2007 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 ir c uit 5-21-2007 

# Gordon v . L appin 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 . 06-4154

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2007

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 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 Third C irc 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 2007 D e c i sion s by an authori 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 more 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 " Gordon v . L app in" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1080. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2007/1080C L D - 198 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 . 06- 4154

________________ M I CH AE L L E E GOR DON, A ppel l ant v. HAR L E Y L AP P I N, Di r e c t o r ; M . V. P UGH; T R O Y W I L L I A M SO N , W ar den; M . J . O R N , A s s oc. W ar den; C H R IS T O P H E R M . A N G E L IN I; B . A L B E R T S O N , Inm ate S y stem s O ff icer; R O B E R T L . C O FFE E , E ducat i on Speci al i s t ; C H R I S JO H N SO N , E ducat i on S p e c i a l i s t ; ROBER T F . W OLE VER, Un i tM a n a g e r ; THAD J . HUEBLE R, Ca s e M a n a g e r ; E AR L F . F I S HE R, Co u n s e l o r ; DONN C . T RO T T M AN, Uni tM a n a g e r ; J ASO N B . BI RD SALL, Ca s e M a n a g e r ; J ON ATH AN GR I LL, Couns e l or ; J EFFR EY W . SI M PLER , Pr op e r tyO ff i c e r ; W A Y N E M . LA PP, M r. P ro p e rt yO f

f ic e r; D A N IE L P . W O M E L D O R F , S .H .U . L t.; U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A ; N O R B A L V A Z Q U E Z , E x e c u tiv e A ss ista n t; G. YOC UM ; J . M CC L US KY

____________________________________ 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 M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i v. N o. 05- C V - 00457) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e W i l l i am J. N eal on

_______________________________________ S u b mi t t e d F o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l Un d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) A pr i l 19, 2007 Be f o r e : REN DELL, SM I TH A ND J OR DA N, CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed M ay21, 2007)T he C our tdeni ed a l at erm ot i on t o amend t he compl ai nton A ugus t30, 2005. 1 2 _______________________ OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM M i chae l L ee G or don appea l s fr om an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfor th e M id d le D istric t o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia, g ra n tin g su m m a ryju d g m e n t to th e d e f e n d a n ts in h is ci vi l r i ght s cas e and di s m i s s i ng hi s compl ai nt . W e w i l l di s m i s s the appe al pur s uantt o 28 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ). G or don fi l ed a c om pl ai nti n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ctof C o lum b ia, w h ich w as tran sfe rred to the M idd le D istri ct of P en n sy lvan ia. T h e C o u rt gr ant ed G or don’ s m ot i on t o amend t he compl ai ntand fi l ed hi s amended compl ai nton A pr i l 29, 2005. T hatcompl ai ntal l eged thathe w as deni ed ac ces s t o the court s , and that 1 pr i s on offi ci al s r et al i at ed aga i ns thi m beca us e he ha d compl ai ned aboutbei ng deni ed acc es s t o the court s . T he D efe ndant s fi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s , ori n the al t ernat i ve, for su m m a ryju d g m e n t. A vi ol at i on of the Fi r s tA m endmentr i ghtof ac ces s t o the court s i s onl yes t abl i s hed w her e a l i t i gants how s thathe w as actual l yi nj ur ed bythe al l eged de ni al of ac ces s . T he a c tua l i nj uryr e qu i r e menti s a c on s t i tut i on a l pr e r e qu i s i t e t o s ui t . Lewi s v. Cas e y , 51 8 U. S. 343, 351 ( 1996) ; C hr i s t opherv. H arbury , 536 U . S. 403, 415 ( 2002) ( expl ai ni ng thatthe3

cons t i tut i onal r i ghtof ac ces s i s “anc i l l aryt o the under l y i ng cl ai m , w i thoutw hi ch a p lain tiff c a n n o t h a v e su f

f e re d in ju ryb yb e in g sh u t o u t o f c o u rt” ). A n a c tu a l in

ju ryis s how n onl yw her e a non- fr i vol ous , ar guabl e cl ai m i s l os t . C hr i s t opher , 536 U . S. at415. T o s t at e a va l i d r et al i at i on cl ai m , a pr i s onerm us tal l ege: “( 1) cons t i tut i onal l ypr ot ect ed co n d u ct; (2) a n ad v erse ac ti o n b yp ri so n o ff ici als su ff

