United States District Court, D. Delaware
HERMIONE KELLY IVY WINTER, a/k/a Najmaa-bint-Sakinah S. bint-Sard-Khadijah f/k/a David A. Allemandi, Plaintiff,
HEIDI HOLLOWAY, et al., Defendants.
HONORABLE LEONARD P. STRAK, JUDGE.
Hermione Kelly Ivy Winter, a/k/a Najmaa-bint-Sakinah S.
bint-Sard-Khadijah, f/k/a David A. Allemandi
("Plaintiff), an inmate at the James T. Vaughn
Correctional Center (“VCC”) in Smyrna,
Delaware, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. (D.I. 2) She appears pro se and
has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
(D.I. 7) To date, Defendants Dana Metzger
("Metzger") and Heidi Holloway
("Holloway") (together "Defendants") have
been served. Metzger has answered the Complaint; Holloway has
not. A scheduling and discovery order has not been entered.
Plaintiff has filed a number of motions. (D.I. 81, 82, 89,
99, 116, 125, 126, 127, 137)
Court turns first to Plaintiffs "global
motions."(D.I. 81, 82) Rather than file a motion
directed to this case, the motion is a global motion that
contains case numbers for numerous cases filed by Plaintiff.
There are different deadlines in each case and different
parties in each case.
seeking relief, Plaintiff is directed to file a morion
specific to a particular case. The Court does not consider
the global motions and, therefore, they will be denied.
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES
moves to consolidate this case with Winter v.
Christo, Civ. No. 19-300-LPS. (D.I. 99) Plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed Civ. No. 19-300-LPS in June 2019. (D.I.
32, 33) Therefore, the motion to consolidate will be denied
as moot, III. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
RELIEF AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
criminal sentencing order requires that she successfully
complete the Transitions Sex Offender Program. (D.K. 135-1 at
3) Plaintiff seeks as injunctive relief one of the following:
(1) Holloway to remove her from Transitions and modify her
sentence to complete the program as part of a condition of
home confinement or probation; (2) temporarily remove
Plaintiff from the Transitions program until settlement of
this suit; (3) remove Plaintiff from the Transitions program
pending completion of vaginoplasty surgery and transfer to
Baylor Women's Correctional Institution
("BWCI"); (4) remove Plaintiff from the Transitions
program until the last two years of suspended time of her
sentence, should an early release fall through; or (5) order
Holloway to stop all disciplinary action or instruct others
to complete disciplinary actions and preclude Holloway from
forcing Plaintiff to make statements she does not with to
make. (D.I. 125 at 4-5) Defendants oppose the motion on the
grounds that this is merely another attempt to procure a
transfer to BWCI and argue that Plaintiff has not met the
requisites for injunctive relief. (D.I. 134, 135)
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
NutriSwet Co. v. Vit-Mar Enterprises., Inc., 112 F.3d
689, 693 (3d Cir. 1997) (“NutraSwet I”)
(temporary restraining order that continues beyond time
permissible under Rule 65 must be treated as preliminary
injunction, and must conform to 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.
See Rush v. Correctional Med. Services, Inc., 287
F.Appx. 142, 144 (3d Cir. July 31, 2008) (citing Gaffs.
Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995)).
reasons set forth in its prior Order denying Plaintiffs
motion for injunctive relief and following a review of
Plaintiffs claims, the Court concludes that she has not
demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits.
(See D.I. 104, 105) In addition, Plaintiff has not
produced evidence of irreparable harm.
focuses on write-ups and the potential loss of an honor visit
in the event she is subjected to discipline for having three
unexcused absences from the Transitions program. However, the
record evidence does not indicate that she had lost her honor
visit. In addition, it does not demonstrate that she is
treated differently from other inmates; the declarations in
die record indicate that Plaintiff was not being disciplined
or punished as a result of her gender identification and
decisions regarding her housing assignment were not made in
an effort to punish her. (see D. I. At 41at Exs.
J.M) "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
Sys., Inc. v. Heisley, 753 F.2d 1244, 1264 (3d Cir.
1985). Plaintiff has not made that showing.
asks this Court to inject itself into administration of a
state prison as well as to amend Plaintiffs sentencing order.
Where a plaintiff requests an injunction that would require
the Court to interfere with the administration of a state
prison, "appropriate consideration must be given to
principles of federalism in determining the availability and
scope of equitable relief." R25go v. Goode, 423
U.S. 362, 379 (1976). Prison officials require broad
discretionary authority as the "operation of a
correctional institution is at best an extraordinarily
difficult undertaking." Wolff v. McDonnell, 418
U.S. 539, 566 (1974). Hence, prison administrators are
accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution
of policies and practices that are needed to preserve
internal order and to maintain institutional security See
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 527 (1979). The federal
courts are not overseers of the day-to-day management of
prisons, and the Court will not interfere in die Department
of Correction's determination where to house Plaintiff or
how to administer the Transitions program. Finally, this suit
is not a proper vehicle for seeking to modify Plaintiffs
the injunctive relief Plaintiff seeks, under the
circumstances revealed by the record, would contravene the
public's interest in the effective and orderly operation
of the State's prison system. Set Carrigan v. State
of Delaware, 957 F.Supp. 1376, 1385 (D. Del. 1997).
Court will deny Plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief.
(D.I. 125) Plaintiff is placed on notice that future motions
for injunctive relief raising the same or similar issues and
seeking the ...