United States District Court, D. Delaware
WILLIAM C. FLETCHER, JR., Plaintiff,
CONNECTIONS CSP, Defendant.
Honorable Maryellen Noreika United States District Judge
William C. Fletcher, Jr., (“Plaintiff”), an
inmate at the Howard R. Young Correctional Institution
(“HRYCI”) in Wilmington, Delaware, filed this
lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (D.I. 3). He
appears pro se and was granted permission to proceed
in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
(D.I. 5). On March 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for
injunctive relief complaining that he had been given
incorrect medication administration directions, he is not
being permitted to attend an anger management program due to
retaliation, and he is not attending the Key Program despite
an order for him to do so. (D.I. 43). Plaintiff seeks a
transfer to the Sussex County Correctional Center in
Georgetown, Delaware. Defendants oppose the motion. Plaintiff
has also filed a motion for a Rule 46 order, construed as a
motion for reconsideration. (D.I. 50).
MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
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 plaintiff's] 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
Fed.Appx. 142, 144 (3d Cir. 2008) (citing Goff v.
Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995)).
states that on February 20, 2019, he was given incorrect
directions on how to administer a nasal spray and, as a result,
he suffered from a sore throat. (D.I. 43 at 1). He contends
the incorrect directions were due to retaliation.
(Id.). Defendant provides evidence that the outside
pharmacy who filled the prescription made a labeling error
for the administration of the medication. (Id. at 4
of 12). Once Defendant became aware of the error, it
immediately addressed the issue with Plaintiff who was
provided with the correct instructions. (D.I. 44 ¶ 4).
In addition, Plaintiff was examined and evaluated and the
same revealed no further medical concerns as a result of the
incorrect usage. (Id.).
further states that on January 2, 2018, he was classified to
attend Defendant's Anger Management And Victim's
Impact program. (D.I. 43 at 1). He also states that even
though a grievance was resolved in his favor to attend the
Key Program, that has not happened. (Id. at 2).
Plaintiff believes that he has not yet attended any classes
in retaliation for filing this lawsuit. (Id. at 1).
responds with the declaration of Dr. Christopher Moen
(“Dr. Moen”) who states that Defendant does not
have authority over the classification or housing of inmates,
it does not have the authority to prevent Plaintiff's
access to its programs, and Plaintiff is currently on the
wait list to attend the anger management program and is set
to enter the Key Program approximately one year prior to his
scheduled 2023 release date. (D.I. 44-1). In the interim,
Plaintiff was offered, and later completed, an individual
course of treatment to address mental health and/or substance
abuse concerns. (Id.)
the unrefuted declaration of Dr. Moen, the Court concludes
that Plaintiff has not met the requirements for injunctive
relief. Medical care has been provided and the medication
issue resolved, and Plaintiff is on lists to attend programs
he requests and/or requires. Plaintiff has failed to show a
likelihood of success on the merits and has failed to
demonstrate irreparable harm. Therefore, the Court will deny
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
filed a motion for Rule 46 objecting to an order. (D.I. 50).
Plaintiff objects to an Order entered on March 22, 2019, that
denied Plaintiff's motion for contempt. (See
D.I. 47). Given its contents, the Court construes the motion
as a motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff also asks the
Court to issue a subpoena directed to Lt. Vanes who is in
charge of internal affairs at the HYRCI. (D.I. 50 ¶ 5).
purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to “correct
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence.” Max's Seafood Café ex rel.
Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir.
1999). “A proper Rule 59(e) motion . . . must rely on
one of three grounds: (1) an intervening change in
controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3)
the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to
prevent manifest injustice. Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591
F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing N. River Ins. Co. v.
CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir.
March 22, 2019 Order, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion
for contempt because the subpoena sent to the Delaware
Department of Correction (“DOC”) did not comply
with the requisites of Fed.R.Civ.P. 45. (D.I. 47). Since the
subpoena sought many of the same documents Defendant sought
from the DOC, the Court ordered Defendant to provide
Plaintiff the documents it received from the DOC.
(Id.). Defendant provided the documents on April 8,
2019. (D.I. 51). Plaintiff informs the Court, however, that
he also seeks documents consisting of “all internal
affairs investigation reports (hard copy & digital) from
Lt. Vanes in regard to security clearance being pulled from
Counselor Olardare with Connections regarding grievance
#353718” and these documents were not requested by
Defendant. (D.I. 50 ¶ 6).
extent Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the order denying
his motion for contempt, the motion fails on the merits
because he has not set forth any intervening changes in
controlling law, new evidence, or clear errors of law or fact
made by the Court to warrant granting reconsideration.
See Max's Seafood ...