Free Memorandum and Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:O6—cv-OOO53-JJF Document 25 Filed O3/17/2006 Pagel of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
JAMES A. WILSON, et al., )
Plaintiffs, g
v. g Civ. No. 06-53-KAJ
HELEN LOHMAN, etal., g
Defendants. g
MEMORANDUM ORDER
The plaintiffs, who proceed pro se, all are inmates at the Sussex Correctional
Institute ("SCI") in Georgetown, Delaware. They move the Court for a temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction (D.I. 6, 7) alleging that the SCI prisoner
commissarytrust fund account is being misused by the defendants.
The plaintiffs contend that they have met the requisites for injunctive relief.
When considering a motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, a
plaintiff must demonstrate that he is (1) likely to succeed on the merits; (2) denial will
result in irreparable harm; (3) granting the injunction will not result in irreparable harm to
the defendants; and, (4) granting the injunction is in the public interest. Maldonado v.
Houstoun, 157 F.3d 179, 184 (3d Cir. 1997). "[A]n injunction may not be used simply to
eliminate a possibility of a remote future injury, or a future invasion of rights."
Continental Group, Inc. v. Amoco Chems. Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 359 (3d Cir.
1980)(quoting Holiday lnns ofAm., Inc. v. B & B Corp., 409 F.2d 614, 618 (3d
Cir.1969)). "The relevant inquiry is whether the movant is in danger of suffering

Case 1:06-cv-00053-JJF Document 25 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 2 of 3
irreparable harm at the time the preliminary injunction is to be issued." Sl Handling
Sys., lnc. v. Helsley, 753 F.2d 1244, 1264 (3d Cir. 1985).
In their complaint (D.I. 1), the plaintiffs allege that the defendants are
misappropriating the inmates’ commissary trust fund and, as a result, the plaintiffs are
being deprived of their property right in the funds without due process of law, in violation
ofthe Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments ofthe U.S. Constitution. For example, the
plaintiffs allege that the defendants give away commissary products, make wrongful
charges and expenditures to the inmate commissary account, and refuse to buy items
for the inmates using the commissary account funds. The plaintiffs allege there is no
commissary committee to express their concerns, and that commissary prices are
rising. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief as well as compensatory
damages.
The problem with the pIaintiffs’ pending motion is that they have not
demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. Under the Fourteenth Amendment,
individuals are entitled to due process ifthe state deprives them of a property interest
that is protected by the constitution. Kentucky Dept of Corr. v. Thompson, 490 U.S.
454, 460 (1989). In such an analysis, it must first be determined whether the alleged
deprivation impacts a protected interest in the property at issue. If there is a valid F
property interest, then plaintiffs cannot be deprived of it without due process. Gillihan v.
Shlllinger, 872 F.2d 935, 939 (10"‘ Cir. 1989).
The U.S. Constitution, however, does not create a protected interest in specified
property. Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972).
2

Case 1:06-cv-00053-JJF Document 25 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 3 of 3
Rather, protected property interests "stem from an independent source such as state
laws or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of
entitlement to those benefits." ld. Here, the plaintiffs have not yet provided anything to
the Court to support the proposition that they have a valid property interest in the prison
commissary trust fund. That being the case, they have not met their burden to
demonstrate the likelihood of success on the merits.
Further, even if the plaintiffs had demonstrated the likelihood of success on the
merits, there is no showing of irreparable harm. lf it is ultimately determined that the
defendants violated the p|alntiffs' constitutional rights, any actionable harm suffered can
be remedied by an award of money damages. Acierno v. New Castle County, 40 F.3d
645, 655 (3d Cir. 1994).
The plaintiffs have neither demonstrated the likelihood of success on the merits,
nor demonstrated irreparable harm to justify the issuance of either a temporary
restraining order or a preliminary injunction. Therefore, the motion for a temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction is (D.l. 6, 7) is DENIED.
4 ·
n._ F- ._ I
IT D STATES DI RICTJAJUDGE
DATED: March 17, 2006
3