The Honor able Patric k J . Dug g an, United States District Judge f or th e E as tern District of * Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 10a0443n.06 No. 08-4060 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT NORMAN WHI TESI DE, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ON APPEALFROM THE ) UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT ) CO UR T F OR

TH E SO UT HE RN v . ) D IS T R IC T O F O H IO ) J ONDREA PARRI SH, et al., ) ) Def endants-A

ppellees )
BEFORE: M ARTIN and GRIF F IN, Circ uit Jud ges; and DUG GA N, District Judge
. * DUGGAN, DI S TR IC T J UDGE
. Norman Whiteside, an Ohio pr isoner, appe als the district court’s dismissal of his civil rig hts action broug ht pursuan t t o 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ag ainst J ondrea Parr is h a n d V irg inia Workman (collec tively

“def endants” ). De fenda

nts are state employ ees w orking at the Madison Corre ctional I nstitut ion (“MaCI ”) w here Whit eside pre viously was housed. Fo r t h e reasons set for

th below, we A FF I RM the district court’s dismissal of Whi teside’s laws uit a g a ins t de fe nd ants
. I. Whit eside wa s transfe rre d to MaCIfrom anothe r Ohio facility in 2001. When he ar rived at MaCI , Whit eside possesse d sever al bag s of leg al mater ials. Ohio Depa rtment of R ehabilitation and Correc tion ( “ODRC”) Reg ulation 59- L EG-01, based on O hio Administ rative Code Sec tion 5120-9-No. 08-4060 W hitesid e v . P arris h, e t al

. Pag e 2 33, require s th at p er s onal prope rty stored in an inmate’ s cell fit within a 2.4 cubic f oot container
. The re g ulation further

provides, howe ver, that an inmate may be g ra nte d permission to store persona l leg al materia l e x cee ding the allotted storag e spac e in a se cure location desig nated by the Warden. Whit eside re ceive d permission to store his excess leg al fil es i n a vault in his housing unit and wa s pr ov ide d tw o a dd iti on a l f oo tlo c ke rs in whic h to ke e p th os e mate ri a ls. Prior to 2002, Whi teside filed thre e lawsuits in the Ohio Court of Claims. He alleg es in the prese nt lawsuit that, in response to th e state cour t case s, the MaCIstaff la unched a waive of reta liatory attacks ag ainst him. He also alleg es that defe ndants targ eted him f or d i scriminatory tr e a tme nt b e c a

us e of his me mbe rs hip in t

he NA AC P. On Ap ri l 28 , 2 00 3, Whit e sid e re c e ive d p e rm iss ion to k e e p c e rt a in exc e ss l e g a l mate ri a ls i n his c ell over the wee kend. The following wee k, afte r Whit eside purportedly complained to prison staff that there w ere cer tain “discre panci es and impropr ieties” in MaCI ’s fisca l acc ounting p roce dures, his ce ll was shaken dow n and lef t in disarray . Day s later, pr ison officials sea rche d Whit eside’s c ell and conf iscated his excess l ega l m aterials. Whi teside wa s g iven the choic e of sending those materia ls or other pe rsonal items out of the prison or disposing of them; he selec ted the forme r. On Marc h 24, 2005, Whit eside filed this lawsuit alleg ing that defe ndants di s crimi nated ag ainst him and retaliated ag ainst him by confiscating his leg al mater ials. Whi teside complaine d that, as a r esult of the conf iscation of his leg al mater ials, he c o u l d n o t p re sent evidenc e at a trial
conce rning his property , expected to lose a c ase ag ainst the Ohio Parole B oard, la cked e vidence andNo. 08-4060 W hitesid e v . P arris h, e t al

. Pag e 3

As set forth inf

ra , the first ele ment of a F irst Amen d m en t re taliation claim is that the 1 plaintiff eng ag ed in protec ted conduc t. Thaddeus-X v. Blatter , 175 F.3d 378, 394 (6th Cir. 1999). De fe nd ants argue d b e low

tha t Whi te sid e c ou ld n ot s a tis fy thi s e le me nt b a se d on his fi lin g of laws uit s in t he Oh io C ourt

of Cla ims be c a

us e “ a pr iso ne r’ s [F ir st A me ndme nt] ri ght to a c c e ss t he c ourt s extends to di rec t appea ls, habea s corpus a pplications, and civil rig hts claims only .” Id . at 391. paper s for a

deposition in litigation aga inst MaCI which resulted in the di smissal of t he lawsuit, and lost another ca se dea ling with medica l malprac tice. Early in the proce eding s, defe ndants filed a motion to dismiss in which they raised se vera l defe nses to Whit eside’s claims, including that they wer e ti me-ba rre d. I n an opini on and orde r issued June 8, 20 06 , th e dis tr ic t c ourt he ld t hat Whi te sid e ’s cla im s w e re tim e -b arr e d, e xce pt h is c la ims alleg ing r etaliatory

