Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-16-01273/USCOURTS-ca3-16-01273-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brennan
Appellee
Burton
Appellee
Carrothers
Appellee
Robert Coupe
Appellee
Daum
Appellee
Dome
Appellee
Endures
Appellee
Scott Knight
Appellee
Michael McMahon
Appellee
Parks
Appellee
David Pierce
Appellee
M. Raspoli
Appellee
Reynolds
Appellee
James Scarbrough
Appellee
Simon
Appellee
Torres
Appellee
Orin Turner
Appellant

Document Text:

1

DLD-278 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 16-1273

___________

ORIN TURNER,

 Appellant

v.

COMMISSIONER COUPE; WARDEN PIERCE; DEPUTY WARDEN PARKS; 

DEPUTY WARDEN JAMES SCARBROUGH; MAJOR CARROTHERS; MAJOR 

BRENNAN; ST. LT. SIMON; COUNSELOR MICHAEL MCMAHON; CAPTAIN M. 

RASPOLI; CAPTAIN BURTON; ST. LT. REYNOLDS; ST. LT. ENDURES; ST. LT. 

DAUM; SGT. DOME; C/O TORRES; COUNSELOR SCOTT KNIGHT 

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Delaware

(D.C. Civil No. 1-14-cv-00276)

District Judge: Honorable Gregory M. Sleet

____________________________________

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

or Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

June 9, 2016

Before: CHAGARES, GREENAWAY, JR. and GARTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: June 30, 2016)

_________

OPINION*

_________

 

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

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 16-1273 Document: 003112341581 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/30/2016
2

PER CURIAM

Pro se appellant Orin Turner appeals from the judgment of the United States 

District Court for the District of Delaware in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. As the appeal 

does not present a substantial question, we will summarily affirm the decision of the 

District Court.

I.

Turner initiated this § 1983 action in 2014 against various officials from the James 

T. Vaughn Correctional Center (VCC), alleging constitutional violations related to his 

conditions of confinement, and retaliation for attempting to grieve the violations. Turner 

alleges that in July of 2013, he was transferred to the Medium-High Security Unit, and 

that following his transfer, Defendant Sergeant Dome permitted him to attend religious 

services only on Fridays, although he was on a list permitting him to attend classes 

Monday through Thursday. In addition, he alleges that he was denied employment, 

education, and other programming, and that his cell was infested with roaches. 

Turner, at an unspecified time, requested a transfer from Defendant Counselor 

Knight, and claims that Dome began to harass and threaten him after learning of the 

request. On September 3, 2013, Turner filed a grievance against Dome for this 

harassment. On September 11, 2013, Turner filed a request to Defendant Robert Coupe,

Commissioner of the Delaware Department of Corrections, and Defendant David Pierce, 

Warden of the VCC, in which he complained of the issues with roaches, employment, 

Case: 16-1273 Document: 003112341581 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/30/2016
3

education, and programming, and requested a transfer from the VCC. Turner alleges that 

after sending these complaints, Dome continued to verbally harass and threaten him. 

On September 19, 2013, Turner sent another letter to Coupe requesting a transfer 

to another facility though the Interstate Compact Agreement. Pierce reviewed this 

submission, and later indicated in a sworn affidavit that it gave him “concern for Turner’s 

assigned security classification level.”1 Consequently, on September 24, 2013, Turner 

was transferred to the Security Housing Unit (SHU), and claims that he was transferred in 

retaliation for filing grievances and other inquiries. Turner filed a number of grievances

and inquiries related to this transfer, and eventually was transferred to a less restrictive 

unit on December 24, 2014.

After screening Turner’s amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the District 

Court dismissed his religious exercise claim, his harassment claims, and his conditions of 

confinement claims related to roaches, employment, and education, but permitted him to 

proceed against Defendants Dome and Pierce on his retaliation claims. On January 6,

2016, the District Court awarded summary judgment in favor of Dome and Pierce, 

finding that Turner failed to produce sufficient evidence of retaliatory conduct. This 

timely appeal ensued.

 

1 Pierce stated: “A review of his grievances, disciplinary history, and his statements, as 

well as the similarity to other offenders who have taken drastic actions out of their 

perception of persecution are reminiscent of the behaviors and attitude of a former inmate 

who took staff hostage in 2004 demanding to transfer out of this facility. Inmate Turner’s 

letter, grievances, and disciplinary behaviors upon review demonstrate that he was very 

threatening towards staff and a high risk to the safety and security of both the staff and 

the rest of the inmate population.”

Case: 16-1273 Document: 003112341581 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/30/2016
4

II.

