2010 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 10-7-2010 

# D a wn B all v . H ar tm an 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 . 10-1701

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_2010

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 2010 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 " D a wn B all v . H ar tm an" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 464. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/464CL D- 2 7 9 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 os . 10- 1418 and 10- 1701

___________ DA W N M AR I E BA LL, A ppel l ant

v. COUNSE LOR HARTM AN; DEP UTY S HEP LE R; M R. DREBL ER; J E F F RE Y B E AR D; M AR I RO S A L AM AS ; L T . GR I DL E Y; WEND Y

NI CHOLAS ; M R. F RONTZ; J I LL CI CER O

____________________________________ 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 v. N o. 09- cv- 00844) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Y vett e K ane

____________________________________ 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 Un d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) and Pos s i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on 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

Sept ember2, 2010 B efore: B A R R Y , F ISH E R and G R E E N A W A Y , JR . , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: O ct ober7, 2010 )

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM2

D aw n M ar i e B al l appea l s fr om an i nt er l ocut orydeci s i on of the D i s tr i ctC our tand it s fin al ord er d ism issi n g h er c o m p lai n t. W e w il l aff irm . S ee 3 d C ir . L . A . R . 2 7 . 4 (20 0 8 ); 3d C i r . I . O . P. 10. 6. I. B al l , a Penns y l vani a pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, fi l ed s ui tunder42 U . S. C . § 1983 al l egi ng the deni al of herFi r s tA m endmentr i ghtof ac ces s t o the court s . I n part i cul ar , s he a lleg e s th a t se v e ra l p riso n e m p lo y e e s re f u se d to a llo w h e r to p a rticip a te in a tele p h o n ic hear i ng i n a pat erni tyact i on pendi ng i n the Penns y l vani a C our tof C om m on Pl eas of N o rth a m p to n C o u n ty , in w h ich sh e se e k s a n o rd e r a g a in st h e r e x -h u sb a n d f o r c h ild su p p o rt. A c c o rd in g to B a ll, p riso n e m p lo y e e s re f u se d o n th e g ro u n d s th a t sh e is d e tain e d in the R es tr i ct i ve H ous i ng U ni t( “R H U ”) , w her e s he bel i eves s he w i l l be keptunt i l her r el eas e dat e of 2014. She fur theral l eges thatone of the def endant s r eturned a c al l t o a courtoffi ci al and i nform ed herthatB al l w oul d notbe abl e t o part i ci pat e i n courthear i ngs b ytele p h o n e u n til h e r re lea se f ro m th e R H U . S h e a lso a p p e a rs to su g g e st th a t h e r su it w as “di s m i s s ed” a s a r es ul t , though s he l at ers ubm i t t ed a l ett erfr om the C our tof C om m on Pl eas s t at i ng thatherhear i ng m er el yhad bee n canc el ed and w oul d be r es chedul ed i n t he futur e. I n addi t i on t o the pr i s on empl oy ees w ho al l egedl ypr event ed herfr om cal l i ng the court , s he named as defe ndant s J eff eryB ear d, Secr et aryof theT h e D istric t C o u rt late r a m e n d e d th e o rd e r, b yo rd e r e n ter e d Ja n u a ry2 0 , 2 0 1 0 , to 1 cl ar i fythati t s r efe r ence t o t he mot i on fi l ed bythe r emai ni ng defe ndant s w as m i s t aken. W e r evi ew the di s m i s s al of a c om pl ai ntunderR ul e 12( b) ( 6) de novo. See Phi l l i ps 2 v . C n ty . o 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 ). In d o in g so , w e “ ‘a c c e p t all fac tual al l egat i ons as true, cons true the compl ai nti n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the pl ai nt i ff, and det erm i ne w hether , underanyr eas onabl e r eadi ng of the compl ai nt , the pl ai nt i ff maybe ent i t l ed t o r el i ef. ’ ” I d. at233 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . W e r evi ew forabus e of di s cr et i on the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s ul t i m at e deni al of a mot i on fora pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on, s ee M i l l erv. M i t chel l , 598 F. 3d 139, 145 ( 3d C i r . 2010) , and i t s deni al of a mot i on forthe ap p o intm en t of

co u n sel, see T ab ron v . G rac e, 6 F . 3 d 1 4 7 , 1 5 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). 3 Penns y l vani a D epart m entof C orr ect i ons , and J i l l C i cer o, A s s oci at e C our tA dm i ni s tr at or for the N ortham pton C ou ntyC ou rtof C om m on P l eas. B all fil ed a m o ti o n fo r th e a p p o intm en t of co u n sel an d a m o ti o n fo r a p reli m inary in ju n c tio n . T h e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied th e m b yo rd e r e n ter e d Ja n u a ry1 1 , 2 0 1 0 , in w h ich it a lso g ra n ted C ice ro ’s m o tio n to d ism iss th e c laim s a g a in st h e r u n d e r R u le 1 2 (b )(6 ). B a ll 1 fi l ed a not i ce of

