Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00960/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00960-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

FRED LEE JOHNSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-CV-960-TMH

) [WO]

MS. GLOVER, )

)

Defendant. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is before the court on a complaint filed by Fred Lee

Johnson [“Johnson”], an indigent inmate confined in the Lowndes County Jail. In this

case,Johnson complainsthat Ms. Glover opened a piece of mail addressed to him from this

court outside his presence and without his consent.

1

Upon thorough review of the complaint, the court concludes that this case is due to

be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

2

II. DISCUSSION

Johnson alleges that his right to free speech was violated when Ms. Glover

It is clear from the complaint that Johnson premises the claim for relief as a violation of his right to free

1

speech protected by the First Amendment.

The court granted Johnson leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. No. 3. A prisoner who is allowed

2

to proceed in forma pauperis will have his complaint screened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) which requires

this court to dismiss any claim prior to service of process if it determines the claim is frivolous, malicious, fails

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary damages from a defendant immune from such

relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).

Case 2:12-cv-00960-TMH-TFM Document 6 Filed 06/19/14 Page 1 of 4
inadvertently opened an envelope containing an order from this court in Civil Action No.

2:12-CV-873-TMH-TFM (M.D. Ala. 2012). Complaint - Doc. No. 1 at 2. Johnson advises

that a correctional officer promptly delivered the mail to him and explained that Ms. Glover

had accidentally opened the mail. Id. Johnson does not allege that the contents of the mail

were altered or that there was any undue delay in his receipt of the mail. Id. at 2-3.

An isolated incident of mail opening is insufficient to establish a constitutional

violation. Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 351 (2 Cir. 2003) (allegation of two incidents

nd

of mail interference did not warrant relief where plaintiff failed to allege invidious intent

or actual harm); Florence v. Booker, 23 Fed.Appx. 970, 972-973 (10 Cir. 2001) (“single

th

incident in which prison officials allegedly improperly opened legal mail” did not justify

relief where plaintiff failed to “show either an improper motivation by defendants or denial

of access to the courts.”); Berger v. White, 12 Fed.Appx. 768, 771, (10 Cir. 2001)

th

(“isolated incidents of opening constitutionallyprotected legal mail, ‘without any evidence

of improper motive or resulting interference with [plaintiff's] right to counsel or to access

to the courts,’ do not support a civil rights claim. Smith v. Maschner, 899 F.2d 940, 944

(10 Cir. 1990)”); Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 431 (8 Cir. 1997) (isolated incident

th th

of inadvertent opening of inmate’s incoming legal mail, without evidence of improper

motive or resulting interference with inmate’s right to counsel or accessto courts, does not

rise to level of constitutional violation); Stevenson v. Koskey, 877 F.2d 1435, 1441 (9 Cir.

th

1989) (inadvertent opening of an inmate’slegal mail, while not to be condoned, constitutes

2

Case 2:12-cv-00960-TMH-TFM Document 6 Filed 06/19/14 Page 2 of 4
mere negligence and does notrise to the level of a constitutionalrights violation cognizable

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Consequently, the instant complaint is due to be dismissed

pursuant to the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case

be dismissed with prejudice in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

It is further

ORDERED that on or before July 8, 2014 the parties may file objections to this

Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the partyis objecting. Frivolous, conclusive

or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised

that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not

appealable.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by

the District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from

attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the

District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v.

Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d

th

3

Case 2:12-cv-00960-TMH-TFM Document 6 Filed 06/19/14 Page 3 of 4
33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981, en

th th

banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed

down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.

Done this 19th day of June, 2014.

/s/Terry F. Moorer

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 2:12-cv-00960-TMH-TFM Document 6 Filed 06/19/14 Page 4 of 4