confiscation of his lega l materials in April 2003, and denia l of his acc ess to the
c ourt s d ue to t he c on fi sc a tio n o f t

ho se mate ri a ls. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt c on c lud e d th a t th e se late r c la ims
surv ive d d e fe nd a

nts ’ m oti on

to d ism iss
. Whit eside ther eaf

ter filed thr ee motions for te mporary restra ining orders a nd/or preliminary injunctions , as k i n g t h e cour t to enjoin certa in conduct by defe ndants and other

MaCIstaff. The district court denie d Whit eside’s r equests for decla ratory relief
. On J une 18, 2007, defe ndants filed a motion for summar y judgme nt focusing on Whit eside’s
a bil ity to s a tis fy the e le me nts of

his re ta liatio n c la im. Al tho ug h n ot s pe c if ic a lly a dd re ssi nga se pa rate denial of a cce ss to the courts claim, def endants’ a

rg uments cover ed the merits of this claim in that the y argue d Wh ite sid e wa s n ot e ng a g e d in pr ote cte d act iv ity

wh e n h e fi le d la

ws uit s in the Oh io Court of Claims. Def

endants a lternatively

argued that they

wer e entitled to sovere ign a nd qualified 1 i m m u n i t y.No. 08-4060 W hitesid e v . P arris h, e t al

. Pag e 4
I n an opinion and orde r filed March 31, 2008, the district c ourt g rante d summary judgme nt to defe ndants, conc luding: “the rec ord is cl ea r t h at lawful re strictions on inmate proper ty wer e g ener ally en fo rced at MaCI during the re levant time per iod and that those re strictions were applicable to [ Whit eside] reg ardle ss of his activities.” On t he same date, the district court ente red judgme nt in defenda

nts’ favor . Whit eside filed a motion for rec onsideration, which the district court denied on June 30, 2008. This tim ely appea l followed.

II. On appe al, Whit es i d e challeng es the district cour t’s decisions deny

ing his re quest for injunctive relief

and g rantingdefe ndants’ summary judgme nt motion. As t o the latter motion, Whit eside a

rg ues that his fac tu al al l eg ations reg ardingreta liation, discrimination, and denial of
acc ess to the cour

ts raised g enuine issues o f m at erial fact that should have prec luded summary judgme nt in defenda

nts’ favor
. Whe the r Wh ite sid e de mon str a te d d isp ute d mate ri a l is su e s o f f a c t w ith r e sp e c t to his discrimination claim is not be fore this c ourt beca use the district c ourt dismiss ed this claim based on the applica

ble statute of limitations i n response to defenda nts’ motion to di smiss. W hiteside’s
c ha lle ng e to t

he dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de nia l of his re qu e st fo r inj un c tiv e re lie f a g a ins t de fe nd ants a lso is not be fore this court beca

use his reque st is moot . Whit eside is no long er c onfined at the corr ectional instit ution where defe ndants are employ ed. See Ke nsu v. Haigh , 87 F.3d 172, 175 ( 6th Cir. 1996). We m us t add res s, ho we ve r, Whit e sid e ’s a sse rt ion (e ve n th ou g h th is i s his appea l) that the district court’s de cision g rantingsummary judgme nt to defenda nts did not constit ute a f inalNo. 08-4060 W hitesid e v . P arris h, e t al

. Pag e 5

Whit eside a lso asserts that the dist rict court failed to a ddress his discrimination claim. As 2 set forth e arlier , howeve r, the c ourt ruled in re sponse to defe ndants’ motion t o dismiss that Whit eside’s discr imination claim was time-bar red. a pp e a la ble or de r b e c a

us e the c ourt

did no t a dd re ss Wh ite sid e ’s de nia l of a c c e ss to the c ourt c la im. 2 See Bo nn e r v . P e rry , 564 F.3d 424, 426 (6th Cir. 2009) (addressing the finalit y of the district cour

t’s decision su a s

po ntebeca

use the c ourt of appe als is under a n independe nt obligation to police its own jur isd ic tio n)
. Con str

uin g his pr o s e c omp la int lib e ra lly , s e e Fran k

lin v . R os e , 7 65 F .2 d 8 2, 85 (6 th Cir. 1986), Whit eside a lleg e d two separate First Amendme nt claims that were timely filed ac cording to t he dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de c isi on on de fe nd ants ’ m oti on

