Submitted: July 31, 2018
Jurden, President Judge.
consideration of Defendant's Letter Motion for injunctive
relief; the facts, arguments, and legal
authorities set forth in Defendant's Letter Motion; the
State's Response; statutory and decisional law; and the
record in this case, IT APPEARS THAT:
Defendant is currently serving a life sentence plus 89
years, with the possibility of parole, for charges of
Burglary, Robbery, Kidnapping, Conspiracy, Assault, and
Possession of a Deadly Weapon During the Commission of a
Felony. On behalf of himself and another inmate, Defendant
complains of the Department of Correction's
("DOC") "new policy" to confiscate and
read all inmates' legal documents. He asks the Court
to enjoin such DOC action.
Defendant has failed to file his letter under a specific
Superior Court Criminal Rule,  and a DOC investigation based
upon Defendant's letter reveals no DOC staff instruction
to confiscate and read all inmates' legal
assuming arguendo that the Court has the authority to issue
the injunctive relief sought by Defendant,  to obtain
injunctive relief "the moving party must demonstrate a
reasonable probability of success on the merits, that absent
injunctive relief irreparable harm will occur, and that the
harm the moving party will suffer if the requested relief is
denied outweighs the harm the opponents will suffer if relief
is granted." The burden on the moving party is
rigorous; injunctive relief is extraordinary.
Furthermore, the intractable matters in prison administration
demands considerable caution when reviewing a request for
injunctive relief in the prison context. It is
DOC has the expertise and experience to manage the day to day
activities within the prisons. Courts defer to both the
legislature and executive branches with respect to policies
within the prison institutions, including discipline
guidelines, grievance procedures and the administration of
inmates in general. The Court does not oversee or direct the
prison system. The Court's obligation is to simply
protect inmates' constitutional or statutory rights, and
it will not assume the role of an administrator of the
numerous grievances filed by unhappy prisoners.
Defendant has not produced evidence of irreparable harm, nor
does the record support a likelihood of success on the
merits. Searches of cells and inmate property are necessary
for institutional security.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's
motion for injunctive relief, via his Letter filed on June 5,
2018, is DENIED.
 D.I. 178. Defendant's Letter,
filed on June 5, 2018, effectively asks the Court to enjoin
the DOC from searching inmate property for ...