2005 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 5-10-2005 

# Gordon v . M or t on 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 . 04-4754

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_2005

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 2005 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 " Gor don v . M or t on" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1223. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1223CP S - 1 6 8 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 . 04- 4754

________________ S T E VE N R . GOR DON, A ppel l ant

v. WILLI S MORTON, WARDEN; J OHN DO E(S), CORRECTI ONAL OFF I CER(S) AT BU CKS COUNTY CORRECTI ONAL FACILI TY; J . W. BAILIE; M. A. POUL SON; C. C. BURNS; H. C. L IVERMAN

_______________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt F o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i v. N o. 03- cv- 04060) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le H arv eyB artl e, II I

_______________________________________ S u b m itte d U n d e r T h ir d C ir c u it L .A .R . 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

M ar ch 10, 2005 BEFORE: ALI TO, M c KEE an d AM BRO , CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed: M ay10, 2005)

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM A ppel l antSt even G or don appea l s fr om the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or der s gr ant i ng D e f e n d a n ts ’ m o tio n s f

o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t a n d d e n y in g th e a p p o in tm e n t o f c o u n s e l. G o rd o n f ile d a c o m p la in t, w h ic h th e D is tr ic t C o u rt p re s u m e d w a s p u rs u a n t to 4 2 U .S .C . §2

1983, s eeki ng m onet arydamages forthe al l eged de ni al of ac ces s t o the court s i n vi ol at i on o f th e F i r s tAm e n d me n t . Be c a u s e n o s u b s t a n t i a l q u e s t i o n i s p r e s e n t e d , L . A. R. 2 7 . 4 , we w il l sum m aril yaf

firm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er. O n Ju n e 1 3 , 2 0 0 2 , G o rd o n w a s tra n sf e rre d to B u c k s C o u n tyC o rre c tio n a l F a c ili ty t o aw ai ta Pos tC onvi ct i on R el i ef A ct( PC R A ) hear i ng s chedul ed forJ une 17th. G or don cl ai m s corr ect i on al off

i cers B urns, P ou l son, and B ai l i e con fi scat ed h i s l egal m at eri al s, and thatdefe ndant s M or t on and Li verm an l at eracqui es ced t o the conduc t . O n the m o rn in g o f

th e h e a ri n g , G o rd o n re q u e s te d h is le g a l m a te ri a ls , b u t th e yw e re n o t s u p p lie d . T he hea r i ng s t i l l t ook pl ace as s chedul ed. O n J une 22, 2002, G or don fi l ed an i nm at e r eques tform forthe r eturn of the m at er i al among ot heri t ems. W ar den M or t on r es ponded, y etfai l ed t o addr es s thatas pect of the r eques t . O n J ul y2, 2003, the mat er i al s w er e r eturned. G or don’ s PC R A pet i t i on w a s s u b se q u e n tlyd e n ied , b u t th e S u p e rio r C o u rt re m a n d e d f o r a n e w h e a rin g b e c a u se h is PC R A couns el w as i neff ect i ve. U pon r ehea r i ng, the PC R A C our tdeni ed r el i ef. G or don d id n o t ap p e a l. M eanw hi l e, G or don br oughta § 1983 cl ai m i n the D i s tr i ctC our tal l egi ng a deni al o f a cc ess to the c o u rt s. T h e D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted th e D ef en d an ts’ m o ti o n s fo r sum m ary ju d g m e n t. Ith e ld th a t G o rd o n f a iled to sh o w a c tu a l in

ju ryw ith re sp e c t to th e c laim a g a in st th e c o rre c tio n a l o f f ice rs a n d c o u ld n o t sh o w su p e rv iso ryliab ili tyw ith re sp e c t to M o rto n a n d L iv e rm a n . G o rd o n th e n f iled th is a p p e a l.3

