2009 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 7-28-2009 

# Hi ll ard W inn v . D ept of C orr 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 . 09-1653

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_2009

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 2009 D e c i sion s b y 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 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 " Hi ll ar d W

inn v . D ept of C orr " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 924. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/924CL D- 2 3 2 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. 09- 1653

___________ HI L L AR D M . WI NN,

A ppel l ant v . D E PA R T M E N T O F C O R R E C T I O N S; C A R R O L L D A N B E R G , C om m i s s i onerof

P r i s o n s ; W ARDEN P ERR Y PHE LP S ; TE D M ACCRE ANO R

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

forthe D i s tr i ctof D el aw ar e ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 08- cv- 00896) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le G re g o ryM . S lee t

____________________________________ 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 P u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) o r S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 B efor e: R E N D E L L , H A R D I M A N and N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J ul y28, 2009)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM H ill a rd M . W in n , an in m a te a t th e Ja m e s T . V a u g h n C o rre c tio n a l C e n ter in S m yrn a , D e law a re , ap p e a ls f ro m a D istric t C o u rt o rd e r d ism iss in g h is p ro se c iv il righ ts a c t i o n a s f

r i v o l o u s . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, we wi l l s u mma r i l ya f f i r m.2

I n Sept ember2006, W i nn w as convi ct ed i n a D el aw ar e s t at e courtand s ent ence d t o a 3 0-y ear pr i son term . S i nce h e has be en in pri son, W i nn has fi l ed a n um ber of p ro se a c tio n s, in c lu d in g a p p e a ls o f h is c o n v ictio n in sta te c o u rt a n d a h a b e a s c o rp u s p e tit io n in f e d e ra l co u rt. H e w a s s u c c e ss f u l in w ith d ra w in g a p o rtio n o f h is g u iltyp lea , an d h is h a b e a s p e tit io n is c u rre n tlyp e n d in g in th e D istric t C o u rt. W i nn i s i ndi gent . T he pr i s on i n w hi ch he i s s ervi ng hi s s ent ence has a pol i cyfor the l egal m ai l i ngs of i ndi gentpr i s oner s l i ke W i nn. T he pr i s on advanc es the moneyfor pos t age, keeps tr ack of

how m uch pos t age i thas advanc ed, and deduc t s thatamount fr om a n yf u n d s th a tth e p r i s o n e ro b t a i n s i n th e f u tu r e . I td o e s n o tp r o v i d e f r e e p o s t a g e . S o me of the l egal m ai l thatW i nn s enti n connec t i on w i th hi s di r ectappea l and hi s habea s pet i t i on w as r eturned bec aus e i tdi d notcont ai n a s t amp or a “pay - t o” s l i p. On De c e mb e r1 , 2 0 0 8 , W i n n f i l e d a p r o s e c i v i l r i g h t s a c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 4 2 U. S . C. § 1 98 3, al l eging t hat the p ri son’s m ai l po l i cyden i ed h i m access t o the cou rt s. H e al so al l eged thathe had f

i l ed a gr i evanc e cha l l engi ng thi s pol i cy , butthatthe w ar den deni ed th e g rie v a n c e a n d d id n o t g iv e h im th e o p p o rtu n ityf o r a n a p p e a l. W in n c laim s th a t th is w as a vi olat i on of h i s equal prot ect i on and du e process r i gh t s. B ef o re the d ef

en d an ts w ere serv ed w ith the c o m p lai n t, b yo rde r en tered F eb rua ry 18, 2009, the D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed W i nn’ s compl ai ntas fr i vol ous pur s uantt o 28A c o m p lain t is su b jec t to d ism iss a l u n d e r § 1 9 1 5 (e )(2 )(B ) “ w h e re it l a c k s a n a rg u a b le 1 bas i s i n l aw ori n fac t . ” N ei t zke v. W i l l i ams, 490 U . S. 319, 325 ( 1989) ; s ee a l s o R om an v. J eff es , 904 F. 2d 192, 194 ( 3d C i r . 1990) . T hi s s t andar d cover s both “i nar guabl e l egal concl us i on[s ] ” and “ fanc i ful fac tual al l egat i on[s ] . ” N ei t zke, 490 U . S. at325. W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o hearthi s appea l . 28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e r evi ew the D i s tr i ct 2 C our t ’ s § 1915( e) di s m i s s al w i thoutl eave t o amend forabus e of di s cr et i on. D ent on v. H ernandez , 504 U . S. 25, 33 ( 1992) . T o the ext entthatthe D i s tr i ctC our tengage d i n the choi ce, appl i cat i on, and i nt erpr et at i on of the l aw , ourr evi ew i s pl enary . D eut s ch v. U n ite d S ta te s , 6 7 F .3 d 1 0 8 0 , 1 0 8 3 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). 3 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o concl uded thatamendi ng the compl ai nt 1 w o u ld b e f

