Free Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :06-cv—00778-GIVIS Document 35 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
JIMMIE LEWIS, )
Plaintiff, j
v. j Civ. Action No. 06-778-GMS
THOMAS L. CARROLL, et al., j
Defendants. j
MEMORANDUM ORDER
At Wilmington, this [7/if lqday of Qrl,...`_ , 2007;
The plaintiff, Jimmie Lewis ("Lewis"), a prisoner housed at the John L. Webb
Correctional Facility, Wilmington, Delaware, filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
When the lawsuit was initiated Lewis proceeded pro se, and he was granted leave to proceed in
formapauperis. (D.I. 6.) Lewis is now represented by appointed counsel. (D.I . 23, 32.)
Pending before the court is Lewis’ motion for order to compel defendant Thomas A. Carroll
("Warden Carroll") to place plaintiff Jimmie Lewis into protective custody, which the court
construes as a motion for injunctive relief. (D.I. 10). The parties have not yet been served, and
therefore, the court ordered Warden Carroll to respond to the motion. (D.I. 19.) His response
was filed on May 11, 2007, and Lewis filed a reply on May 15, 2007. (D.I. 26, 27.)
A party seeking a preliminary injunction must show: (1) a likelihood of success on the
merits; (2) that it will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is denied; (3) that granting
preliminary relief will not result in even greater harm to the nonmoving party; and (4) that the
public interest favors such relief. Kos Pharmaceuticals, Irzc. v. Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700, 708
(3d Cir. 2004)(citation omitted). "Preliminary injunctive relief is ‘an extraordinary remedy’ and

Case 1:06-cv—00778-G|\/IS Document 35 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 2 of 3
‘should be granted only in limited circumstances."’ Id. (citations omitted).
Lewis asserts that his life and safety are in jeopardy and that his food has been
adulterated. He asks the court to order his placement in protective custody. He also asks he be
allowed to obtain his legal papers and radio and that a television be provided to him. Finally, he
asks that his meals be doubled wrapped in cellophane and that he receive his daily snack as
ordered by his psychiatrist. Warden Carroll responds that Lewis was placed in protective
custody, upon his request, on April 20, 2007, and he remained there until May 4, 2007. (D.I. 25.)
Lewis was transferred to the infirmary on May 4, 2007, and as of May 11, 2007, continued to be
housed in the infirmary. Warden Carroll states that upon his release from the infirmary Lewis
will be transferred back to protective custody. Lewis acknowledges that he is currently housed in
the infirmary. He states he has been told the wait to enter protective custody is one year but that
his "short term release date" is December 9, 2007. He argues that because of this, Warden
Carroll cannot provide him protective custody when other imnates are in that classification.
Upon review of the allegations made by Lewis, the court concludes that he has not
demonstrated the likelihood of success on the merits. To the extent that Lewis’ claims are based
upon his security classification, in Delaware, imnates have no constitutionally protected interest
in their classification. Riley v Snyder, 72 F.Supp.2d 456, 460 (D. Del. 1999); Carrigan v. State
0fDelaware, 957 F.Supp. 1376, 1385 (D. Del. 1997). Nor has Lewis established a threat of
irreparable harm. Indeed, he was placed in protective custody upon his request, remained there
for a short period of time, and is now housed in the infirmary. Moreover, Warden Carroll
indicates Lewis will be returned to protective custody when he is released from the infirmary. As
to the third prong, in light of the fact that Lewis’ request goes directly to the manner in which the
Delaware Department of Correction operates it prison, an injunction would substantially harm

Case 1:06-cv—00778-Gl\/IS Document 35 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 3 of 3
the defendants. See Corrigan v. State ofDelaware, 957 F.Supp. 1376, 1385 (D. Del. 1997).
Finally, granting injunctive relief is in contravention of the public’s interest in the effective and
orderly operation of its prison system Id Accordingly, based upon the foregoing analysis,
Lewis’ motion for injunctive relief (D.I. 10) is DENIED.
UNI 3:2 ATES§DISTgiCT Jl Q 5
F I L E D
JUN 1 8 2007
Dlé?¤f2?E“é%EE£$Z§E