BLD-286 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-2693

___________

ERIC LYONS,

Appellant

v.

SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; DONALD KELCHNER; 

RICHARD SOUTHERS, ANDY HUBER; SHARON BURKS

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 07-cv-02278)

District Judge: Honorable Christopher C. Conner

____________________________________

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

September 8, 2011

Before: SLOVITER, JORDAN and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: September 27, 2011)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Eric Lyons, a prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from orders of the United States 

District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissing his civil rights action

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
2

I.

On April 5, 2006, Lyons was transferred from SCI-Fayette to the Special 

Management Unit (“SMU”) at SCI-Camp Hill. Shortly thereafter, the SMU Property 

Officer, Adam Huber, conducted an inventory of Lyons’ property. Because Lyons’ 

property exceeded the amount that prison regulations permitted him to keep in his cell, 

Officer Huber confiscated a portion of Lyons’ legal material.

1

 Lyons challenged the 

confiscation of his property through the prison administrative grievance process. When 

that process proved unsuccessful, Lyons filed a complaint in the District Court. Lyons

claimed that he was deprived of his property without due process, challenged the 

Department of Corrections’ (“DOC”) policy that limits the amount of property inmates 

may possess, and argued that his right of access to the courts was violated. He named as 

defendants Officer Huber, as well as prison officials who had participated in the 

grievance process. 

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Lyons did not suffer a due 

process violation because he had adequate post-deprivation remedies and that he had 

failed to exhaust any claim related to the prison’s policy of limiting SMU prisoners to 

one box of personal property. The District Court agreed with those arguments, but held 

that Lyons had set forth a viable access to the courts claim against Officer Huber. Officer 

Huber filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that Lyons had failed to 

 

1

Prior to the confiscation, Lyons was permitted to examine his legal materials, select 

those materials that he wanted to keep in his cell, and place the remainder in storage 
3

demonstrate that the confiscation of his property resulted in the loss of an arguable legal 

claim. After carefully examining Lyons’ criminal appeal proceedings, a Magistrate 

Judge concluded that Lyons’ ability to litigate his claims had not been prejudiced by the 

confiscation of his legal papers. Consequently, because Officer Huber had not violated

Lyons’ constitutional rights, the Magistrate Judge found that Officer Huber was entitled 

to qualified immunity. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232-33 (2009) (citing Saucier 

v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001)). Over Lyons’ objections, the District Court adopted 

the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and entered summary judgment in 

favor of Officer Huber. Lyons appealed. 

II.

We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “We review 

district court decisions regarding both summary judgment and dismissal for failure to 

state a claim under the same de novo standard of review.” Barefoot Architect, Inc. v. 

Bunge, 632 F.3d 822, 826 (3d Cir. 2011). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint 

must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is 

plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (internal 

quotations omitted). Summary judgment is proper where, viewing the evidence in the 

light most favorable to the nonmoving party and drawing all inferences in favor of that 

party, there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled 

 

boxes or have it sent outside the prison.
4

to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Kaucher v. Cnty. of Bucks, 455 

F.3d 418, 422-23 (3d Cir. 2006). 

III.

A. Due Process

The District Court properly granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. In his 

complaint, Lyons alleged that his legal materials were confiscated without due process. 

Importantly, however, deprivation of inmate property by prison officials does not state a 

cognizable due process claim if the prisoner has an adequate post-deprivation state 

remedy. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). Here, adequate remedies were 

available to Lyons, who sought relief through the prison’s administrative grievance

process. Tillman v. Lebanon County Corr., 221 F.3d 410, 422 (3d Cir. 2000) (holding 

that prison’s grievance program and internal review provide an adequate postdeprivation remedy to satisfy due process). 

B. Failure to Exhaust

Notably, however, Lyons failed to use that process to challenge the DOC policy 

that limits the amount of written material an inmate in the SMU may possess in his cell. 

