A L D

- 0 9 2 NOT PRECED ENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 2 0

- 2 6 9 3

___________

G A R L A N D A D A M S

,

Appellant

v.

CORRECTIONAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM, ("Cer t");

JANE AND/ OR J OHN DOE CERT TEAM MEMBER(S);

SUPERI NTENDENT TAMMY FURGUSON, ("Furguson"); THOSE WHOSE

INVOLVEMENTS AND/ OR IDENTITIES ARE PRESENTLY NOT KNOWN,

in their individua l and off icial capacities

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the E a s t e r n D istr ic t of P e n n s y l v a n i a

( D.C. Civil Acti on No. 2

- 19

- cv

- 03301 )

District Judge: Honorable M i t c h e l l S

. G o l d b e r g

___________ _______________ __________

Submitted for Possible D i s m i s s a l P u r s u a n t t o 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B ) o r

Summary Action Pursuant to Third C ircuit L AR 27.4 and I.O.P . 10.6

F e b r u a r y 1 1

, 2 0 2 1

Before: MCKEE, GREENAWAY, JR., and BIBAS, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed April 26, 2021 )

_________

OPINION *

_________

* This dispos it i on i s not an opinion of the f ull C our t a nd pursu an t to I.O.P . 5. 7 does n ot

constitute binding preceden t

.2

PER CURIAM

A p p e l l a n t G a r l a n d A d a m s

, a n i n m a t e p r o c e e d i n g p r o s e a n d i n f o r m a p a u p e r i s

,

a p p e a l s f r o m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g h i s c o m p l a i n t f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a

c l a i m

. F o r t h e r e a s o n s t h a t f o l l o w

, w e w i l l s u m m a r i l y a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s

j u d g m e n t

.

Adams i s c u r r e n t l y i m p r i s o n e d a t t h e P e n n s y l v a n i a S t a t e C o r r e c t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e a t

P h o e n i x ( “ S C I

- P h o e n i x ” )

. H i s o p e r a t i v e a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t a s s e r t e d c l a i m s p u r s u a n t t o

4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 1 9 8 3 f

o r v i o l a t i o n s o f h i s F i r s t A m e n d m e n t r i g h t s t o f r e e e x e r c i s e o f r e l i g i o n

a n d F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t r i g h t t o e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n o f l a w

, a n d § 1 9 8 5 f o r c o n s p i r a c y t o

i n t e r f e r e w i t h h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n al r i g h t s

. H e a l s o a s s e r t e d v i o l a t i o n s o f t h e R e l i g i o u s L a n d

U s e a n d I n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d P e r s o n s A c t ( “ R L U I P A ” )

, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc

. H e c l a i m e d t h a t

w h e n p r i s o n a u t h o r i t i e s t r a n s f e r r e d h i m f

r o m S C I

- G

r a t e r f o r d t o S C I

- P h o e n i x

, t h e y

c o n f i s c a t e d n u m e r o u s p e r s o n a l i t e m s

, i n c l u d i n g “ l e g a l m a i l a n d t r i a l n o t e s ” a n d a

“ r e l i g i o u s n e c k l a c e r e f

l e c t i n g h i s I s l a m i c f

a i t h

. ” A m

. C o m p l

. a t 3

, 7

, E C F N o

. 1 0

. 1 I n

a d d i t i o n

, h e c l a i m e d t h a t a n u n k n o w n p e r s o n a m o n g t h e p r i s o n a u t h o r i t i e s d e f a c e d c e r t a i n

f a m i l y p h o t o g r a p h s b y s c r a w l i n g r a c i s t e p i t h e t s o n t h e m

, f o r w h i c h h e p r o v i d e d v i s u a l

e v i d e n c e

. S e e i d

. a t 3

, 1 1

. H e s o u g h t m o n e y d a m a g e s o n l y

.

1 As the District Co urt n ot ed

, Adams could not have sus tai ned a due p roces s claim

because Pennsylvania law provides an adequate post

- deprivation rem edy for his lost

personal property

. See Mem

. a t 7 n

. 4 , ECF No. 1 1

. Moreover

, Adams did not include any

st ate law claims r elated to th e alleged deprivation , nor did he provide a basis for

jurisdiction were his complaint liberally construed to in clude them

. Se e i d.3

S c r e e n i n g Adams ’ s i n i t i a l c o m p l a i n t p u r s u a n t t o 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( i i )

, t h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t f

o u n d t h a t i t f

a i l e d t o s t a t e a c l a i m a n d d i s m i s s e d i t w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e

.