ici en t t o d eter a p erso n o f o rdin ary fi r m nes s fr om exer ci s i ng hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s , and ( 3) a ca us al l i nk betw een the exer ci s e of hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s and the adve r s e ac t i on t aken a gai ns thi m . ”) . See M it ch ell v . H o rn, 31 8 F . 3 d 5 2 3 , 5 3 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). T h e D istri ct C o u rth ere p rop erlyfo u n d that G o rdo n co u ld n o t surv ive s u m m ary jud g m en t on eith er h is acc ess to the c o u rt s claim s o r his retali ati o n claim . T h e C o u rt d e ter m in e d th a t to th e e x ten t G o rd o n c o m p lain e d th a t h e w a s d e n ied a c c e ss to th e c o u rts w ith re g a rd to tw o c iv il ac tio n s, su m m a ryju d g m e n t w a s a p p ro p ria te b e c a u se h e f a iled to fi l e a br i ef i n oppos i t i on t o the def endant s ’ m ot i on w i th r es pectt o thos e cl ai m s . T he C o u rt d e ter m in e d th a t w ith re sp e c t to G o rd o n ’s tw o c laim s th a t h e w a s d e n ied a c c e ss to the court s w hen he mi s s ed a c our tdat e r el at i ng t o hi s di r ectcr i m i nal appea l and w hen he m issed a f

il ing d ea d li n e f

o r fil ing a p o st- co n v ict ion p eti ti o n , the a ll eg ati o n s w ere s uffi ci entt o s ur vi ve a mot i on t o di s m i s s , butdi d nots ur vi ve s um m aryj udgm ent . T he C our tnot ed thatG or don di d nots ubm i tanydocument at i on r el at i ng t o hi s di r ectcr i m i nal a p p e a l an d th u s f

a iled to su p p o rt h is c o n ten tio n th a t h e m iss e d a f ili n g d e a d lin e in h is di r ectappea l . Si m i l ar l y , al though G or don s ubm i t t ed a c our tor derdeny i ng hi s s econd4

po st -convict i on peti t i on as unti m el y , he d i d n ot s ub m i ta cou rtorder s ho w i ng that hi s fi rs t p o st- co n v ict ion p eti ti o n w as u n ti m ely , as h e a ll eg ed in h is co m p lai n t. T h u s, the C o u rt f o u n d th a t d e f

e n d a n ts w e re e n tit led to su m m a ryju d g m e n t o n th e a c c e ss to th e c o u rts cl ai m s.W i th r egar d t o the r et al i at i on cl ai m , the C our tfound thatal though G or don had s at i s fi ed the fi r s tpr ong of a r et al i at i on cl ai m bycl ai m i ng thathe had e ngaged i n pr ot ect ed c o n d u c t ( h is ri g h t to a c c e s s th e c o u rt s ), h e d id n o t s a tis f yth e s e c o n d a n d th ir d p ro n g s . T he C our tfound thatG or don coul d nots how adver s e ac t i on; i . e. , thathe w as det err ed fr om exer ci s i ng hi s r i ghtof ac ces s t o the court s , as he had 31 c i vi l act i ons pendi ng i n the M i ddl e D i s tr i ctal one atthe t i m e of the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s opi ni on. T he C our tal s o found thathe fa i l ed t o s how thatther e w as anycaus al l i nk betw een hi s compl ai nt s r egar di ng a c c e ss to th e c o u rts a n d th e a lleg e d a d v e rse a c tio n s (b e in g d e n ied c o rre sp o n d e n c e w ith o ther inm ates, acc ess to stat e law b o o k s, lega l ph o n e c all s, su p p li es, etc. ). T h e C o u rt th e r e f o r e d e n i e d s u mma ryj u d g me n to n th e r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m. A ft err evi ew i ng the D i s tr i ctC our tr ecor d, i ncl udi ng G or don’ s compl ai nt , the d ef en d an ts’ su m m aryjud g m en t m o ti o n an d G o rdo n ’s objecti o n s to the M ag istrate Ju d g e’s R eportand R ecomm endat i on, w e conc l ude thatG or don’ s appea l fai l s t o s t at e a c l ai m on wh i c h r e l i e f

ma yb e g r a n t e d . W e th e r e f o r e wi l l d i s mi s s th e a p p e a l p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ).