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 Third C irc uit 5-5-2005 

# G arl and v . T a y lor P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-3272

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://digit alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc ircuit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s by 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 Third C irc uit at V ill 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 by an authori z e d a dmini s trat or of V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

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

w . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " G arl and v . T a y lor " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1242. http://di git alc ommon s .l a

w . vill anova . e du/thirdc ircuit_2005/1242C PS-159 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- 3272

_____________ KE NDAL L L AM AR GAR L AND, A ppel l ant

v. LT . HORTON; OFF I CER TAYLOR

________________________________________ 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 W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia (D . C . C i v. N o. 04 -cv- 13 0J) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e K i m R . G i bs on

__________________________________________ Subm i t t ed ForPoss i bl e D i s m i s s al U nder28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) orSum m aryA ct i on

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 3, 2005 B efor e: A L I T O , M cK E E and A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed M ay5, 2005 )

______________________ OP I NI ON

______________________ P E R C UR I AM K endal l L amarG ar l and appe al s pr o s e the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s s ua s pont e di s m i s s al of h is ci v il ri g h ts acti o n fil ed p u rsua n t t o 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 . G arlan d , a state p ri so n er, a lleg e d th a t th e d e f

e n d a n ts, p riso n e m p lo y e e s a t S C I-H o u tzd a le, v io late d h isIn h is o rig in a l co m p lain t, G a rla n d n a m e d S C I-H o u tzd a le a n d th e P e n n sy lv a n ia 1 D epartm entof C orr ect i ons . T he M agi s tr at e J udge t o w hom the ca s e w as r efe rr ed p ro p e rlyf

o u n d th a t th e c laim s a g a in st th e se sta te d e f e n d a n ts w e re b a rre d b yth e E lev e n th A m endment . See W i l l v. M i chi gan D ep’ tof St at e Pol i ce, 491 U . S. 58 ( 1989) . G ar l and d id n o t o b

je c t to th is d e te rm in a tio n a n d th e D is tr ic t C o u rtd is m is s e d th e s ta te d e f e n d a n ts . T h e D istric t C o u rt a lso p e rm itt e d G a rla n d to f ile a n a m e n d e d c o m p lain t w ith re sp e c t to the pr i s on empl oy ees s ued i n thei ri ndi vi dual capa ci t i es . W e al s o not e thatthi s cas e w as o ri g in a lly f

ile d in th e U n ite d S ta te s D is tr ic t C o u rtf o r t h e M id d le D is tr ic t o f P e n n s y lv a n ia . I tw as tr ans ferr ed t o the W es t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a bec aus e the eve nt s and i ndi vi dual s conce rni ng a cl ai m agai ns tthe l as tr emai ni ng defe ndantw er e l ocat ed i n that d istric t. 2 c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts b yd e n y in g h im th e o p p o rtu n itya t a d isc ip lin a ryh e a rin g to c a ll w itn e ss e s a n d re ly in g o n in su f f icie n t ev id e n c e to c o n v ict h im , b yin ter f e rin g w ith h is acc es s t o the court s w hi l e he w as confi ned i n the R es tr i ct i ve H ous i ng U ni t( “R H U ”) for th irtyd a y s, a n d b yim p ro p e rlyd e n y in g h is g rie v a n c e s re g a rd in g h is d isc ip lin a ryg u ilty fi ndi ng and l ack of

acc es s t o the court s . G ar l and s oughtm onet arydamages and d e c la ra to ry a n d in

ju n c tiv e re lie f. T he D i s tr i ctC ourtdi s m i s s ed the ac t i on forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m pur s uantt o 28 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B )(i i) . G arlan d ti m elyap p ea led. W e e x erc ise p lena ryrev iew o v er a 1 Di s tr i c tCo u r to r d e rd i s mi s s i n g a c o mp l a i n tf o rf a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m. W e wi l l a f f i rm a di s m i s s al forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m i f w e ca n “s ayw i th as s ur ance thatunderthe al l egat i ons of the pr o s e compl ai nt , w hi ch w e hol d t o l es s s tr i ngents t andar ds than form al pl eadi ngs dr aft ed byl aw y er s , i tappea r s ‘ bey ond doubtthatthe pl ai nt i ff c an pr ove no s et of fa ct s i n s uppor tof hi s cl ai m w hi ch w oul d ent i t l e hi m t o r el i ef. ’ ” M cD ow el l v. D el aw ar e St at e Pol i ce, 88 F. 3d 188, 189 ( 3d C i r . 1996) ( quot i ng H ai nes v. K erner , 404G a rl a n d ’s c la im s w e re a d d re s s e d in th re e s e p a ra te D is tr ic t C o u rto rd e rs . 2 3 U . S . 5 1 9 , 5 2 0 (19 7 2 )). F o r th e re aso n s tha t fo ll o w , w e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s orders . 2 G arlan d co m p lai n s tha t he w as n o t al low ed to ca ll w itn esse s at a d isci p li n ary h ea ri n g an d that there w as in su ff ici en t evid en ce to f