A d a m s t h e n f

i l e d t h e o p e r a t i v e a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t

, n a m i n g t h e C o r r e c t i o n a l E m e r g e n c y

R e s p o n s e T e a m ( “ C E R T ” )

, S u p e r i n t e n d e n t T a m m y F e r g u s o n

, a n d v a r i o u s J o h n a n d J a n e

D o e s a s d e f

e n d a n t s

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t h e l d t h a t A d a m s h a d n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y c u r e d t h e

d e f e c t s i n h i s c o m p l a i n t t h r o u g h a m e n d m e n t a n d d i s m i s s e d w i t h p r e j u d i c e

, f i n d i n g t h a t

a n y f u r t h e r a m e n d m e n t w o u l d b e f u t i l e

. A d a m s t i m e l y f

i l e d a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l

. 2

We have jur isdicti on purs uant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291

. We review dismissal p ursuant

to § 1915 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( i i ) under the same de novo stan dard of review that we apply to our

re view of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Pr oced ure 12(b)(6 )

, s e e

Allah v. Seiverling

, 229 F. 3d 2 20, 223 (3d Cir. 2000)

, a n d may affirm o n a n y b a s i s

supported by the r ecord

, s e e Brightwell v. Lehman , 637 F.3d 187, 191 (3d Cir. 20 11)

. To

avoid dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), a civil complaint must set out “sufficien t factual

matter” to show t hat its claims are facially plausible. See Ashcrof t v

. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662,

678 ( 2009)

. We accept all factual allegations in the c ompl aint as t rue a nd construe those

facts in the light most favorab le to the plaintiff

, Flei sher v. Standard Ins. Co. , 679 F.3 d

1 16, 1 20 (3d Cir. 2012)

, a n d w e c onst rue A d a m s ’ s p r o se complaint liberally

, s e e

Erickson v. Pardus , 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (pe r curiam )

. We may summarily affirm if the

2 Due to d e l a y s r e l a t e d t o t h e C O V I D

- 1 9 p a n d e m i c

, Adams did not re ceive the District

Court ’ s disposition for several m o n t h s

. The D istrict Court granted his m o t i o n t o r e o p e n

t h e t i m e t o a p p e a l u n d e r F e d. R. A p p

. P

. 4 ( a ) ( 6 )

, s e e O r d e r

, E C F N o

. 1 4

, a n d his n otice of4

appeal fails to present a substantial questio n

. Se e Murray v. Bledsoe , 650 F. 3 d 246, 247

(3d Cir. 20 11) (per cu r iam); 3d Cir. L

. A

. R

. 27.4 ; I.O.P. 10.6

.

B e g i n n i n g w i t h t h e c l a i m s r e l a t e d t o t h e c o n f i s c a t i o n o f t h e r e l i g i o u s n e c k l a c e

, w e

a g r e e w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t h a t A dams ’s statutory claim fails

. RLUIPA does not permit

action s against s t a te o fficials in their in dividual capacities

, Sha rp v. Johnson , 669 F.3d

144, 1 53 (3d Cir. 2012 )

, a n d s t a t e s h a v e n o t w a i v e d t h e i r s o v e r e i g n i m m u n i t y f r o m

d a m a g e s s u i t s u n d e r t h e s t a t u t e

. Sossamon v. Texas , 563 U.S. 277, 293 (20 11 )

.

A d a m s a l s o c l a i m e d t h a t t h e c o n f i s c a t i o n o f h i s r e l i g i o u s n e c k l a c e v i o l a t e d h i s

F i r s t A m e n d m e n t r i g h t s

. T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s e s t a b l i s h e d a f o u r

- f a c t o r t e s t f

o r

e v a l u a t i n g p r i s o n e r s ’ f

r e e e x e r c i s e c l a i m s

. S e e T u r n e r v

. S a f l e y

, 4 8 2 U

. S

. 7 8

, 8 9

– 9 0

( 1 9 8 7 )

. “ [ A ] prerequisite to th e appli cat ion of Turner is the assertion of ‘ only those

beliefs which are b oth si ncerely held and religious in nature are entitled to constitut ional

protection. ’ The Constitution does not protec t ‘ mere a ssertion[s] of

. . . religious

beliefs. ’ ” Williams v . Morto n

, 343 F.3d 212, 217 (3d Cir. 2003) ( a l t e r a t i o n s i n o r i g i n a l )

( q u o t i n g DeH art v. Horn , 227 F.3d 47, 5 1 (3d Cir. 2000) (en banc) )

.

