Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-19-01813/USCOURTS-ca3-19-01813-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Superintendent Camp Hill SCI
Appellee
Superintendent Graterford SCI
Appellee
John Tedesco
Appellant
Zobitne
Appellee

Document Text:

BLD-060 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 19-1813

___________

JOHN TEDESCO,

Appellant

v.

SUPERINTENDENT GRATERFORD SCI;

SUPERINTENDENT CAMP HILL SCI; and

MS. ZOBITNE, SCI Camp Hill

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civ. No. 3:17-cv-00997)

District Judge: Honorable Malachy E. Mannion

____________________________________

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

Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

December 5, 2019

Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, JR. and BIBAS, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: January 7, 2020)

_________

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: 19-1813 Document: 28 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/07/2020
2

PER CURIAM

Pennsylvania inmate John Tedesco was transferred from SCI-Graterford to SCICamp Hill, but his case files and other legal materials were not waiting for him on arrival. 

Without those materials, Tedesco’s ability to litigate his criminal case allegedly was 

stymied. After availing himself of the administrative inmate grievance system and 

finding no success, Tedesco sued three prison officials—SCI-Graterford Warden Cynthia 

Link, SCI-Camp Hill Superintendent Laurel Harry, and Unit Manager Renee Zobitne 

(“Defendants”)—for civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The District Court denied Tedesco’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief and 

granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, concluding that none of them was 

personally involved in any alleged deprivation of constitutional rights. The District Court 

also concluded that Tedesco: (1) has no viable access to courts claim because he failed to 

adduce evidence of a cognizable injury; (2) is barred from maintaining a cause of action 

for unlawful imprisonment at this time; (3) has no viable due process claim for 

deprivation of property because adequate post-deprivation remedies were available; (4) 

has no viable Eighth Amendment claim because the loss of legal materials, while 

“frustrating and unfortunate,” is not cruel and unusual punishment; (5) has no viable 

Fourth Amendment claim because “prisoners do not have legitimate expectations of 

privacy in their cells”; and (6) has no viable First Amendment retaliation claim because 

his proclamations of innocence were not linked to any “adverse action.”

Case: 19-1813 Document: 28 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/07/2020
3

Tedesco appealed. He also filed a motion for reconsideration of the summary 

judgment ruling, and a “motion for equitable tolling” of AEDPA’s statute of limitations. 

The District Court denied both motions. Tedesco then filed an amended notice of appeal.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of an order granting 

summary judgment is de novo. Giles v. Kearney, 571 F.3d 318, 322 (3d Cir. 2009).

Relevant evidence of record is viewed in the light most favorable to Tedesco as the nonmovant. Miller v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 632 F.3d 837, 844 (3d Cir. 2011). Our review of an 

order denying reconsideration is for abuse of discretion. Barbato v. Greystone Alliance, 

LLC, 916 F.3d 260, 264 (3d Cir. 2019).

For substantially the reasons given in the District Court’s summary judgment 

opinion, we will affirm. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4 (2011); 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6 (2018). In 

particular, we agree with the District Court that Tedesco adduced no evidence that 

Defendants were personally involved, as a matter of law, in any alleged constitutional 

violations. See ECF 65-2 at 2-3 (Link declaration); ECF 65-3 at 2-3 (Harry declaration); 

ECF 65-4 at 2-3 (Zobitne declaration); cf. Thomas v. Tice, No. 18-1811, ___ F.3d ___, 

2019 WL 5884162, at *2 (3d Cir. Nov. 12, 2019) (discussing personal-involvement 

liability standard).

1

 Tedesco’s motion for appointment of counsel is dismissed as moot.

 1 Tedesco’s scattershot arguments on appeal—for example, that the inmate grievance 

process is illegitimate, that the loss of legal materials not only formed the factual basis of 

Tedesco’s claims below but also impeded his ability to actually litigate those same 

claims, and that he was retaliated against by the Pennsylvania State Police (among 

others)—are either baseless or irrelevant to the orders on appeal. 

Case: 19-1813 Document: 28 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/07/2020