 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over 

the District Court’s dismissal under § 1915, see Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 

(3d Cir. 2000) (applying Rule 12(b)(6) standard), and ask whether the complaint contains 

“sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotations omitted). We 

also exercise plenary review over the District Court’s award of summary judgment and 

apply the same test the District Court should have utilized – whether the record “shows 

that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled 

to judgment as a matter of law.” Giles v. Kearney, 571 F.3d 318, 322 (3d Cir. 2009). In 

applying this test, we must accept evidence presented by the non-movant as true and 

draw all justifiable factual inferences in his favor. Id. We may summarily affirm any 

decision of the District Court where “it clearly appears that no substantial question is 

presented or that subsequent precedent or a change in circumstances warrants such 

action.” 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6 (2015).

We detect no error in the District Court’s resolution of Turner’s claims and will 

affirm for substantially the same reasons as expressed by the District Court. As to his 

religious exercise claim, the District Court properly determined that no substantial burden 

existed under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) 

because he was permitted to attend services on Fridays, and was not otherwise forced to 

act in a way that violated his beliefs. See Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853, 862 (2015)

Case: 16-1273 Document: 003112341581 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/30/2016
5

(substantial burden exists where policy requires plaintiff to “engage in conduct that 

seriously violates [his] religious beliefs”) (internal quotations omitted). And as the 

District Court explained, to the extent that he asserts a First Amendment claim, it 

similarly fails because the First Amendment imposes similar, but less strict, standards on 

prison administrators than RLUIPA. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987)

(“[W]hen a prison regulation impinges on inmates' constitutional rights, the regulation is 

valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.”).

As to his claims regarding employment, programming, and education, the District 

Court properly determined that he enjoys no constitutional right to these services. See

Women Prisoners of D.C. Dep't of Corr. v. D.C., 93 F.3d 910, 927 (D.C. Cir. 1996)

(“[A]n inmate has no constitutional right to work and educational opportunities.”). He 

also enjoys no right to any particular housing classification. Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 

U.S. 209, 221 (2005) (“Constitution itself does not give rise to a liberty interest in 

avoiding transfer to more adverse conditions of confinement.”).

As to his claim regarding the occasional presence of roaches in his cell, the 

District Court properly determined that exposure to such a condition for an approximate 

two-month period, without accompanying physical harm, does not satisfy the objective 

component of an Eighth Amendment claim. See Harris v. Fleming, 839 F.2d 1232, 1235 

(7th Cir. 1988) (temporary roach infestation insufficient to state Eight Amendment claim 

in absence of physical harm). His claims of verbal harassment and threats are similarly 

insufficient. McBride v. Deer, 240 F.3d 1287, 1291 n.3 (10th Cir. 2001) (“[A]cts or 

Case: 16-1273 Document: 003112341581 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/30/2016
6

omissions resulting in an inmate being subjected to nothing more than threats and verbal 

taunts do not violate the Eighth Amendment.”). 

Finally, with respect to his retaliation claims, he must show “(1) constitutionally 

protected conduct, (2) an adverse action by prison officials . . . and (3) a causal link 

between the exercise of his constitutional rights and the adverse action taken against 

him.” Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523, 530 (3d Cir. 2003) (internal quotations omitted). 

His claim against Dome is premised on Dome allegedly preventing him from attending 

religious services except on Fridays. We agree with the District Court that “while Turner 

alleges that the alleged retaliatory conduct occurred after he submitted grievances and 

wrote to Dome’s supervisor, he provided nothing to support his argument.”2 Turner’s 

complaint alleges that Dome prevented him from attending services in July of 2013, 

immediately upon his transfer to the SHU, and before he filed any complaints or 

grievances against Dome. He cannot now credibly claim that Dome engaged in this

conduct – which he acknowledges occurred before he filed any complaints or grievances 

– in retaliation for that activity.

As to Pierce, the decision to transfer Turner to a higher level classification was 

based on Pierce’s review of Turner’s grievances, disciplinary history, and other 

statements, and Pierce’s determination, based on this review, that Turner posed a threat to 

 

2 The Court “scoured the record for evidence of a grievance, letter, or any type of 

constitutionally protected conducted by Turner prior to Dome's alleged retaliatory acts 

and found none.” Upon our review of the record, we agree with this finding.

Case: 16-1273 Document: 003112341581 Page: 6 Date Filed: 06/30/2016
7

staff and other inmates. Turner’s claim is premised on mere allegations that Pierce 

transferred him as punishment for filing grievances and other requests, but because the 

evidence of record indicates otherwise – that Pierce transferred him for security reasons –

Turner cannot establish a causal nexus between Pierce’s conduct and any protected 

activity. Rauser v. Horn, 241 F.3d 330, 333 (3d Cir. 2001) (noting that “courts should 

afford deference to decisions made by prison officials,” and even if “a prisoner 

demonstrates that his exercise of a constitutional right was a substantial or motivating 

factor in the challenged decision, the prison officials may still prevail by proving that 

they would have made the same decision absent the protected conduct for reasons 

reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest”).

Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. Appellant’s 

motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

Case: 16-1273 Document: 003112341581 Page: 7 Date Filed: 06/30/2016