Free Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv—O0380-SLR Document 47 Filed O1/08/2008 Page1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
LOU GARDEN PRICE, SR. )
I
Plaintiff, )
I
v. ) Civil Action No. 07-380-SLR
I
TOl\/I CARROLL, ELIZABETH BURRIS, )
D. PIERCE, DAVID K. HOLI\/IAN, )
JOSEPH RICHARDSON, A. PROFACI, )
D. FIELDS, C.O. BASSINGER, )
3 UNK. KITCHEN C.O.'S, OUANI NEAL,)
DR. LOUISE DESROSIERS, )
DIETICIAN/NUTRITIONIST CIVIS, and )
IVI. KNIGHT, )
I
Defendants. )
O R D E R
At Wilmington thie5M"g}January, 2008, having considered plaintiffs pending
motions;
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. P|aintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order and a motion for preliminary
injunction due to serious health risks for heart attack/stroke (D.I. 17) is denied as moot.
Plaintiff moves the court for immediate reinstatement of his doctor-prescribed dietary
regimen. State defendants oppose the motion and advise the court that plaintiffs
special diet was reinstated on September 4, 2007, and that it will continue until
September 4, 2008. Plaintiff acknowledges he is now receiving the diet, but attributes it
to the filing of his motion and continues to seek injunctive relief.
2. inasmuch as plaintiff is currently receiving a special diet, injunctive relief may
not issue. "The relevant inquiry is whether the movant is in danger of suffering

Case 1:07-cv—O0380-SLR Document 47 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 2 of 2
irreparable harm at the time the preliminary injunction is to be issued." Sl Handling
Sys., Inc. v. Heisley, 753 F.2d 1244, 1264 (3d Cir. 1985). Because plaintiff currently
receives his special diet, it is impossible for him to suffer irreparable harm.
3. Plaintiffs second application to proceed without prepayment of fees (D.l. 19)
ls denied as moot. On June 26, 2007, the court entered an order allowing plaintiff to
proceed without prepayment of fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).
4. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint (D.l. 31) is granted.
Plaintiff has identified the unknown kitchen worker as C.O. Harmon and advises that
there are no other unknown kitchen workers. The clerk of the court is directed to
amend the docket sheet to reflect that defendant "C.O. 3 Unk. Kitchen" is C.O. Harmon.
The proposed amended complaint with attachments is found at D.l. 35. The clerk of
the court is directed to correct the court docket to reflect that D.l. 35 is an amended
complaint. The amended complaint will be screened in a separate order.
-2-