H e r e

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e m p l o y e d a t h r e s h o l d i n q u i r y : “ whe ther the prison’s

conduct has substantially burdened the pr actice of the i nmate

- plaintiff’s religion. ” M e m

.

a t 5

, E C F N o

. 1 1 ( q u o t a t i o n a n d c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d )

. T h i s t h r e s h o l d i n q u i r y a p p l i e s t o

c l a i m s u n d e r R L U I P A

, s e e 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 2 0 0 0 c c

- 1 ( a ) ; W a s h i n g t o n v

. K l e m

, 4 9 7 F

. 3 d 2 7 2

,

appeal was timely thereafter.5

2 7 7

– 7 8 ( 3 d C i r

. 2 0 0 7 )

, b u t w e h a v e c a l l e d i n t o d o u b t w h e t h e r i t a p p l i e s t o a c l a i m u n d e r

t h e F i r s t A m e n d m e n t

, s e e Willi a ms

, 343 F.3d a t 2 1 7

. R L U I P A o f f e r s g r e a t e r p r o t e c t i o n s

f o r p r i s o n e r ’ s r e l i g i o u s e x e r c i s e t h a n t h e F i r s t A m e n d m e n t

. S e e H o l t v

. H o b b s

, 5 7 4 U

. S

.

3 5 2

, 3 5 8 ( 2 0 1 5 )

. T h u s

, a c l a i m t h a t c a n n o t s a t i s f y R L U I P A ’ s t h r e s h o l d m e r i t s i n q u i r y

n e c e s s a r i l y f

a i l s a s t o t h e F i r s t A m e n d m e n t

. C f

. K o g e r v

. M o h r

, 9 6 4 F

. 3 d 5 3 2

, 5 4 3 ( 6 t h

C i r

. 2 0 2 0 ) ( h o l d i n g a f

a i l u r e t o s h o w substantial b u r d e n u n d e r R L U I P A p r e c l u d e d a n y

g e n u i n e d i s p u t e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t o n a f r e e

- e x e r c i s e c l a i m )

.

H e r e

, t h o u g h

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t r e a c h t h e m e r i t s o f t h e R L U I P A c l a i m

,

i n s t e a d d i s m i s s i n g i t f

o r t h e r e a s o n s discussed a b o v e

, a n d a p p l i e d t h e “ s u b s t a n t i a l l y

b u r d e n ” t h r e s h o l d i n q u i r y d i r e c t l y t o A d a m s ’ s F i r s t A m e n d m e n t c l a i m

. N o n e t h e l e s s

, i f

t h i s c o n s t i t u t e d e r r o r

, i t w a s h a r m l e s s

. S e e S h a r p

, 6 6 9 F

. 3 d a t 1 5 8 ( a p p l y i n g h a r m l e s s

e r r o r a n a l y s i s i n a f

r e e

- e x e r c i s e c o n t e x t )

. T h e c o m p l a i n t s t a t e d o n l y t h a t t h e m i s s i n g

n e c k l a c e r e f

l e c t e d A d a m s ’ s r e l i g i o u s f a i t h

, w i t h n o d e s c r i p t i o n o f h o w l o s i n g i t a f f e c t e d

h i s r e l i g i o u s p r a c t i c e

. R e g a r d l e s s o f w h e t h e r t h i s p l e a d i n g w o u l d m e e t R L U I P A ’ s

t h r e s h o l d i n q u i r y

, i t d o e s n o t s a t i s f y o u r p r e r e q u i s i t e f

o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e T u r n e r

f a c t o r s : t h e c l a i m f

a i l s f o r a m o u n t i n g t o n o t h i n g m o r e t h a n a “ m e r e assertion o f a

r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f

. ” D e H a r t

, 2 2 7 F

. 3 d a t 5 1

. A s s u c h

, w e w i l l a f f i r m t h e d i s m i s s a l o f

A d a m s ’ s F i r s t A m e n d m e n t c l a i m

.

T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a l s o c o n s i d e r e d w h e t h e r l i s t i n g l e g a l d o c u m e n t s a m o n g t h e

p r o p e r t y c o n f

i s c a t e d m e a n t t h a t A d a m s i n t e n d e d t o a s s e r t a F i r s t A m e n d m e n t c l a i m f o r6

d e n i a l o f a c c e s s t o t h e c o u r t s

. S e e L e w i s v

. C a s e y

, 5 1 8 U

. S

. 3 4 3

, 3 4 6 ( 1 9 9 6 )

. T h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t p r o p e r l y h e l d t h a t s u c h a c l a i m w o u l d f a i l b e c a u s e A d a m s d i d n o t a l l e g e a n y

“ a c t u a l i n j u r y ” o r i m p a i r m e n t o f h i s l e g a l r i g h t s d u e t o t h e a b s e n c e o f t h e m a t e r i a l s

. S e e

E C F N o

. 1 1 a t 4 n

. 2 ( q u o t i n g M o n r o e v

. B e a r d

, 536 F.3d 198, 205 (3d Cir. 2008) )

.