u til e . W in n f

iled a tim e lyn o tice o f

a p p e a l. 2 I. Pr i s on e r s ha ve a fu nd a ment a l r i gh tt o a c c e s s the c ou r t s . Lewi s v. Cas e y , 51 8 U. S. 3 4 3 , 3 4 6 (1 9 9 6 ). H o w e v e r, a p riso n e r m a k in g a n a c c e ss -to -th e -c o u rts c laim is re q u ire d to sh o w that the d en ial o f a cc ess c au sed ac tual injury . Id. at 35 2 -53 . A ctua l i n juryo cc u rs w hen a pri soner dem on strat es that a “non fri vo l ou s” and “ arguab l e” cl ai m w as l ost beca us e of the deni al of ac ces s t o t he court s . C hr i s t opherv. H arbury , 536 U . S. 403, 415 (2 0 0 2 ). H er e, W i nn al l eged thathi s l egal m ai l w as r eturned t o hi m beca us e i tdi d nothave p o s t a g e o ra “ p a y - t o ” s t a mp . E v e n c o n s tru i n g th i s c l a i m w i th th e l i b e r a l i tywi th wh i c h we r ead pr o s e compl ai nt s , s ee H ai nes v. K erner , 404 U . S. 519, 520 ( 1972) , W i nn has not m ade outan ac ces s - t o- the- court s cl ai m . I n hi s ar gum enti n s uppor tof appe al , W i nn cl ai m ed thatthe r eturned mai l caus ed hi s l egal comm uni cat i ons t o be del ay ed, and that th is d e lay af

f e c ted h is c a se s. W e n o te, h o w e v e r, th a t W in n p re v a iled in h is a ttem p t to4

w i thdr aw a port i on of hi s gui l typl ea. I n addi t i on, the docke ts heetforhi s habea s corpus pet i t i on does nots ugges tthatanyof hi s fi l i ngs w er e r ej ect ed as unt i m el y ; i ndeed, W i nn has fi l ed fi ve l ett er s and thr ee mot i ons i n thatcas e. T hus , W i nn has nots at i s fi ed the a c tu a l in ju ry re q u ir e m e n t. II . W e nextcons i derthe ar gum entthatthe w ar den vi ol at ed W i nn’ s equal pr ot ect i on and due pr oces s r i ght s byr efus i ng t o al l ow an appe al t o the gr i evanc e. “[T] he fi l i ng of pr i s on gr i evanc es i s a cons t i tut i onal l ypr ot ect ed ac t i vi ty . ” D avi s v. G oor d, 320 F. 3d 346, 352- 53 ( 2d C i r . 2003) . H ow ever , “[w ] hen the cl ai m under l y i ng the admi ni s tr at i ve gr i evanc e pr oces s i nvol ves a cons t i tut i onal r i ght , the pr i s oner ’ s r i ghtt o pet i t i on the governm entforr edr es s i s the r i ghtt o acc es s the court s , w hi ch i s notcompromi s ed byt he p ri so n ’s refu sal t o en tert ain h is grieva n ce . ” F li ck v . A lba, 93 2 F . 2 d 7 2 8 , 7 2 9 (11 th C ir . 1991) . H er e, the w ar den’ s r efus al t o al l ow the appe al w oul d al l ow W i nn t o over come an aff i r m at i ve def

ens e of e xhaus t i on. See 42 U . S. C . § 1997e( a) ; C amp v. B r ennan, 219 F. 3d 279, 281 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( not i ng thata pr i s on need onl yexhaus tthe admi ni s tr at i ve rem edies “as ar e avail able”) . H ow ever, the d enial of an app eal do es not i n it sel f give ri se to a c o n stitu tio n a l cla im , as W in n is s til l f re e to b rin g a c iv il righ ts c laim in D istric t C o u rt, as he did here. S ee F l i ck, 93 2 F . 2d at72 9. T he D i stri ctC ou rtproperl ydis m i ssed theseW e a g r e e wi th th e Di s tr i c tCo u r tth a ta n ya t t e mp tb yW i n n t o a me n d h i s c l a i ms 3 w o u ld h av e b ee n fu ti le. S ee O li v er v . F au v er, 11 8 F . 3 d 1 7 5 , 1 7 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). 5 cl ai m s. 3 III . Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e conc l ude thatthi s appea l pr es ent s no s ubs t ant i al q u e stio n . A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill su m m a rilya f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.