Free Order on Motion to Amend/Correct - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00380-SLR

Document 53

Filed 01/25/2008

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
)
) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 07-380-SLR ) TOM CARROLL, ELIZABETH BURRIS, ) D. PIERCE, DAVID K. HOLMAN, ) JOSEPH RICHARDSON, A. PROFACI, ) D. FIELDS, C.O. BASSINGER, ) aUANI NEAL, DR. LOUISE ) DESROSIERS, M. KNIGHT, and ) C.O. HARMON, ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER At Wilmington this~ay of January, 2008; 1. Plaintiff Lou Garden Price, Sr., a prisoner housed at the Delaware Correctional Center, Smyrna, Delaware, filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 17, 2007, he filed a motion for preliminary injunction to stop defendants' alleged retaliatory conduct as a result of the filing of this lawsuit. (0.1. 41) More particularly, he alleged the retaliatory acts were that he was removed from a lower bunk and his clothing was taken away. 2. The parties were ordered to respond to the motion. In the meantime, plaintiff filed a motion to amend/supplement the pending motion for a preliminary injunction. LOU GARDEN PRICE, SR.,

(0.1. 46) The motion to amend/supplement seeks relief that the court cannot provide,
such as sending plaintiff to outside medical specialists and releasing plaintiff to the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. Therefore, the motion will be

Case 1:07-cv-00380-SLR

Document 53

Filed 01/25/2008

Page 2 of 2

denied. 3. State defendants' response to plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction included the affidavit of deputy warden David Pierce and it averred that his records do not have an approved medical memorandum requesting form that plaintiff is required to have a bottom bunk. (0.1. 48, ex. B) Plaintiff responded by submitting a memorandum dated February 23, 2006 and signed by Sherel A. Ott, that states, "Due to the above named inmate's [Lou Price] condition (peripheral neuropathy: rt. hand) he needs to be placed on a bottom bunk for his physical safety." (0.1. 51, ex.) The record now before the court does not explain this discrepancy. 4. Plaintiffs response also indicates that, for the most part, the issue of injunctive relief as to denial of clothing is moot. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's motion to amend/supplement the pending motion for a preliminary injunction is denied. (0.1. 46) 2. Within ten days from the date of this order, defendants shall submit a filing explaining the discrepancy regarding the records of a medically necessary lower bunk for plaintiff. 3. The parties shall only address the bunk issue. No other issues for injunctive relief shall be raised by the parties. 4. That portion of the motion for injunctive relief regarding the retaliatory denial of clothing is denied as moot. (0.1. 41)

DNI1m¢A~--I,..S'--D':""::IS=T::-R-IC-T-JU-D-G-E-