leave. Rule 15 provides that
courts should freely give leave to amend when justice so
Third Circuit has adopted a liberal approach to the amendment
of pleadings to ensure that "a particular claim will be
decided on the merits rather than on technicalities."
Dole v. Arco Chem. Co., 921 F.2d 484, 486-87 (3d
Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). Amendment, however, is not
automatic. See Dover Steel Co., Inc. v. Hartford Accident
and Indem., 151 F.R.D. 570, 574 (E.D. Pa. 1993). Leave
to amend should be granted absent a showing of "undue
delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the
movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments
previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by
virtue of the allowance of the amendment, futility of
amendment, etc." Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178,
182 (1962); See also Oran v. Stafford, 226 F.3d 275,
291 (3d Cir. 2000). Futility of amendment occurs when the
complaint, as amended, does not state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. See In re Burlington Coat Factory
Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1434 (3d Cir. 1997). If the
proposed amendment "is frivolous or advances a claim or
defense that is legally insufficient on its face, the court
may deny leave to amend." Harrison Beverage Co. v.
Dribeck Importers, Inc., 133 F.R.D. 463, 468 (D.N.J.
Drumgo attempts to add a defendant and new claims for an
occurrence in time-frame different than that of the operative
pleading. Drumgo's remedy is to file a new complaint.
Therefore, the motion to amend (D.I. 23) will be denied.
filing at D.I. 24 contains three separate motions for
injunctive relief. 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 Fed.Appx. 169, 170 (3d Cir.
2009) (unpublished) (citing Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d
518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995)).
all three motions, Drumgo complains of his conditions of
confinement, medical treatment, and access to the law library
at the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections. His complaints are not related to the operative
pleading and are directed towards the PDOC and its employees,
none of whom are defendants in this matter. Therefore, the
court will deny the motion. (D.I. 24.)
above reasons, the court will: (1) grant Drumgo's motion
to reopen (D.I. 23); (2) deny Drumgo's motion to amend
(D.I. 23); and (3) ...