2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 12-29-2009 

# Ron ald T elep o, Jr . v . T o dd M ar t in P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-3509

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Ron ald T elepo, Jr . v . T odd M ar t in" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 28. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/28DL D- 0 7 6 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 3509

___________ R O N A L D W . T E L E P O , J R ., A ppel l ant v . T O D D A . M A R T IN ; S U Z A N N E M C C O O L ; DO NN A A SURE, i n d i v i d u a l l ya n d o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t i e s ; THER ESA M ERLI

___________________________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 08- cv- 02132) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ames M . M unl ey

____________________________________ S u b mi t t e d f

o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l P u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) o r S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 D ece m ber17, 2009 B efor e: FU E N T E S, J O R D A N and H A R D I M A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: D ece m ber29, 2009)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM R onal d W . T el epo, J r . , a s t at e pr i s oner , appea l s an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D istric t C o u rt f

o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia g ra n tin g th e d e f e n d a n ts’ m o tio n to2

d is m is s a c o m p la in t f

ile d p u rs u a n t to 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 . W e w ill a f f ir m . O n A p ril 1 4 , 2 0 0 8 , an d M a y1 2 , 2 0 0 8 , T e lep o a p p e a re d in th e M o n ro e C o u n ty C our thous e forhear i ngs r el at ed t o hi s cr i m i nal s ent ence . I n hi s compl ai nt , T el epo al l eged thatthe def

endant s , the M onr oe C ountySher i ff a nd thr ee Count yC om m i s s i oner s , fai l ed t o pr ovi de hi m w i th “ade quat e cons ul t at i on fac i l i t i es w i thi n the . . . C ountyC our thous e. ” A s a re su lt , h e w as “ fo rce d to m ee t w ith [h is] att o rne yin the p rese n ce o f sh eriff s[’] d e p u ties a s w e ll as o th e r in m a tes w ith in a h o ld in g c e ll are a .” B e c a u se h e w a s n o t “a b le to s peak pr i vat el yw i th hi s publ i c def ender , ” Tel epo cl ai m ed that“the publ i c def enderw as i l l pr epar ed t o ar gue the i s s ues . . . conce rn[i ng] . . . m ypr i orr ecor d s cor e[, ] w hi ch s ubs equent l yl ed t o t he j udge s ent enci ng m e t o a l ongerper i od of i ncar cer at i on than I s houl d have be en s ent ence d t o. ” Tel epo l at eras s ert ed that“[i ] f I w as gi ven a mor e pr oper a r e a t o c o n f

e rwi th myP u b l i c De f

e n d e r , ( wh i c h i s c h a l l e n g i n g th e c o n d i t i o n s o f my confi nement ) , I w oul d have be en abl e t o r el ayi nform at i on pert i nentt o a s hor t ert erm of in c a rc e ra tio n (c h a llen g in g m yse n ten c e a n d c o n v ictio n ).” A s re lief , T e lep o so u g h t a decl ar at i on thatthe def

endant s vi ol at ed hi s r i ghtof ac ces s t o the court s , an i nj unct i on o rd e ri n g th e d e f

e n d a n ts to p ro v id e “ a n a re a [ in th e C o u rt h o u s e ] t h a t p e rm its . . . u n o b s tru c t e d a n d c o n f

i d e n t i a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n [ b e tw e e n i n m a t e s a n d ] th e a t t o rn e ys a s s ig n e d to th e m ,” a n d c o m p e n s a to ry a n d p u n itiv e d a m a g e s . T h e d e f e n d a n ts f iled a m o tio n to d ism iss p u rsu a n t to F e d e ra l R u le o f C iv il Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 6) . T he M agi s tr at e J udge r ecomm ended thatthe mot i on be gr ant ed and3

thatthe compl i antbe di s m i s s ed w i th pr ej udi ce. O verT el epo’ s obj ect i ons , the D i s tr i ct C o u rt a d o p ted th e M a g istra te J u d g e ’s R e p o rt a n d g ra n ted th e d e f e n d a n ts’ m o tio n to di s m i s s . T he D i s tr i ctC our thel d t hatT el epo fa i l ed t o al l ege thatthe def endant s ’ conduct caus ed an “ actual i nj ury , ” thathi s cl ai m s agai ns tthe C ountyC om m i s s i oner s w er e barr ed bythe doctr i ne of r es pondeats uper i or , thatthe def endant s w er e ent i t l ed t o qual i fi ed i m m uni ty , and thatT el epo l acke d s t andi ng t o s eek e qui t abl e ori nj unct i ve r el i ef. T el epo appea l ed. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291, and exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s gr antof the D efe ndant s ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s . See Phi l l i ps v. C o u n tyo f

