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 9-19-2005 

# Rom ansky v

. S t ickm 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 . 04-3036

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 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 " Rom an sk y v . S t ickm an" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 530. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/530NOT 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- 3036

________________ S T E VE N L . RO M ANS KY, A ppel l ant v. W IL L IA M S . S T IC K M A N , S u p e rin ten d e n t; S H A R O N L . D ’E L E T T O , S u p e rin ten d e n t’s A ss ista n t; JE F F R E Y A . M A R T IN , C ap tai n /U n itM an ag er; SH A R O N A . SE B E K , L i br ar i an

____________________________________ 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 ( W . D . Pa. C i v. N o. 03- cv- 01053) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e D onet t a W . A m br os e

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A U G U ST 5, 2005 B efore: A L ITO , S M ITH A N D C O W E N , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: Sept ember19, 2005)

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________2

P E R C UR I AM St even Rom ans ky , a Penns y l vani a s t at e pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s an o rd e r o f th e U n ited S tate s D istric t 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 ism issi n g h is ci v il ri g h ts acti o n ag ains t pri so n o ff ici als an d em p loy ee s. W e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er. I n hi s compl ai nt , R om ans kyal l eges thathe tr i ed t o fi l e a ha beas pet i t i on i n D i s tr i ct C our t , and the C l erk r etur ned i tt o hi m beca us e he di d notpr ovi de the r equi r ed numberof copi es . R om ans kys t at es he s ubm i t t ed a r eques tt o pr i s on empl oy ees l ooki ng foran al t ernat i ve t o fi l e hi s pet i t i on, butt heyr eturned i t , s t at i ng thatthe pol i cyfori ndi gent i nm at es di d notappl yt o hi s fi l i ng. H e fi l ed a gr i evanc e, w hi ch w as deni ed. R om ans kyfur t heral l eges t hataft erhe t ol d a pr i s on empl oy ee thathe di d not re c e iv e a c o p yo f

h is g ri e v a n c e , h e re c e iv e d a m is c o n d u c t c h a rg in g h im w ith lyin g . A h ea ri n g ex am iner d ism issed the c h arg e w ith o u t prejud ice. A lth o u g h the f ac ts are u n clea r, t he s ame em pl oy ee then i s s ued anotherm i s conductcont ai ni ng the s ame char ges . A tt he s econd he ar i ng, t he exa m i nerfound R om ans kygui l t y , and i m pos ed a s anct i on of puni t i ve s e g re g a tio n . R o m a n sk ysu b m itt e d a d d iti o n a l re q u e sts f o r c o p ies o f

h is g rie v a n c e a n d h is m is c o n d u c ts , a n d d o c u m e n ts re la te d to h is g ri e v a n c e a p p e a ls , b u t d id n o t r e c e iv e th e m . H e fi l ed a s econd gr i evanc e al l egi ng deni al of ac ces s t o t he court s and the gr i evanc e s y s t em, and r et al i at i on. Pr i s on offi ci al s r es ponded thatthes e i s s ues w er e al r eady3

a d d re ss e d . R o m a n sk yf iled a th ird g rie v a n c e a f ter th e lib ra ryre f

u se d to c o p yd o c u m e n ts foranotherl aw s ui t , and off i ci al s r es ponded thatcopi es ar e notfr ee of char ge. R om ans kycl ai m s t he def endant s vi ol at ed hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o acc es s t o the cour t s , and r et al i at ed aga i ns thi m forat t empt i ng t o l i t i gat e and f orfi l i ng gr i evanc es . T he D i s t r i ctC our tadopt ed the M agi s t r at e J udge’ s r ecomm endat i on t o di s m i s s the compl ai nt undert he s cr eeni ng pr ovi s i ons of the Pr i s on L i t i gat i on R eform A ctforfai l ur e t o s t at e a cl ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef c an be gr ant ed. T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. O urs t andar d of r evi ew i s pl enary . See Tours cherv. M cC u ll o u g h , 1 8 4 F . 3 d 2 3 6 , 2 4 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). I n r ecomm endi ng t he di s m i s s al of R om ans ky ’ s acc es s t o cour t s cl ai m , the M agi s t r at e J udge corr ect l ys t at ed thatR om ans kyfai l ed t o al l ege thatthe habe as pet i t i on t hathe w as unabl e t o fi l e w as nonfr i vol ous , i dent i fythe under l y i ng caus e of a ct i on, and pl ead thathi s cl ai m w oul d pr ovi de a r emedythatcoul d notot herw i s e be obt ai ned. See C hr i s t opherv. H arbur y , 536 U . S. 403, 415 ( 2002) ( r equi r i ng s uch al l egat i ons t o s t at e an acc es s t o cour t s cl ai m ) . A s not ed bythe M agi s t r at e J udge, C hr i s t opherr equi r es that“the pr edi cat e cl ai m be des cr i bed w el l enough t o appl ythe ‘ nonfr i vol ous ’ t es tand t o s how t hat t he ‘ ar guabl e’ natur e of the under l y i ng cl ai m i s m or e than hope. ” I d. at416. R om ans ky h a s n o t m a d e th is s h o w in g . W e al so agree w i t h the D i stri ctC ou rtthat R om anskydo es not s t at e a F i rs t A m e n d m e n t cla im b a se d u p o n h is a lleg a tio n s th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts in ter f

e re d w ith , o r d idnotr es pond t o, hi s gr i evanc es . R om ans ky ’ s acc es s t o t he D i s t r i ctC our ts at i s fi es hi s r i ght

t o pet i t i on t he governm ent . See A nt onel l i v. Sheahan, 81 F. 3d 1422, 1430 ( 7 C i r . 1996) th ( hol di ng t he i nvocat i on of the j udi ci al pr oces s i ndi cat ed thatthe pr i s on had noti nfr i nged t he pr i s oner ’ s Fi r s tA m endmentr i ght s ) . I n addi t i on, i n l i ghtof the fa ctthathe w as found gui l t yof m i s conduct , R om ans kydoes nots t at e a r et al i at i on cl ai m bas ed upon hi s r ece i pt of a mi s conductaft erhe t ol d a pr i s on empl oy ee thata copyof hi s gr i evanc e w as l os t . See H ender s on v. B ai r d, 29 F. 3d 464, 469 ( 8 C i r . 1994) ( s t at i ng thata fi ndi ng thata pr i s oner th v io la te d th e ru le s c h e c k m a te s h is re ta lia tio n c la im ). R om anskyargues i n h i s bri ef t hat he st at es an E i gh t h A m end m ent cl ai m becau se h e m u st w rite e v e ry th in g h e f iles w ith th e c o u rts, c a u sin g e y e stra in a n d p a ra ly sis in h is hand, and he musts el l hi s m eal s t o aff or d l egal s uppl i es . W e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ct C our tt hatR om ans kydoes nots t at e s uch a c l ai m beca us e he ha s notbeen de pr i ved of the m inim al civil ized m ea su re o f li fe ’s ne ce ssit ies. S ee T il lm an v . L eb an o n C o u n tyC o rr. Faci l i t y , 221 F. 3d 410, 417- 18 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . W e al s o r ej ectR om ans ky ’ s ar gum entt hat he s t at es a cl ai m foroppr es s i on under18 Pa. C ons . St at . § 5301 beca us e he di d not i ncl ude thi s cl ai m i n hi s compl ai nt . Fi nal l y , the D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on in d e n y in g R o m a n s k y ’s m o tio n f o r a p p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n s e l. A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill a f f irm th e o rd e r o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.