to d ism iss : ( 1) re ta liatio n and (2 ) de nia l of his
acc ess to the cour

ts. W hen rulingon defe nd an t s ’ m o t i o n for summary judgme nt, however , the district court only

addre ssed W hiteside’s retaliation claim. Neve rtheless, the c ourt then direc ted the cler k to enter a

final judg ment in the action. “The courts of a

ppeals . . . have jurisdiction of appe als from a ll final decisions of the district courts of the United States . . . except whe re a direc t reviewmay

be had in the Supre me Court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A decision is final for purposes of § 1291 if the district court’s de cision “‘e nds the litigation on the mer its and leave s nothing for t h e co u rt to do but ex ecute the judg ment.’” Van Cau we nb e rg

hev . B iar d , 4 8 6 U. S
. 5 1 7 , 5 2 1 , 1 0 8 S
. C t
. 1 9 4 5 , 1 9 4 9 (1 9 8 8 ) ( qu o t i n g Catli n v. United States , 324 U.S. 229, 233, 65 S. C t. 631, 633 (1945))
. I n contra st, a district court’s “ dismiss al of a sin g l e c l a i m f

r o m a l aw s u i t c o mp r i s i n g s e v e r a l c l a i m s i s n o t f i n a l f o r p u r p o s e s o f app e a l. F ull opportunity

for rev i ew of the dismissal would be available [only ] following the disposition of the
rema ining c laims” In re Rom ulus Cmty. Sch. , 729 F.2d 431, 440 (6th Cir. 1984)
. This panel finds that w hil e the dis tr ic t c ourt in t he ins tant c a se did no t a dd re ss a ll o f Wh ite sid e ’s tim e ly -f ile d c la ims ,No. 08-4060 W hitesid e v . P arris h, e t al

. Pag e 6
the cour t’s summary

judgme nt decision neve rtheless “eff ectively ended the litigation and thus constituted a final order for the purposes of a ppellate r eview.” BKC

AP , LLC v . Ca pte c Fran c his e Trust 2000-1 , 572 F.3d 353, 358 ( 7th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks and c itation omit ted). The distri ct co u rt ’s d ec i s i o ngra n t i n g s u m m ary j u d gm en tt o d ef

en d an t s an d

o rd er ing the court cler k to enter a

final judg ment ref

lects an intent to end the litigation, with nothi ng “le[ft] for the court to do but ex ecute the judg ment.” Van Cauwenberghe , 486 U.S. at 5 2 1 , 108 S. Ct . at 521. “The intention of the judg e is cruc ial in determining finality .” Vaughn v. Mobil Oil E xp l o r a t i on & Producing SE, Inc

. , 8 9 1 F
. 2 d 1 1 9 5 , 1 1 9 7 ( 5 t h C i r. 19 90 ); s ee also Peabody Coal Co. v. Local Un ions Nos. 1734, 1508, 1548 Unit ed MineW orkers of Am. , 484 F.2d 78, 84 ( 6th Cir. 1973).

“ Mo re ov e r, the Sup re me Court ha s c on sis te ntl y e mph a size d that, c on so na nt wi th le g isl a tiv e int e nt, a ‘pr actica l rather

than a tec hnical construc tion’ best serve s the pol icies underly ing the purposes of the finality

require ment.” Vaughn , 8 9 1 F. 2 d at 1 1 9 7 (q u o t i n g Forgay v. Conrad , 47 U.S. (6 How.) 20 1, 12 L .E d. 40 4 ( 18 48 ); Ei se n v . Ca rli

sle& J ac qu e lin , 41 7 U. S. 15 6, 94 S. Ct. 21 40 (1 97 4) ); see also Peabody Coal , 484 F.2d at 84. III
. This court reviews a district court’s summary judgme nt determination de novo
. Me d. Mu t. of Ohio v. K. A ma l i a E n ter. Inc. , 5 48 F .3 d 3 83 , 3 89 (6 th C ir . 2 00 8) . Summa ry jud g me nt i s
a pp ro pr ia te if

, ta kin g the e vid e nc e in the lig ht m os t f a vo ra ble to t he no nmo vin g pa

rt y , “ the ple a din g s, the discover

y and disclosure materia ls on file, and a ny aff idavits show that there is no g enuine issue as to any materia l f

act and that the movant is e ntitled to judgme nt a s a matter of law.” Fe d. R. Civ. P. 5 6( c )( 2) . T he c e ntr a l in qu ir y is “ wh e ther

the e vid e nc e pr e se nts a

su ff ic ie nt d isa g re e me nt t oNo. 08-4060 W hitesid e v . P arris h, e t al

