2006 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 5-31-2006 

# Lind s a y v . C hes ney 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 . 05-4900

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_2006

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 2006 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 " L ind s a y v . C he s ney " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1018. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1018DP S - 1 7 7 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 . 05- 4900

________________ M E L VI N X. L I NDS AY, A ppel l ant

v. SU PT. J O SEPH W . CH ESN EY ; J O H N SO M M ER S; C H A R L E S E R I C K SO N ; D A V I D W I L D E , C apt ai n; L t . J . R. BU BB ; OF F I CE R O M AR HAMI L T ON; J OHN MACK; J E FFR E Y B E A R D ; M I C H A E L FA R N A N , C hi ef Counsel

____________________________________ 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 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. 04- cv- 0180) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le W ill iam W . C a ld w e ll 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 u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B)

M ar ch 30, 2006 BE FO RE : RO TH , FU EN TES and V A N A N TW ER PEN , CI RC U I T J U D G ES. ( Fi l ed: M ay31, 2006 )

_______________________ OP I NI ON

_______________________T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed Li nds ay ’ s m ot i on t o compel r eturn of l egal m at er i al and 1 to in ter v iew a w itn e ss . T h e D istric t C o u rt d e ter m in e d th a t L in d sa yf a iled to sp e c if

ica lly i dent i fyw hatt he l egal m at er i al w as i n t he mot i on. A l s o, the D i s t r i ctC our tques t i oned the re lev a n c e o f

th e w itn e ss ’ te stim o n ya n d n o ted th a t L in d sa yh a d a m p le tim e to o b tain th is ev iden ce d u ri n g the e x tend ed d isco v eryp eriod . W e a g ree w ith the D istri ct C o u rt ’s d is p o s itio n o f

th e m o tio n . 2 P E R C UR I AM M el vi n X . L i nds ayappea l s t he or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe M id d le D istric t o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia g ra n tin g su m m a ryju d g m e n t in f a v o r o f th e d e f e n d a n ts in hi s i n form a paupe r i s ci vi l r i ght s act i on. W e w i l l di s m i s s the appe al pur s uantt o 28 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )( 2 )( B ). I n J anuary2004, L i nds ayfi l ed a pr o s e compl ai ntpur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1983, a lleg in g th a t th e d e f

e n d a n ts p lac e d h im in a d m in istra tiv e c u sto d ya n d tra n sf e rre d h im to ano ther corr ect i on al faci l i t yi n ret al i at i on for fi l i ng a rel i gious accom m od at i on s r equ est as s er t i ng hi s Fi r s tA m endmentr i ghtt o pr act i ce hi s N at i on of I s l am fai t h. L i nds ays ought i nj unct i ve and de cl ar at or yr el i ef, and damages . I n r es pons e, the def endant s fi l ed a mot i on fors um m aryj udgm entas s ert i ng t hatL i nds ayw as pl ace d i n admi ni s t r at i ve cus t odyand tr ans ferr ed bec aus e he w as at t empt i ng t o engage i n unauthor i zed gr oup act i vi t i es atthe p ri s o n . L in d s a yd id n o t r e s p o n d to th e d e f e n d a n ts ’ m o tio n . T he D i s t r i ctC our tadopt ed the r epor tand r ecomm endat i on of the magi s t r at e j udge a n d g ra n te d d e f

e n d a n ts ’ m o tio n . L in d s a ytim e ly f ile d a n o tic e o f

a p p e a l. 1 W e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. H avi ng gr ant ed L i nds ayl eave t o pr ocee d i n form a paupe r i s on appea l , w e mustnow det erm i ne w hetherT h is rig h t to w o rsh ip , h o w e v e r, d o e s n o t n e c e ss a rilye n tail a n u n lim ited rig h t to 2 g ro u p w o rsh ip , es p e c iallyw h e n su c h a n e x e rc ise p o se s “ th e lik e lih o o d o f d isru p tio n to pr i s on or derors t abi l i t y , orot herw i s e i nt er fer e[s ] w i t h t he l egi t i m at e penol ogi cal obj ect i ves of the pr i s on envi r onm ent . ”See J ones v. N or t h C ar ol i na Pr i s oner s ’ L abor U n io n , 4 3 3 U .S . 1 1 9 , 1 3 2 (1 9 7 7 ); s e e a ls o R a u s e r, 2 4 1 F .3 d a t 3 3 4 . 3 hi s appea l s houl d be di s m i s s ed pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) . A n appea l m aybe di s m i s s ed under§ 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) i f i thas no ar guabl e bas i s i n l aw orfac t . See N ei t zke v. W i l l i ams, 490 U . S. 319, 325 ( 1989) . Sum m aryj udgm enti s pr operonl yi f ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tand i f, vi ew i ng the fa ct s i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the non- m ovi ng par t y , t he movi ng part yi s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . See Sal dana v. K m ar tC orp. , 260 F. 3d 228, 232 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . I f the movi ng par t ym eet s t he i ni t i al bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng t hatt her e i s no genui ne i s s ue, the bur den s hi ft s t o t he nonm o v in g p a rt yto p ro d u c e e v id e n c e o f a g e n u in e is s u e f

