CLD-167 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-4746

___________

RICHARD L. BLANCHARD,

Appellant

v.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; TANNER, SUPERVISOR AT USP 

ALLENWOOD; SONES, GUARD AT USP ALLENWOOD; REED, 

GUARD AT USP ALLENWOOD; ROSS, GUARD AT USP ALLENWOOD; 

WALLS, GUARD AT USP ALLENWOOD; HOFFA, GUARD AT USP 

ALLENWOOD; S. DODRILL, REGIONAL DIRECTOR; H. WATTS, 

DIRECTOR OF APPEALS; YOCUM, MAILROOM SUPERVISOR

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 1-10-cv-01606)

District Judge: Honorable William W. Caldwell

____________________________________

Submitted on Appellant’s Motion to Reopen, Appellant’s Application to Proceed 

In Forma Pauperis, and 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

April 21, 2011

Before: RENDELL, FUENTES and SMITH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: May 3, 2011)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM
2

Richard Blanchard, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s dismissal 

of his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). For the reasons that follow, we will 

summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court.

Blanchard, an inmate at USP-Allenwood, White Deer, Pennsylvania, initiated the 

underlying action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of 

Pennsylvania in August 2010, alleging that certain prison employees had interfered with 

his access to the courts in violation of the First Amendment. His complaint consisted 

primarily of allegations that prison staff had delayed in delivering incoming mail to him 

or sending outgoing mail on his behalf. Screening his complaint under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2), the District Court concluded that he had failed to state a claim upon which 

relief could be granted, and permitted Blanchard to amend his complaint, providing him 

with guidance as to what information the amended complaint should contain to avoid 

dismissal. Blanchard filed an amended complaint, in which he provided additional detail 

regarding his allegations, but failed to state with any specificity how he had been harmed 

by defendants’ actions.1

 1 Specifically, Blanchard alleged that: Unit Manager Wolever withheld a medical 

complaint and a grievance form from him; Correctional Officer Tanner delayed at least 

two days before posting a piece of his legal mail; he gave Correctional Officer Sones a 

letter to send by certified mail on September 25, 2008 which did not reach its destination 

until September 30, 2008; he wrote a letter to Mail Clerk Yocum inquiring about mail 

being sent out late and “was given negative responses”; Guard/Mail Clerk Reed told him 

that legal mail is treated the same as regular mail; Guard Ross was late in delivering mail 

to him on September 23, 2008 and did not follow his instructions in sending out another 

piece of mail on September 24 rather than September 25; Mail Clerk Ortiz returned two 

 Throughout his filings, Blanchard indicated that the prison had 
3

switched over to a computerized legal research system on which he had not yet been 

trained and, therefore, he could not review in full the cases cited by the District Court in 

its dismissal order.

The District Court reviewed the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2),

and dismissed it for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. As the 

Court noted, while prisoners do have a First Amendment right of access to the courts, in 

order to succeed on such a claim in federal court, the prisoner must demonstrate that the 

alleged interference with his access to the court caused the prisoner some actual injury. 

See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996). In other words, the prisoner must 

demonstrate that he has been unable to litigate a nonfrivolous, arguable legal claim 

because of the alleged interference. See Monroe v. Beard, 536 F.3d 198, 205-06 (3d Cir. 

2008). The Court had advised Blanchard of this defect in connection with his first 

complaint, explaining that “[t]hroughout his complaint he claims defendants have 

delayed the posting of his mail but he does not assert he suffered actual injury to a 

pending legal claim as a result of defendants’ actions.” Based on a review of the 

 

pieces of certified mail to him on September 13, 2010 because they were addressed 

without titles; Guard Hoffa took a piece of certified mail from him on August 6, 2008 but 

never provided him with the receipt; on February 5, 2009, he gave Guard Hoffa five 

pieces of certified mail which were not mailed until February 11, 2009; on January 11, he

gave two pieces of mail to Guard Walls but they were not mailed until January 14; he 

gave legal mail to Guard Chase on August 24, 2008 and it was not mailed until August 

26; he gave Guard Stagus legal mail on July 30, 2009 and it was not mailed until August 

3; and, on October 28, 2009, Guard Gallick delivered a piece of mail to him from the 

Department of Veterans Affairs dated April 1, 2009. 
4

amended complaint, the Court concluded that Blanchard again failed to demonstrate any 

such injury and, accordingly, dismissed his amended complaint. Blanchard appealed.

We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. First we must 

address Blanchard’s motion to reopen his appeal. On February 15, 2011, Blanchard’s 

appeal was dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis. He then filed a motion to reopen the appeal, dated February 22, 2011, and 

subsequently submitted the required documentation. A motion to reopen an appeal which 

was closed for failure to timely pay the filing fee will be granted upon a showing of good 

cause. See 3d Cir. LAR Misc. 107.2(a). We conclude that Blanchard has made such a 

showing. Because he qualifies for in forma pauperis status, we will grant his motions to

reopen and to proceed in forma pauperis, and consider whether the appeal should be 

dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) or whether summary action is appropriate. 

See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. 

First, we note that, in assessing his amended complaint, the District Court 

reviewed only his claims against three defendants, believing that Blanchard had 

intentionally omitted the remainder of the defendants named in the original complaint 

from the amended complaint. While the amended complaint is somewhat confusing to 

read, a thorough review reveals that it does actually raise allegations against five of the 

other defendants named in the original complaint.2

 2 It does appear that Blanchard abandoned his claims against Regional Director Dodrill 

 While the District Court therefore 
5

erred in reviewing the amended complaint, we will nonetheless summarily affirm the 

District Court’s dismissal of the amended complaint for failure to state a claim on which 

relief could be granted. At most, Blanchard alleges that the mailing or delivery of his 

legal mail was delayed for a few days.3

 

and Director of Appeals Watts. The District Court previously dismissed with prejudice 

Blanchard’s claims against the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”).

 He does not provide any indication that he lost 

the opportunity to pursue a nonfrivolous or arguable underlying legal claim due to the 

actions of defendants. See Monroe, 536 F.3d at 205-06. While Blanchard does allege 

that he has suffered “emotional distress, anxiety, anguish, strain and mistrust of all staff,”

these effects, though unfortunate, are not sufficient to state a claim of a violation of his 

First Amendment rights. See id. Furthermore, the case law is clear that legal mail from 

prisoners is considered to have been filed at the time it is delivered to prison officials for 

mailing. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). Finally, we note that 

Blanchard argues that he has not been trained in the use of the electronic legal resources 

in the prison. While we appreciate Blanchard’s attempts to thoroughly research and 

respond to the Court’s directives, we can discern no difference that legal research would 

have made on the outcome of this case. We understand that Blanchard has a number of 

3 With respect to Blanchard’s allegation that defendant Wolever withheld a medical 

complaint form and grievance form from him in connection with M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 08-

cv-02115, in which Blanchard alleged that BOP officials violated his constitutional rights 

by requiring him to purchase over-the-counter medication from the commissary, there is 

no indication that the alleged withholding of these forms had any impact on the lawsuit. 

The District Court entered judgment against Blanchard on February 18, 2010, and this 

Court dismissed his appeal for failure to pay the filing fee on November 15, 2010. 
6

complaints regarding his treatment by the prison staff. As a federal court, we can only 

offer redress for those claims that demonstrate the violation of a federal constitutional 

right. The claims alleged herein do not.

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that this appeal presents no substantial 

question and, accordingly, will summarily affirm. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6. 

Blanchard’s motions to reopen and to proceed in forma pauperis are granted, and his 

motion for the appointment of counsel is denied.