. Pag e 7

I n th e ir summa ry jud g me nt m oti on , d e fe nd ants argue d th a t Whi te sid e c ould no t est a bli sh 3 that he wa s e ng a g e d in

pr ote c te d a c tiv ity

ba se d on his fil ing of laws uit s in the Oh io Court of Cla ims
. The d is tr ic t c o u rt f

o u n d it u n n e c e s s ar

y to r e s o lv e w h e th e r

th o s e la w s u it s c o n s ti tute d

p rotec ted a c tiv ity be c a us e Whit e sid e a lso a lle g e d th a t de fe nd ants re ta liate d a g a ins t hi m du e to h is m e mbe rs hip in t he NA AC P and

c omp la int s a

bo ut t he pr iso n’ s f

isc a l a c c ounti ngpr oc e dures . De fe nd ants a lso argued that their a lleg ed conduc t did not constitute adver se action beca use the conduct did not deter W hiteside fr om c on tin

uin g to e ng a g e in l iti g a tio n a c tiv iti e s. Th e d i s tr ic t c ourt re je c te d th is a

rgume nt, qu o t i n g Thaddeus-X v. Blatter , 175 F.3d 378, 398 (6th Cir. 1999), and c oncluding that it is not the pla i n t i f f ’ s s u b j e c t i v e r e s p o n s e t h a ti s d e t e r m i n a t i v e b u tw h e t h e r

“ a p e r s o no f

o r d i n ar y f i r m n e ss” wo uld be de te rr e d b y

the de fe nd ant’ s a c tio ns . require submissi on to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must preva il as a matter of law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, I nc. , 477 U.S. 242, 251-52, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2512 (1986).

I V. The e lements of a F irst Amendment re taliation claim are : (1 ) t he pla int if

f en g a g e d in pro te c te d co nd uc t; (2 ) an a dv e rs e a c tio n wa s tak e n a g a ins t t h e p l ai n t i ff t h at wo u l d

d et er a p er s o no f o rd i n ary

fi rm n es s fr o m co n t i nu i n g t o en gage in that conduct; and ( 3) there is a ca usal conne ction betwee n elements one and two– that is, the adver se action wa s motivated at least in par t by the plaintiff’s pr otected c on du c t. Thaddeus-X v. Blatter , 175 F.3d 378, 394 ( 6th Cir. 1999). Even if the plaintiff establishes a ll three elements, the defenda

nt may avoid l iability by showing “that he would have taken the same ac tion in the absence of the protected activity .” Id . at 399. Althoug h defe ndants argued bef ore the district court that Whiteside could not establish any of the e lements set forth above, the district court foc used on the last fac tor (i.e. whe ther they would have take the sa m e ac t i o n in the absenc e of the alleg ed pr ote c te d a c tiv ity

) i n g ra nti ngsumma

ry jud g me nt t o d e fe nd ants
. 3No. 08-4060 W hitesid e v . P arris h, e t al

. Pag e 8
I n April 2003, defe ndants forc ed Whiteside to make a de cision reg ardingthe excess leg al materia ls found in his cell. Defe ndants dec lare that Whit eside wa s forc ed to make that dec ision, not in retaliation for his F irst A mendment activities, but beca use he w as re peate dly

in violation of prison
r e g u l a t i o n s t h a tr e qu i r e i n m a t e p r o p e rt y t o f i tw i t h i nt h e d e f

i n e d s p a c e o f 2
. 4 c u b i c f e e t
. A p p ar e n t l y, in April 2003, Whit eside had materia l that could not even f it within t he excess storag e spac e he ha d been a llotted. Whit e sid e do e s n ot d isp ute that pr iso n r e g ulatio ns re qu ir e a ll inm a te s to sto re the ir pr op e rt y in a 2. 4 c ub ic fo ot s pa c e un le ss they sp eci fi cally have be e n g ra

nte d p e rm iss ion

to k e e p e xce ss materia l and that “e very

bo dy ” at Ma CIwas re quired to comply with the regulations unless such pe rm iss ion

ha d be e n g ra

nte d. Whit e sid e c la ims , ho we ve r, that he wa s g ra nte d p e rm iss ion

to p os se ss
e xce ss l e g a l mate ri a ls a

nd de fe nd ants fa ile d to c omp ly wi th t he pr oc e dure s set for th in O hio Ad min istrativ e Cod e Se c tio n 5 12 0- 9- 55 wh e n th e y c on fi sc a te d th os e mate ri a ls. First, Whiteside fails to indicate how defe ndants violated t he proc edure s set forth in Section 5120-9-55. Sec ond, even if Whit eside initially

had bee n g rante d permission to k ee p ex cess leg al materia ls in his cell and outside his locker, defenda nts had the a

