Drumgo v. Burris, 1:12-cv-00068

Plaintiff DeShawn Drumgo, a VCC inmate, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action and moved for injunctive relief on Feb. 11, 2014 alleging seizure and improper reading/distribution of his legal materials and requesting a transfer.
Drumgo claimed Michael Little, the prison legal administrator, seized his legal mail, read legal documents outside his presence, and provided copies to the State.
Prison policy limits inmates to three boxes of legal materials; in Feb. 2014 Drumgo possessed seven boxes, creating a safety/contraband concern.
Little met with Drumgo and supervised a purge, after which Drumgo reduced his materials to three boxes. Little denied reading Drumgo’s attorney materials or sending copies to the State.
The court found Drumgo failed to show likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm and noted prior, repeatedly denied transfer requests; the court warned it will not consider duplicative transfer/injunction motions.
The court denied Drumgo’s motion for injunctive relief and ordered future duplicative motions docketed but not considered.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Drumgo’s legal materials were unlawfully seized/read/distributed	Little seized and read Drumgo’s legal mail and sent copies to the State	Little lawfully limited materials under prison rules, supervised purge, denies reading/sending materials	Denied — Drumgo failed to show likelihood of success; Little’s affidavit refuted allegations
Whether Drumgo faces irreparable harm warranting injunctive relief	Seizure/reading/distribution of legal papers causes irreparable injury to access to courts/confidentiality	No evidence of irreparable harm; policy compliance and remedial purge addressed issue	Denied — no evidence of irreparable harm
Whether transfer is warranted as injunctive relief	Requests repeated transfer to another DOC facility	Prior requests repeatedly denied; transfer not required for legal-materials complaint	Denied and future duplicative transfer requests will not be considered
Whether preliminary injunction standard satisfied in prison context	Exceptional remedy appropriate where claims of interference with legal materials	Prison administration deference and need for concrete proof of elements	Denied — plaintiff did not satisfy preliminary-injunction factors

NutraSweet Co. v. Vit-Mar Enters., 176 F.3d 151 (3d Cir. 1999) (four-factor preliminary injunction standard; failure on any element defeats relief)
NutraSweet Co. v. Vit-Mar Enters., 112 F.3d 689 (3d Cir. 1997) (temporary restraining order treated as preliminary injunction when extended)
Rush v. Correctional Med. Servs., [citation="287 F. App'x 142"] (3d Cir. 2008) (requests for prison injunctive relief warrant caution due to prison administration concerns)
Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518 (8th Cir. 1995) (noting deference to prison administrators in injunctive-relief requests)