2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

2-28-2011

Detlef Hartmann v. Martin O'Connor

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 10-4521

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Detlef Hartmann v. Martin O'Connor" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 1735.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/1735
1 

CLD-106 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 ___________ 

 No. 10-4521 

 ___________ 

 DETLEF F. HARTMANN, 

 Appellant 

 v. 

MARTIN O'CONNOR; JOHN VAUGHN; JOHN YOUNG; HOLLAND, Judge; 

BERGER, Judge; RIDGELY, Judge; CARL C. DANBERG; KARL HINES; J. DOE I 

 ____________________________________ 

 On Appeal from the United States District Court 

 for the District of Delaware 

 (D.C. Civil No. 10-cv-00725) 

 District Judge: Honorable Sue L. Robinson 

 ____________________________________ 

 Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) 

 or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 

February 3, 2011 

 Before: RENDELL, FUENTES and SMITH, Circuit Judges 

 (Opinion filed: February 28, 2011) 

 _________ 

 OPINION 

 _________ 

PER CURIAM 

 Detlef Hartmann, formerly a prisoner at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center 

in Smyrna, Delaware, appeals from an order of the District Court dismissing as legally 

frivolous his pro se civil rights complaint. For the reasons that follow, we will summarily 
2 

affirm. 

 In 2001, Hartmann pleaded guilty to various sex offenses and was sentenced to ten 

years’ imprisonment, followed by nine years of decreasing levels of supervision. He is 

currently on monitored supervision until June 2012. In August 2010, he filed a complaint 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He named as defendants three Delaware Supreme Court 

justices, two Delaware Superior Court judges, a deputy attorney general, and the 

commissioner and the bureau chief of the Delaware Department of Corrections. He made 

the following allegations: (1) an error in a family law case that resulted in a “fraudulently 

brought criminal case;” (2) the denial of a writ of prohibition; (3) the denial of 

“constitutional rights through libraries and the Internet when there was no conviction of 

their use” (emphasis in original); (4) failure to train regarding Hartmann’s rights under 

the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); and (5) racketeering. 

 The District Court sua sponte dismissed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B) and found that amendment would be futile. Hartmann appealed. We have 

jurisdiction to hear this appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the District Court’s § 

1915(e) dismissal without leave to amend for abuse of discretion. Denton v. Hernandez, 

504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). To the extent that the District Court engaged in the choice, 

application, and interpretation of the law, our review is plenary. Deutsch v. United 

States, 67 F.3d 1080, 1083 (3d Cir. 1995). Summary action is warranted if an appeal 

presents no substantial question. LAR 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6. 

 Hartmann’s first and second claims cannot be brought in a § 1983 action. Since he 

is on supervised release, he is “in custody” for purposes of habeas corpus. Leyva v. 
3 

Johnson, 504 F.3d 357, 363 (3d Cir. 2007). Consequently, his remedy, if he has one at 

all, lies with 28 U.S.C. § 2254, not with § 1983. See Presier v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 

500 (1973) (“[W]hen a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his 

physical confinement [. . .] his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.”).1

 

 Hartmann next claims that he was denied his rights “through libraries and the 

Internet.” First, he brings this claim against Delaware judges. Judges have “absolute 

immunity from suit [and] will not be liable for [their] judicial acts.” Azubuko v. Royal, 

443 F.3d 303, 303 (3d Cir. 2006). It is clear from the complaint that Hartmann is 

complaining about actions taken by the judges in their judicial capacities. Thus, the 

judges have judicial immunity against these claims. 

Hartmann also brings his claim about libraries and the Internet against Delaware 

prison officials. Inmates have a right to meaningful access to the courts. Bounds v. 

Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 822 (1977). An inmate making an access-to-the-courts claim is 

required to show that the denial of access caused actual injury. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 

343, 352-53 (1996). Actual injury occurs when a prisoner demonstrates that a 

“nonfrivolous” and “arguable” claim was lost because of the denial of access to the 

courts. Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002). Here, Hartmann does not 

indicate how the defendants impeded his access to the courts, nor does he mention any 

nonfrivolous claims that he lost as a result. In fact, Hartmann has been the plaintiff in 

two other civil rights cases and one habeas corpus petition, as well as several state-court 

 

1

 We note that Hartmann has already sought habeas relief for his 2001 guilty plea, 

and we rejected his claim. See Hartmann v. Carroll, 492 F.3d 478, 484 (3d Cir. 2007). 
4 

challenges to his conviction. Thus, it appears that Hartmann was able to bring his legal 

claims while incarcerated. 

 Hartmann’s remaining claims warrant little discussion. He alleges that the 

defendants violated the ADA by failing to train state employees with regard to his 

disability. He does not explain what the state employees, whom he did not name as 

defendants in his complaint, improperly did or did not do, nor does he even state the 

nature of his disability. Moreover, a civil rights claim cannot proceed exclusively on a 

theory of respondeat superior. Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 

1988). He vaguely accuses the defendants of racketeering, but he does not allege any 

predicate racketeering acts or an injury to business or property, as required for a civil 

RICO claim. 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). 

We conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed 

Hartmann’s complaint, and that this appeal presents no substantial question. 

Accordingly, we will affirm the decision of the District Court. Hartmann’s motion for 

the appointment of counsel is denied.