ind h im g u il ty . T h e S u p rem e C o u rt has r ecogni zed a n i nm at e’ s qual i fi ed r i ghtt o cal l w i tnes s es i n a di s ci pl i naryhear i ng, s ee W ol ff v. M cD onnel l , 418 U . S. 539, 566 ( 1984) , and has al s o s t at ed thatthe deci s i onm aker ’ s concl us i on m us tbe s upport ed byatl eas t“s om e evi dence . ” Super i nt endent , M as s . C orr . I ns t . v. H i l l , 472 U . S. 445, 454- 56 ( 1985) . I n a ca s e s uch as thi s one, thes e due pr oces s pr ot ect i ons ar e notr equi r ed unl es s the di s ci pl i ne ati s s ue im p o ses a n “a typ ical an d sign ifi ca n t hard sh ip o n the in m ate in re lat ion to the o rdin ary incid en ts of

p ri so n li fe . ” S an d in v . C o n n o r, 5 1 5 U . S . 4 7 2 , 4 8 4 (19 9 5 ). H ere , G arlan d ’s thirty -da yp lace m en t i n the R H U w as n o t th e so rto f h ard sh ip req u ir ed to co n fe r a cogni zabl e l i bertyi nt er es t . See G r i ffi n v. V aughn, 112 F. 3d 703, 708 ( 3d C i r . 1997) (h o ld in g th a t d isc ip lin a ryc o n f in e m e n t in P e n n sy lv a n ia f o r p e rio d o f

f if tee n m o n th s d id notexce ed expe ct ed par amet er s of i nm at e s ent ence ) ; Schenck v. E dw ar ds , 921 F. Supp. 6 7 9 , 6 8 7 ( E. D. W a s h . 1 9 9 6 ) ( c o n c l u d i n g th a tp l a i n t i f f wh o d i d n o tl o s e a n yg o o d - t i me cr edi t s , and ther efor e w as notdepr i ved of a l i bertyi nt er es t , w as notent i t l ed t o dueT o the ext entG ar l and s eeks t o r ai s e a due pr oces s cl ai m conce rni ng the l os s of 3 var i ous pr i vi l eges i n the R H U , s ee A m ended Com pl ai nt , ¶ 17- 30, i ti s w i thoutm er i t . See S a n d in , 5 1 5 U .S . a t 4 8 4 . 4 p roc ess p rotec ti o n s set fo rth in H il l) . T h u s, the D istri ct C o u rtp rop erlyrejected G arlan d ’s du e process cl ai m s. 3 G ar l and al s o as s ert s thathe w as depr i ved of hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ghtof ac ces s t o the court s . I n part i cul ar , G ar l and al l eges thathe w as deni ed ac ces s t o r egul at i ons conce rni ng di s ci pl i naryhear i ngs , w as notperm i t t ed t o r evi ew hi s l egal paper s and had onl yl i m i t ed acc es s t o m ai l del i veryand the mai n pr i s on l aw l i br aryw hi l e conf i ned i n the R H U , and w as depr i ved of “ adequa t e w r i t i ng m at er i al s . ” A s a r es ul t , G ar l and cl ai m s thathe w as

“ h a lted f ro m p u rsu in g re lief

o n a n yleg a l issu e ” a t h is d isc ip lin a ryh e a rin g , in a c iv il ri g h ts a c tio n , a n d in p o s t- c o n v ic tio n (“ P C R A ” ) p ro c e e d in g s . W h e r e a n i n ma t e d o e s n o ts u f f e ra n a c tu a l i n