appea l fr om thator der , i ni t i at i ng the appe al docket ed atC . A . N o. 10- 1418. T he D i s tr i ctC our tthen gr ant ed the r emai ni ng defe ndant s ’ R ul e 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on by or derent er ed February16, 2010. B al l ’ s not i ce of appea l fr om thator deri s docket ed at C . A . N o. 10- 1701. W e cons ol i dat e the appe al s fordi s pos i t i on. 2 II. O uraff i r m ance of ea ch of the or der s underr evi ew fl ow s fr om a s i ngl e di s pos i t i ve i s s ue of l aw . B al l cl ai m s thatthe def endant s have de pr i ved herof herFi r s tA m endment rig h t o f a c c e ss to th e c o u rts. A s a p riso n e r, h o w e v e r, B a ll’s rig h t o f a c c e ss to th e c o u rts d o e s n o te x t e n d t o th e No r th a mp t o n Co u n tyc h i l d s u p p o r ta c t i o n wi th wh i c h s h e c l a i msT h e D istric t C o u rt a lso c o rre c tlye x p lain e d th a t B a ll’s c laim a g a in st B e a rd f a ils 3 for l ack o f his personal i nv olvem ent and t hat hercl ai m againstC i cero fai l s becau se C i cer o i s pr ot ect ed byquas i - j udi ci al i m m uni ty . T he D i s tr i ctC our tfur therdet erm i ned that , even i f B al l ’ s Fi r s tA m endmentr i ght s w er e i m pl i cat ed byherchi l d s uppor tact i on, sh e f a iled to e sta b lish a n y“ a c tu a l in ju ry ” b e c a u se th e C o u rt o f C o m m o n P lea s m e re ly n o tifie d h e r th a t h e r h e a rin g w ill b e re sc h e d u led . In th is re g a rd , the D istric t C o u rt w ro te thatB al l “off

er s no evi dence ” of a ctual i nj ury . T he D i s tr i ctC our tappea r s t o r efe rt o t he s how i ng s he made on herm ot i on fora pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on. T o the ext entthe D i s tr i ct C our tm ayerr oneous l yhave r equi r ed “e vi dence ” i n the R ul e 12( b) ( 6) cont ext , i t s err or w as harm l es s beca us e the compl ai ntw as s ubj ectt o di s m i s s al on the othergr ounds d isc u ss e d a b o v e . F o r th o se sa m e re a so n s, a n ya m e n d m e n t o f B a ll’s c o m p lain t w o u ld have be en fut i l e. See Phi l l i ps , 515 F. 3d at245. 4 d ef en d an ts ha v e interf

ere d . Instea d , “p ri so n ers m ayo n lyp roc ee d o n ac ce ss-t o -co u rt cl ai m s i n tw o t ypes of ca s es , chal l enges ( di r ectorcol l at er al ) t o thei rs ent ence s and condi t i ons of conf

i nement . ” M onr oe v. B ear d, 536 F. 3d 198, 205 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( ci t i ng L ew i s v. C as ey , 518 U . S. 343, 354- 55 ( 1996) ) . “I n otherw or ds , a pr i s onerhas no cons t i tut i onal r i ghtof ac ces s t o t he court s t o l i t i gat e an unr el at ed ci vi l cl ai m . ” Si m m ons v . S ac ram en to C n ty . S u p er. C t. , 3 1 8 F . 3 d 1 1 5 6 , 1 1 6 0 (9th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). B all ’s ch il d su p p o rt act i on i s notr el at ed t o hercr i m i nal s ent ence orcondi t i ons of conf i nement . N or , as the D i s tr i ctC our tnot ed, i s i tr el at ed t o anythi ng as fundament al as herpar ent al r i ght s . C f. Sant os kyv. K r amer , 455 U . S. 745, 753 ( 1982) ( r ecogni zi ng Four t eenth A m endment lib e rtyin ter e st in p a re n tal rig h ts). F o r th o se re a so n s, th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rly d ism iss e d h e r c o m p lain t. F o r th e sa m e re a so n s, th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in d e n y in g h e r m o tio n f o r a p re lim in a ryin

ju n c tio n o r a p p o in tm e n t o f c o u n se l. 35

A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entof the D i s tr i ctC our t . B al l ’ s m ot i on for the appoi nt m entof couns el i n t hi s C our ti s deni ed.