T h e r e m a i n d e r o f A d a m s ’ s c o m p l a i n t c e n t e r e d o n t h e p h o t o g r a p h s h e a l l e g e d w e r e

d e f a c e d b y t h e C E R T t e a m t h a t m o v e d h i s b e l o n g i n g s

, w h i c h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y

c o n s t r u e d a s a n e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n c l a i m

. “ To prevail on an equal protection claim, a

pla intiff mus t present evidence that s/he has been treated diff erently fro m persons who

are similarly s it uated. ” Williams , 343 F.3d a t 221

. T h e p h o t o g r a p h s a t t a c h e d t o t h e

a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t a r e u n d o u b t e d l y d e f a c e d w i t h r a c i s t e p i t h e t s a n d i m a g e r y

. Y e t w e

a g r e e w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t h a t t h o u g h t h e a c t i o n s A d a m s a l l e g e s a r e o d i o u s

, h e h a s n o t

s t a t e d a c l a i m f

o r a n e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n v i o l a t i o n

. R a t h e r t h a n a l l e g e h e w a s t r e a t e d

differently f

r o m o t h e r s s i m i l a r l y s i t u a t e d

, A d a m s a s s e r t e d t h a t C E R T “ m i s t r e a t [ e d ] ” a n d

“ a b u s e [ d ] ” o t h e r p r i s o n e r s ’ p r o p e r t y d u r i n g t h e m a s s t r a n s f e r f r o m S C I

- G

r a t e r f o r d t o

S C I

- P h o e n i x

. S e e A m

. C o m p l

. a t 4

. M o r e o v e r

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e x p l a i n e d t h e s p e c i f i c

d e f e c t s i n A d a m s ’ s i n i t i a l c o m p l a i n t i n d i s m i s s a l

, s e e E C F N o

. 6 a t 8

– 9

, a n d h e w a s

u n a b l e t o c u r e t h e m t h r o u g h a m e n d m e n t

.

A d a m s a l s o c l a i m e d t h e d e f e n d a n t s c o n s p i r e d t o d e p r i v e h i m o f h i s c i v i l r i g h t s

, i n

v i o l a t i o n o f 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 1 9 8 5

. See Brown v. Philip Morris Inc.

, 250 F.3d 789, 8 0 5 (3d

Cir. 2 00 1) ( e l a b o r a t i n g f

o u r

- p a r t t e s t f

o r § 1 9 8 5 c l a i m s )

. D e s p i t e t h e r a c i a l l y c h a r g e d7

w o r d s a n d i m a g e s o n t h e p h o t o g r a p h s

, A d a m s h a s n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y p l e a d e d f

a c t s a n d

c i r c u m s t a n c e s t o s u p p o r t t h e e l e m e n t s o f t h e c o n s p i r a c y

. I n h i s c o m p l a i n t a n d t h e

a p p e n d e d a f

f i d a v i t

, A d a m s a l l e g e d a g r e e m e n t a m o n g d e f e n d a n t s t o d e p r i v e h i m o f

p r o p e r t y

, b u t a s d i s c u s s e d a b o v e

, t h e r e w a s n o u n d e r l y i n g constitutional v i o l a t i o n o r

d e p r i v a t i o n o f c i v i l r i g h t s

. N e i t h e r d o e s t h e c o m p l a i n t s u f f i c i e n t l y a l l e g e a n y a g r e e m e n t

t o d e f a c e h i s p h o t o g r a p h s

. A s s u c h

, w e w i l l affir m t h e d i s m i s s a l o f h i s § 1 9 8 5 c l a i m

.

F i n a l l y , we conclude that the Dis tri ct Cou rt did n ot e rr by decli n ing t o g i v e Adams

a n oppor tunity to amend the complai nt a s e c o n d t i m e t o bette r support his claim s

. A s the

Dist rict Court explained, t h e f l a w s i n Adams ’ s c o m p l a i n t r e n d e r e d a n y f u r t h e r a t t e m p t a t

a m e n d m e n t f

u t i l e

. S e e Phillips v. Coun ty of A llegheny , 515 F.3 d 22 4, 2 45 (3d Ci r. 2008 )

.

For th e f oregoing reas o ns, Adams ’ s a p p e a l f a i l s t o p r e s e n t a n y s u b s t a n t i a l

q u e s t i o n

, a n d w e w i l l summarily affirm the Dist ri ct Cou rt’ s order dismissing this action

.