j u ryt o h i s a b i l i tyt o l i t i g a t e a c l a i m, hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ghtof ac ces s t o the court s has notbeen vi ol at ed. L ew i s v. C as ey , 518 U . S. 343 ( 1996) . T hati nj uryr equi r ementi s nots at i s fi ed, how ever , byl ack of acc es s t o a pr i s on di s ci pl i naryhear i ng w her e the di s ci pl i ne i s notan “a typi cal and s i gni fi cant h a rd sh ip .” S e e S a n d in , 5 1 5 U .S . at 4 8 4 ; L e w is, 5 1 8 U .S . at 3 5 4 (o b se rv in g th a t “[ n ]e a rly a ll o f th e a c c e ss -to -c o u rts c a se s . . . in v o lv e d a ttem p ts b yin m a tes to p u rsu e d ire c t ap p e a ls f ro m th e 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 rig h ts a c tio n s’” ). In a d d iti o n , G a rla n d h a s n o t alle g e d a n ya c tu a l in ju ryto h is a b ili tytoA M a g istra te J u d g e re c o m m e n d e d d ism iss in g G a rla n d ’s a c c e ss to th e c o u rts 4 c laim b e c a u se , inte r a lia, G a rla n d d id n o t alle g e th a t h e su f f e re d a n a c tu a l in

ju ryto h is abi l i tyt o l i t i gat e a c i vi l r i ght s cl ai m . G ar l and s ubm i t t ed obj ect i ons and an a m ended compl ai nt( w hi ch the D i s tr i ctC ourtcons i der ed) buthe s t i l l di d not“poi ntt o evi dence of a c tu a l o r im m in e n t in ter f e re n c e w ith a c c e ss to th e c o u rts” c o n c e rn in g a n yc iv il righ ts ac ti o n . R eyn o lds v . W ag n er, 12 8 F . 3 d 1 6 6 , 1 8 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). 5 l i t i gat e a c i vi l r i ght s act i on, des pi t e the opportuni tyt o m ake s uch al l egat i ons . See 4 G ra y so n v . M a yv iew S tate H o sp ., 2 9 3 F .3 d 1 0 3 , 1 0 8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). G a rla n d d id su g g e st, h o w e v e r, th a t h is P C R A p e tit io n (d u e o n S e p tem b e r 7 , 2 0 0 3 (a S u n d a y )) w a s u n tim e ly fi l ed ( on Sept ember10, 2003) becaus e he di d nothave s uffi ci entacc es s t o l egal m at er i al w hi l e conf

i ned i n the R H U ( fr om J une 25, 2003 t o J ul y24, 2003) and w as notpr ovi ded w ith “ a d e q u a te w ri tin g m a te ri a ls ” (f ro m A u g u s t 1 , 2 0 0 3 to S e p te m b e r 1 , 2 0 0 3 ) . I m por t ant l y , how ever , thos e i m pedi m ent s exi s t ed onl yforappr oxi m at el ytw o m onths out of the one y earw i thi n w hi ch G ar l and had t o fi l e hi s PC R A pet i t i on and di s appea r ed one w e e k b e f o re th e f ili n g d e a d lin e . W e n o te th a t a P C R A p e tit io n d o e s n o t h a v e to c o n tain a r g u me n to rc i t a t i o n t o a u th o r i ty , s e e P a . R. Cr i m. P . 9 0 2 , th a ta me n d me n t s o f a P CRA pet i t i on ar e gene r al l yl i ber al l yal l ow ed, s ee Pa. R . C r i m . P. 905, and thatunder P e n n sy lv a n ia’ s p riso n e r m a ilb o x ru le, a p ro se a p p e a l is d e e m e d f iled a s o f th e d a te it is del i ver ed t o pr i s on author i t i es orpl ace d i n the i ns t i tut i onal m ai l box. See Sm i th v. Penns y l vani a B d. of Pr obat i on & Par ol e, 683 A . 2d 278, 281 ( Pa. 1996) . A nyfai l ur e by G ar l and t o fi l e a t i m el yPC R A pet i t i on cannotfai r l ybe tr ace d t o hi s br i ef de t ent i on i n the6

RH U o ra s i mi l a r l yb r i e f l a c k o f wr i t i n g ma t e r i a l s . Ac c o r d i n g l y , a s a ma t t e ro f l a w, we agree that G arl and fai l ed to st at e a cl ai m for den i al of ac cess t o the cou rt s. Fi nal l y , G ar l and al l eges thatpr i s on offi ci al s i m pr oper l ydeni ed gr i evanc es re g a rd in g th e g u ilty f

in d in g a t th e d is c ip lin a ry h e a ri n g a n d la c k o f a c c e s s to th e c o u rt s . T he deni al of thes e gr i evanc es i s notuncons t i tut i onal beca us e, as expl ai ned above , the u n d e rl y in g c la im s a re w ith o u t m e ri t. F o r t h e f o re g o in g re a s o n s , w e c o n c lu d e th e a p p e a l p re s e n ts n o s u b s ta n tia l q u e s tio n . A c c o rd in g ly, w e w ill s u m m a ri ly af f ir m . S e e I.O .P . 1 0 .6 .7