W e e x e rc is e p le n a ry re v ie w o v e r a D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s g ra n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. O l i verv. Fauver , 118 F. 3d 175, 177 ( 3d C i r . 1997) . A cl ai m ants eeki ng damages fort he deni al of ac ces s t o t he court s m us t“demonstr at e thatthe al l eged” depr i vat i on of l egal m at er i al “hi nder ed hi s eff or t s t o pur s ue a l egal cl ai m . ” Lew i s v. C as ey , 518 U . S. 343, 3 5 1 (1 9 9 6 ). T o su c c e e d , L e w is d o e s n o t re q u ire th a t a c laim w o u ld h a v e b e e n su c c e ss f u l, s ee, e. g. , W al t er s v. E dgar , 163 F. 3d 430, 434 ( 7th C i r . 1998) , butm er el yr equi r es the cl ai m antt o s how thatthe depr i vat i on l ed t o an ac tual i nj ury“s uch as the l os s orr ej ect i on of a l egal cl ai m . ” See O l i ver , 118 F. 3d at177. T he ac tual i nj uryr equi r ementi s der i ved fr om the cons t i tut i onal pr i nci pl e of s t andi ng. L ew i s , 518 U . S. at349. I n thi s cont ext , a cl ai m pr emi s ed upon an a r gum ent thatthe al l eged de pr i vat i on hi nder ed the pr es ent at i on of a f r i vol ous cl ai m i s nots uffi ci ent to e n tit le r e lief. S e e id . at 3 5 0 (c o m p a rin g a sim ilar s itu a tio n w ith th a t o f a h e a lth yin m a te w ho i s deni ed ac ces s t o m edi cal car e) ; W al t er s , 163 F. 3d at434- 35. See al s o L uj an v. D efe nder s of W i l dl i fe, 504 U . S. 555, 560 ( 1992) ( r equi r i ng i nj uryt o be ac tual or im m in e n t, n o t h yp o th e tic a l o r c o n je c tu ra l) . T o t he ext entG or don i m pl i es pos s i bl e i nj ury , the s econd PC R A C our thel d that none of G or don’ s cl ai m s w er e cogni zabl e underthe PC R A . See C om m onw eal th v. G or don, N o. 2000- 3646, s l i p op. at2 ( Pa. C . D ec. 10 2003) . G or don does notar gue that h e d e s i r e d t o p r e s e n td i f f e r e n to ra d d i t i o n a l c l a i ms a th i s f i r s tP CR A h e a r i n g . Be c a u s e we do notgener al l ys econd gue s s s t at e courtdeci s i ons i nt erpr et i ng m att er s of s t at e l aw , s ee4

M i chi gan v. L ong, 463 U . S. 1032, 1040 ( 1983) , G or don has nots uffi ci ent l ydemonstr at ed actual i njuryt o est abli sh his cl ai m againstthe co rr ect i on s officer s. A dd i t i on al l y , becau se G or don fai l s t o demonstr at e he s uffe r ed a c ons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on, he ca nnots at i s fyany th e o ryo f su p e rv iso ryliab ili ty . S e e A .M . ex re l. J.M .K . v . v . L u z e rn e C o u n tyJu v e n ile D et. C tr . , 3 7 2 F . 3 d 5 7 2 , 5 8 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). A d d it ion all y , the D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t abu se it s d iscreti o n in d en y ing G o rdo n ’s m ot i on forthe appoi nt m entof couns el . See Parham v. J ohns on, 126 F. 3d 454, 457 ( 3d C i r . 1997) . T he D i s tr i ctC our ti ni t i al l ygr ant ed G or don’ s m ot i on on Sept ember8, 2003, butdeni ed the mot i on a y earl at eraft erfai l i ng t o fi nd couns el w i l l i ng t o acc eptthe a p p o in tm e n t. T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt c a n n o t r e q u ir e c o u n s e l to re p re s e n t a n in d ig e n t c la im a n t. S ee T ab ron v . G rac e, 6 F . 3 d 1 4 7 , 1 5 3 n . 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). F u rth er, be ca u se G o rdo n ’s cl ai m i s m er i t l es s , the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n eventual l ydeny i ng t he m o tio n a n d th e o rd e r is a f f irm e d . S e e id . at 1 5 5 (sta tin g th a t a th re sh o ld in q u iryis w h ethe r th e c lai m h as m erit ). F o r th e f o reg o ing rea so n s, n o su b stan ti al qu esti o n is prese n ted a n d w e w il l aff irm th e o rd e r o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt g ra n tin g th e D e f e n d a n ts ’ m o tio n s f

o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. A ppel l ant ’ s m ot i on forappoi nt m entof couns el on appea l i s deni ed.