A lleg h e n y , 5 1 5 F .3 d 2 2 4 , 2 3 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). W e m a ya f f irm o n a n yb a sis su p p o rt ed b ythe re co rd. S ee F airview T o w n sh ip v . E P A , 7 7 3 F . 2 d 5 1 7 , 5 2 5 n . 1 5 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 5 ). A ft ercons i der i ng the r ecor d bel ow , w e conc l ude thatT el epo’ s cl ai m s ar e not cogni zabl e i n a § 1983 ac t i on. U nderH eck v. H um phr ey , 512 U . S. 477 ( 1994) , “w hen a stat e p ri so n er se ek s d am ag es in a § 1 9 8 3 su it , the d istri ct co u rtm u st co n side r w h ethe r a j udgm enti n favorof the pl ai nt i ff w oul d nece s s ar i l yi m pl ythe i nval i di tyof hi s convi ct i on ors ent ence ; i f i tw oul d, the compl ai ntm us tbe di s m i s s ed unl es s the pl ai nt i ff c an d em o n str ate tha t th e c o n v ict ion o r sen tenc e h as a lr ea d yb ee n inv ali d ated . ” Id . at 48 7 . In E dw ar ds v. B al i s ok, 520 U . S. 641 ( 1997) , the C our text ended H eck a nd found a c l ai m for decl ar at oryr el i ef notcogni zabl e under§ 1983 beca us e i tw oul d “nec es s ar i l yi m pl ythe4

i nval i di tyof the puni s hm enti m pos ed. ” I d. at648. H eck a nd B al i s ok for ecl os e § 1983 c laim s o n lyin a “ n a rro w su b se t o f a c tio n s,” w h e re th e d e p riv a tio n o f rig h ts is s u c h th a t it nece s s ar i l yaff

ect s the fa ctorl ength of det ent i on. L eamerv. Fauver , 288 F. 3d 532, 540 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . “[W ] heneve rthe cha l l enge ul t i m at el yatt acks the ‘ cor e of ha beas ’ - - t he val i di tyof the cont i nued convi ct i on orthe fa ctorl ength of the s ent ence - - a cha l l enge, how everdenomi nat ed and r egar dl es s of the r el i ef s ought , m us tbe br oughtbyw ayof habea s corpus pet i t i on. C onver s el y , w hen the cha l l enge i s t o a condi t i on of conf i nement s uch thata fi ndi ng i n pl ai nt i ff’ s favorw oul d notal t erhi s s ent ence orundo hi s convi ct i on, a n a c tio n u n d e r § 1 9 8 3 is a p p ro p ri a te .” Id . a t 5 4 2 . T el epo i ni t i al l ycouche d hi s cl ai m s i n t erm s of hi s Fi r s tA m endmentr i ghtof “ac ces s t o t he court s . ” A s the D i s tr i ctC our tnot ed, the r i ghtt o acc es s the court s has typi cal l ybeen a ppl i ed t o “att empt s byi nm at es t o pur s ue di r ectappea l s fr om the c o n v ictio n s f

o r w h ich th e yw e re in c a rc e ra ted , . . . h a b e a s p e tit io n s, . . . o r ‘c iv il righ ts ac ti o n s, ’ i . e. , act i ons under42 U . S. C . § 1983 t o vi ndi cat e ‘ bas i c cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . ’ ” L ew i s v. C as ey , 518 U . S. 343, 354 ( 1996) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . B utT el epo di d not cl ai m thathe w as deni ed “a r eas onabl yadequa t e opportuni tyt o pr es entcl ai m ed vi ol at i ons o f f u n d am en tal co n sti tuti o n al ri g h ts t o the c o u rt s. ” Id . at 35 1 . R athe r, h is cl aim s are bas ed on al l eged vi ol at i ons of hi s Si xth A m endmentr i ghtt o as s i s t ance of couns el dur i ng the s ent enci ng phas e of hi s cr i m i nal tr i al . See U ni t ed St at es v. H enry , 447 U . S. 264, 295 ( 1980) ( “the Si xth A m endment , of cour s e, pr ot ect s the conf i dent i al i tyof comm uni cat i onsW e d e n yT e lep o ’s M o tio n f o r A p p o in tm e n t o f

C o u n se l an d h is M o tio n f o r L e a v e to 1 F ile a R e p lyto th e A p p e llee s’ R e sp o n se to th e M o tio n f o r A p p o in tm e n t o f

C o u n se l. 5 betw een the ac cus ed and hi s att orney . ” ( R ehnqui s t , J . , di s s ent i ng) ) ; U ni t ed St at es v. J ohns on, 534 F. 3d 690, 693 ( 7th C i r . 2008) ( “‘ [T]he Si xth A m endmentguar ant ees the r i ghtt o couns el atal l cr i t i cal s t ages of the pr os ecut i on, ’ and thi s r i ghti s appl i cabl e dur i ng se n ten c in g h e a rin g s.” (in ter n a l cita tio n s o m itt e d )). T e lep o ’s c laim , if s u c c e ss f u l, w o u ld “s pel l s peedi err el eas e, ” and ther efor e “l i es atthe cor e of ha beas corpus . ” W i l ki ns on v. D ot s on, 544 U . S. 74, 82 ( 2005) ( i nt ernal quot at i on and ci t at i on om i t t ed) ; cf. Perryv. L eeke , 488 U . S. 272, 278- 80 ( 1989) ( addr es s i ng habea s cl ai m thats t at e tr i al court ’ s or der di r ect i ng pet i t i onernott o cons ul thi s att orneydur i ng 15- m i nut e r ece s s vi ol at ed p e titio n e r’ s S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l) . Forthe fo r e go i ng r e a s on s , thi s a pp e a l pr e s e nt s no s ub s t a nt i a l qu e s t i on . Se e I . O . P. 1 0 . 6 . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we wi l l s u mma r i l ya f f i r m. 1