Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-19-02586/USCOURTS-ca3-19-02586-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

ALD-043 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 19-2586

___________

ALLEN PRESBURY, SR.,

 Appellant

v.

JOHN E. WETZEL, PA. DOC SECT.; 

M. ONDRAJKA, PA. DOC OFFICIAL; 

T. FERGUSON, SCI PHOENIX WARDEN; 

SGT. CURRAN, SCI/PHX PROPERTY STAFF

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 19-cv-01791)

District Judge: Honorable Mark A. Kearney

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or 

Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

November 14, 2019

Before: MCKEE, SHWARTZ, and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: January 9, 2020)

OPINION*

PER CURIAM

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 19-2586 Document: 20 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/09/2020
2

Pro se appellant Allen Presbury, Sr., appeals from the order dismissing his

complaint for failure to state a claim. Because this appeal does not present a substantial 

question, we will summarily affirm. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.

Presbury, who is imprisoned at State Correctional Institute Phoenix, brought a 

civil rights action against several Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (“DOC”) 

officials claiming that his rights to procedural due process and access to the courts were 

violated when his legal property was lost during a transfer of all inmates from State 

Correctional Institute Graterford to the recently constructed Phoenix. The District Court 

permitted Presbury to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed his complaint with leave 

to amend the access to the courts claim. In his amended complaint, Presbury alleged that 

the loss of his legal property amounted to a violation of his right to access the courts 

because it frustrated his plan to submit his criminal case to the Philadelphia District 

Attorney’s Conviction Review Unit.1 Despite the fact that the District Court did not 

grant Presbury leave to amend his due process claim, Presbury nonetheless reiterated his 

procedural due process challenge in his amended complaint. Ruling under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the District Court considered both claims and dismissed Presbury’s 

amended complaint for failure to state a claim.

 

1

 The Conviction Review Unit “investigates and reviews convicted offenders’ legitimate 

claims of innocence.” Conviction Review Unit (CRU), Office of the District Attorney, 

https://www.phila.gov/districtattorney/aboutus/Pages/CRU.aspx.

Case: 19-2586 Document: 20 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/09/2020
3

We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we exercise 

plenary review over the District Court’s order dismissing the complaint under 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). See Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). In 

reviewing a dismissal for failure to state a claim, “we accept all factual allegations as true 

[and] construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Warren Gen. 

Hosp. v. Amgen, Inc., 643 F.3d 77, 84 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Pinker v. Roche Holdings, 

Ltd., 292 F.3d 361, 374 n.7 (3d Cir. 2002)).

We agree with the District Court that Presbury failed to state a claim that his right 

to access the courts was violated. Prisoners have a right of access to the courts, and a 

violation is established where a litigant shows that he was actually injured. See Lewis v. 

Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 352–53 (1996). An access to the courts claim “is ancillary to the 

underlying claim,” and, as such, a plaintiff “must identify a ‘nonfrivolous,’ ‘arguable’ 

underlying claim” that was lost. Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002) 

(quoting Casey, 518 U.S. at 353 & n.3). To that end, the complaint must describe the 

underlying claim well enough to show that it is “more than mere hope,” and it must 

describe the “lost remedy.” See id. at 416–18 (stating that the underlying claim should be 

pleaded in a manner that satisfies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)).

To the extent that Presbury’s plan to submit his case to the Conviction Review 

Unit warrants constitutional protection, his complaint failed to describe a nonfrivolous or 

arguable underlying claim that he lost the chance to pursue. Presbury did not allege any

facts about the merits of his underlying claim, let alone show that he stands more than a 

Case: 19-2586 Document: 20 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/09/2020
4

mere hope of successfully challenging his conviction. Nor did he demonstrate that the 

loss of his legal materials, while unfortunate and inconvenient, has rendered him unable 

to seek the District Attorney’s review.

We also agree with the District Court that Presbury did not state a procedural due 

process claim. Procedural due process guarantees that state actors will not deprive an 

individual of a protected interest in property without due process of law, Parratt v. 

Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 537 (1981), overruled on other grounds, Daniels v. Williams, 474 

U.S. 327 (1986), but the United States Supreme Court has held that meaningful postdeprivation remedies provide sufficient due process for negligent deprivations of 

property, id. at 530, and intentional deprivations of property, Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 

517, 533 (1984).

2

 The DOC grievance procedure provides an adequate post-deprivation 

remedy, see, e.g., Tillman v. Lebanon County Correctional Facility, 221 F.3d 410, 422 

(3d Cir. 2000), and the existence of this post-deprivation remedy forecloses Presbury’s 

due process claim. Even if the prison grievance procedure were constitutionally 

inadequate, state tort law could serve as an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See 42 Pa. 

Cons. Stat. Ann. § 8522(a), (b)(3).3

 

2

 While Presbury alleged that inmates’ property was lost on a large scale during the mass 

transfer to Phoenix, he still described “random and unpredictable” state actions for which 

post-deprivation remedies are sufficient. See Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 132

(1990).

3

 While Presbury named the Eighth Amendment in his amended complaint, see Am. 

Complaint 3, ECF No. 7, he did not plead any facts that would give rise to such a claim.

Case: 19-2586 Document: 20 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/09/2020
5

Finally, the District Court did not err in declining to grant Presbury leave to 

further amend his complaint, as Presbury had already amended his complaint once and 

further amendment would be futile. Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 

(3d Cir. 2002). As this appeal presents no substantial question, we will affirm the District 

Court’s order of dismissal. See 3d L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.

Case: 19-2586 Document: 20 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/09/2020