Free Memorandum and Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:06-cv-00011-SLR Document 61 Filed 07/26/2006 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
LEONARD K. BAYLIS, )
Plaintiff, g
v. g Civ. No. 06-11-SLR
STANLEY TAYLOR, et al., l
Defendants. g
M MORANDUM ORDER
On May 8, 2006, plaintiff Leonard K. Baylis, a prisoner
incarcerated at the Delaware Correctional Center (“DCC”), Smyrna,
Delaware, filed a document seeking injunctive relief advising the
court that his life has been threatened by his cellmate, that the
staff was doing nothing to protect him, and seeking a transfer to
mental health so that he “may be allowed to function without
threat.” (D.I. 34) At the time, plaintiff was housed in the
medium high security area of DCC. The court ordered defendants
to respond to the motion and also allowed for a reply by
plaintiff. (D.I. 43)
Defendants’ response indicates that on June 6, 2006, upon
his request, plaintiff was moved to protective custody. (D.I.
44, 45) Plaintiff next requested a transfer from protective
custody to the Mental Health Unit at DCC. (D.I. 44) The Multi-
Disciplinary Team reviewed and approved the request, and
plaintiff was transferred to the Mental Health Unit on June I2,
2006. Id; Defendants argue that in light of the foregoing,

Case 1 :06-cv—0001 1-SLR Document 61 Filed 07/26/2006 Page 2 of 3
plaintiff's request for injunctive relief is moot.
Plaintiff concedes that he is now housed in the Mental
Health Unit and that the portion of his motion for injunctive
relief seeking a transfer is moot. (D.I. 50) He argues,
however, that “other issues brought before the court in motion
for injunctive relief have not been answered.” Id; Plaintiff
argues that injunctive relief is required because he is not being
administered the appropriate medication for his medical
condition. In support of his position plaintiff refers to
“motion for injunctive relief, at page VII - see exhibit A.”
(D.I. 50 at 2)
Initially, the court notes that plaintiff's motion for
injunctive relief found at D.I. 34 contains no reference to the
administration of medication. Rather, he raised the issue of
inadequate medical treatment in his response to the defendants'
opposition to the motion to amend. (D.I. 41) Of greater import,
however, is that plaintiff previously sought, and was denied,
injunctive relief regarding the issue of his medical treatment at
DCC, including the administration of appropriate medication and
mental health therapy- (D.I. 3, 21) In denying the motion for
injunctive relief, this court thoroughly reviewed medical records
and reports, which indicated that plaintiff was receiving medical
attention, albeit apparently not to his liking.
“The relevant inquiry is whether the movant is in danger of
2

Casei:06-cv—00011-SLR Document61 Filed 07/26/2006 Page3of3
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). Here, because plaintiff is no longer
housed in the medium high security unit, it is impossible for him
to suffer irreparable there and, indeed, plaintiff concedes the
issue. Moreover, prison officials honored his request for a
transfer to the Mental Health Unit. Finally, in his most recent
motion for injunctive relief, plaintiff did not raise the issue
of his medical treatment at DCC. Even if he had, this court has
previously determined that, as to the issue of his medical
treatment at DCC, plaintiff neither demonstrated irreparable harm
nor demonstrated the likelihood of success on the merits, making
injunctive relief inappropriate. (D.I. 21)
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED i;hisOZ_Q·}~_ day Of July,
2006, based upon the foregoing analysis, the motion for
injunctive relief (D.I. 34) is DENIED.

3