o r t ri a l. I d . I n or dert o s t at e a c l ai m forr et al i at i on under§ 1983, a pl ai nt i ff mustal l ege that( 1) the conduc tw hi ch l ed t o t he al l eged r et al i at i on w as cons t i tut i onal l ypr ot ect ed; ( 2) he s uffe r ed s om e “a dver s e ac t i on” att he hands of pr i s on offi ci al s ; and ( 3) ther e w as a ca us al connec t i on betw een the exe r ci s e of hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s and the adve r s e ac t i on t aken a g a in s t h im . S e e R a u s e r v . H o rn , 2 4 1 F .3 d 3 3 0 , 3 3 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). I n the ac comm odat i ons r eques t , L i nds ayr eques t ed s epar at e N at i on of I s l am s ervi ces , orw ant ed the gr oup t o be al l ow ed t o m eet . L i nds aydoes have a cons t i tut i onal ri gh tt o ask f

or r el i gious accom m od at i on s and to eng age in som e rel i gious act i vit i es. 2 See, e. g. , O ’ L one v. Shabazz , 482 U . S. 342, 348 ( 1987) . M or eover , contr aryt o t he4

D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s rul i ng bel ow , L i nds ay ’ s confi nementi n admi ni s t r at i ve cus t odyand tr ans fert o anotherfac i l i t ycoul d cons t i tut e “a dver s e ac t i ons ” forpurpos es of a r et al i at i on cl ai m . See A l l ah v. Sei ver l i ng, 229 F. 3d 220, 224 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( hol di ng thatr et al i at i on m a yb e a c tio n a b le e v e n w h e n th e re ta lia to ry a c tio n d o e s n o t in v o lv e a lib e rt yin te re s t) . H ow ever , L i nds aycannots how a ca us al connec t i on betw een hi s fi l i ng the reli g iou s ac co m m o d ati o n s req u est an d the d ef en d an ts’ all eg ed retali ati o n ag ains t him . It i s m er e s pecul at i on on L i nds ay ’ s par tthathe w as pl ace d i n admi ni s t r at i ve cus t odyand tra n sf e rre d to a n o th e r f

a c ili tya s a d ire c t re su lt o f h is a c c o m m o d a tio n s re q u e st o r h is des i r e t o pr act i ce hi s r el i gi on. T o t he contr ary , the def endant s pr es ent ed evi dence that L in d s a yw a s p u n is h e d f o r e n g a g in g in u n a u th o ri z e d g ro u p a c tiv ity. S e e D e f.’s B r., 5 . L i nds ayhas nots etfor t h anyfac t s orevi dence as r equi r ed bythe s um m aryj udgm ent s t andar d t o contr adi ctt he def endant s ’ evi dence . See Sal dana, 260 F. 3d at232. T he defe ndant s averr ed thats om e gr oups , i ncl udi ng the N at i on of I s l am and t he A r y an B r otherhood, have a hi s t or yof m i l i t antact i vi t yi n pr i s on. See D ef. ’ s B r . , 7. T hus , pr i s on offi ci al s ar e vi gi l anti n enfor ci ng t he ban on una uthor i zed gr oup act i vi t y , es peci al l yi n a se tti n g w h e re re lig io u s a n d ra c ial te n sio n s in ter se c t. U n q u e stio n a b ly , L in d sa y ’s r ig h t to engage i n r el i gi ous act i vi t yi s nots o br oad as t o encompas s an unl i m i t ed r i ghtt o engage i n w hat everunauthor i zed gr oup m eet i ngs he w i s hes . See J ones , 433 U . S. at132. For i ns t ance , i nm at es m aynotcongr egat e, hol d gr oup m eet i ngs , orform anyor gani zat i ons w i thoutpr i orappr oval fr om t he s uper i nt endent . See D ef. ’ s B r . , 7. A s a r es ul tof5

L i nds ay ’ s act i ons , w hi ch ar e notdi s put ed, the def endant s pl ace d hi m i n admi ni s t r at i ve cu stod yan d u lt im atelytr an sfe rred h im to an o ther f ac il ity . S ee D ef. ’s B r. , 8 . L ind say ’s r et al i at i on cl ai m fai l s beca us e the def endant s es t abl i s hed thatthey“w oul d have made the s ame deci s i on[s ] abs ent[Li nds ay ’ s fi l i ng the ac comm odat i ons r eques t ] forr eas ons r e a s o n a b l yr e l a t e d t o a l e g i t i ma t e p e n o l o g i c a l i n t e r e s t ” wh i c h , h e r e , wo u l d b e c r i me det err ence and i ns t i tut i onal s ecur i t y . See R aus er , 241 F. 3d at334. B eca us e Li nds aydi d notm eethi s bur den of pr oduci ng evi dence of a ge nui ne i s s ue fort r i al , hi s appea l w i l l be di s m i s s ed under28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) forl ack of l egal m e ri t.