See Sutton v. Rasheed, 323 F.3d 236, 241-42 (3d Cir. 2003) (describing property 

restrictions at the SCI-Camp Hill SMU). The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (the 

“PLRA”) requires that a prisoner pursue all avenues of relief available within the prison’s 

grievance system before bringing a federal civil rights action concerning prison 

conditions. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). This 
5

“exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they 

involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive 

force or some other wrong.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). A prisoner’s 

failure to substantially comply with the procedural requirements of the prison’s grievance 

system will result in a procedural default of the issue and effectively bar the inmate from 

bringing his claim in federal court. Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 231-32 (3d Cir. 2004). 

Lyons conceded that he did not raise the property limitation issue in his 

administrative grievance. He argued, though, that he should be excused from compliance 

with the exhaustion requirement because he was not permitted to challenge prison 

policies. In particular, Lyons claimed that inmates in the SMU may file grievances which 

pertain only to the propriety of their confinement in administrative custody. As the 

Magistrate Judge noted, however, while there are specific policies that govern challenges 

to administrative custody and inmate discipline, see DC-ADM 801 & 802, the inmate 

grievance review system is otherwise generally available to inmates in the SMU, see DCADM 804. Therefore, because Lyons had an available remedy to challenge the property 

limitation policy, but failed to utilize that that remedy, the District Court properly 

dismissed his claim. 

C. Access to the Courts

The District Court also properly granted Officer Huber’s motion for summary 

judgment on Lyons’ access to the courts claim. Prisoners have a right of access to the 

courts. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996). Importantly, however, where an 
6

inmate does not allege an actual injury to his ability to litigate a claim, his constitutional 

right of access to the courts has not been violated. See id. at 352-53. An actual injury is 

shown only where a nonfrivolous, arguable claim is lost. See Christopher v. Harbury, 

536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002). In this case, Lyons argued that the confiscation of his legal 

materials prevented him from pursuing a Brady claim in his state Post Conviction Relief 

Act (“PCRA”) appeal and in his federal habeas petition. The Brady claim was premised 

on the prosecution’s alleged failure to disclose police records pertaining to a purported 

alibi witness, Joan Edenfield. As the Magistrate Judge’s thorough review of the 

underlying state PCRA and federal habeas proceedings indicated, however, Lyons 

capably raised his Brady claim, but lost because his arguments were without merit.

Lyons’ legal materials were confiscated shortly after the PCRA court denied his 

petition. Nevertheless, Lyons continued to pursue the Brady claim in his appeal to the 

Pennsylvania Superior Court. The Superior Court denied the claim on its merits, holding

that because Lyons was aware of the potential alibi, the Commonwealth did not suppress 

information unknown to him or that he could not have obtained himself with reasonable 

diligence. Lyons reasserted the Brady claim in his federal habeas petition. The matter 

was referred to a Magistrate Judge, who recommended denying the Brady claim on its 

merits. Lyons v. Wilson, 2010 WL 2253751, at *16-19 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 10, 2010). In 

particular, the Magistrate Judge concluded that “the Commonwealth was not obligated to 

disclose the police notes from its interview with Edenfield” because Lyons, his mother, 

and a pastor who was assisting in the defense investigation had contacted Edenfield at 
7

least four times. Id. at *19. In addition, the Magistrate Judge held that “there was 

nothing that prevented [Lyons] from informing the Commonwealth well in advance of 

trial that [Edenfield] would be an alibi witness.” Id. Finally, the Magistrate Judge found 

that Edenfield’s testimony was not material to the defense, citing the “overwhelming 

evidence” of Lyons’ guilt, Lyons’ inconsistent accounts of his whereabouts, and various 

weaknesses in the evidence linking Edenfield to Lyons on the night of the crime. Id. 

Importantly, there is no indication that Lyons’ Brady claim was rejected because his legal 

materials were confiscated. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the District 

Court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Officer Huber. 

IV.

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that no substantial question is presented by 

this appeal. See I.O.P. 10.6. Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s 

judgment.