uthority to revoke that permission and enf orce ODRC-59-L EG-01. As indicated ea rlier, Whiteside ac knowledg ed that all prisoner s
wer e re quired to comply

with the regulation. For the ab o v e reasons, the undisputed evidenc e pre sented be low demonstrated that defe ndants would have confiscated Whiteside’s leg al m ater ials even in the abse nce of his protected conduct. This pane l theref ore c oncludes that the district c ourt proper ly g rante d summary

judgme nt to d e fe nd ants wi th r e sp e c t to Whit e sid e ’s re ta liatio n c la im. Whil e the dis tr ic t c ourt did no t a dd re ssNo. 08-4060 W hitesid e v . P arris h, e t al

. Pag e 9

The pa nel will consider Whiteside’s denia l of acc ess to the courts claim in the first instance 4 be c a us e the pa rt ie s a dd re sse d th e me ri ts of the c la im i n th e ir ple a din g s b e low , r e so lvi ngthe c la im only require s the panel to addr ess a que stion of law, and “ the prope r re solution i s bey ond any doubt.” Me ad or v . Ca bin e t fo r H

um an Re s. , 9 02 F .2 d 4 74 , 4 77 (6 th C ir . 1 99 0) ; City Mgmt. Co r p . v. U.S. Chem. Co. , 43 F.3d 244, 255 ( 6th Cir. 1994). Whit eside’s de nial of ac cess to the c ourts claim, re solution of t hat claim still results in the dismiss al of Whit e sid e ’s laws uit
. 4 A prisoner

asser ting a First Amendme nt denial of a cce ss to the courts claim m ust “show an actua l injury

to a non-fr ivolous lega l proce eding arising from the de fenda nt s ’ all eg ed conduc t.” Da v is v . P owe ll , 9 1 Fe d
. Ap p ’x 4 9 5 , 4 9 6 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) (u np u b l i s h ed o p i n i o n ) ( c i t i n g Lewis v. Casey , 518 U.S. 343, 351, 116 S. C t. 2174, 2180 (1996)). While pris o ners e njoy a constitutional rig ht of acc ess to the courts, se e Bo un ds v . S mi th , 430 U.S. 817, 821, 97 S. C t. 1491, 1494 (1977), that rig ht is not wit hout limi t. See Lewis v. Casey , 518 U. S
. 3 4 3 , 116 S. Ct . 2174 (1996). As the Supreme Court re asoned in Le wis :

. . . Bounds do e s n ot gua

ra nte e inm a te s th e wh e re wi tha l to tr ans fo rm the mse lve s in to lit ig a tin g e ng ine s c a

pa ble of fi lin g e ve ry

thi ngfr om s ha

re ho lde r d e ri vativ e a c tio ns to slip-and-fa ll claims. The tools it require s to be provided are those that the inmates ne e d in or de r t o atta c k th e ir

se nte nc e s, dir e c tly

or c oll a te ra lly , and in o rd e r t o c h a l l e n g e t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e i r c o n f i n e m e n t
. Im p a i r

m e n to f an y other

litigating capa city is simply one of the i ncidental (and per fec tly constitutional) conseque nces of convic tion and incar cer ation. 518 U.S. at 355, 116 S. Ct. at 2182 (empha sis in original). I n short, “a pr isoner’s r ight to ac cess the courts extends to direct appe als, habe as cor pus applic a

ti o n s , a n d civil rig hts claims only .” Tha dd e us -No. 08-4060 W hitesid e v . P arris h, e t al

. Pag e 10

I n th e dis tr ic t c ourt

pr oc e e din g s, Whit e sid e te sti fi e d duri nghis de po sit ion that de fe nd ants ’ 4 c on fi sc a tio n o f h is l e g a l mate ri a ls i n Apr il 20 03 int e rf e re d wi th h is p ro se c uti on of fi ve laws uit s in the Ohio Court of C laims. Whit eside did not raise a direc t or collater al attac k on his sentence in any of these c ases and, fr om what the re cord showe d, he did not alleg e a violation of his constitutional ri g hts in fo ur of the fi ve c a se s. As to the re ma ini ng laws uit , Whit e sid e vo lun tari ly dis mis se d th e c a se in 2001– be

for e de fe nd ants c on fi sc a te d h is l e g a l mate ri a ls. X , 1 75 F .3 d at 39 1. No ne of the laws uit s White sid e ide nti fi e d be low a s hav ing be e n in te rf e re d w ith by the c on fi sc a tio n o f h is l e g a l mate ri a ls f a ll w ith in t

he se c a te g or ie s. 4

V. For the above rea sons, we AF F IRM the jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt
.