2010 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 3-11-2010 

# Ru s sell T insley v . G iorl a 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 . 08-2295

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_2010

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 2010 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 " R us s ell Tin sley v

. G iorl a" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1746. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/17461 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. 08- 2295

___________ RU S S E L L T I NS L E Y, A ppel l ant

v . GI OR L A, WARDE N; BU T L E R, M S . DE P UT Y WARDE N; N O R T H , C /O ; W H E E L E R ; R O D N E Y B R O C K E N B R O U G H ; C U F F E E , S E R G E A N T ; L E O N A . K IN G , II; KNI GHT , L I E UT E NANT ; S P E L L M AN, L I E UT E NANT

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 05- cv- 2777) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le T h o m as N . O ’N eil l, Jr.

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 2, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , C H A G A R E S and W E I S, C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ar ch 11, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C U R I A M.

A ppel l antR us s el l T i ns l eyappea l s fr om the or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a gr ant i ng D efe ndant s ’ m ot i on for2

s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. W e w ill a f f ir m . I. In J u n e 2 0 0 5 , T in s le yf

ile d a p ro s e c iv il r ig h ts c o m p la in t u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1983 agai ns ts ever al curr entand form erPhi l adel phi a Pr i s on Sy s t em (“ PPS ”) offi ci al s and em p loy ee s all eg ing that theyd en ied h im ac ce ss to the co u rt s. A fter the D istri ct C o u rt appoi nt ed couns el t o r epr es enthi m , T i ns l eyfi l ed an a m ended c om pl ai ntpur s uantt o § 1983 agai ns tL eon K i ng ( then- C om m i s s i onerof PPS ) ; L oui s G i or l a ( then- W ar den of C u rran -F rom h o ld C o rrecti o n al F ac il ity(“C F C F ”)); C F C F D ep u tyW ard en O sie B u tl er; C FC F C orr ect i onal O ffi cerW heel er ; C FC F C orr ect i onal O ffi cerL or enzo N or th; R odney B roc k en b rou g h (th en -W ard en o f P h il ad elph ia Ind u str ial C o rrecti o n C en ter (“P IC C ”)); PI C C Ser geantN aki a C uffe e; PI C C L i eut enantC ar ol K ni ght ; and PI C C L i eut enant D eurw ar d Spel l m an.

I n t he amended compl ai nt , T i ns l eyal l eged thathe s uffe r ed var i ous vi ol at i ons of hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s , begi nni ng i n M ar ch 2005, w hi l e he w as i n cus t ody atboth C FC F and PI C C . Speci fi cal l y , T i ns l eyr ai s ed the fol l ow i ng cl ai m s i n the amended c o m p lain t: (1 ) in a d e q u a te a c c e ss to th e p riso n law lib ra ryin v io latio n o f th e F o u rte e n th A m endment ; ( 2) deni al of l egal corr es pondence i n vi ol at i on of the Fi r s tA m endment ; ( 3) s ei zur e of l egal paper s i n vi ol at i on of the Four th A m endment ; ( 4) r et al i at i on for exerci si ng his con st i tuti on al ri gh t s i n v i olat i on of the F i rs tand F ou rt eenth A m end m ents ; a n d (5 ) c ru e l an d u n u su a l p u n ish m e n t in v io latio n o f th e E ig h th a n d F o u rte e n th3

A m end m ents . T i ns l eypr i m ar i l yar gues thathe w as deni ed r eas onabl e ac ces s t o the l aw l i br ar i es atboth fac i l i t i es , pr ohi bi t i ng hi m fr om adequa t el ypr epar i ng forhi s s t at e cr i m i nal c a se . S p e c if

ica lly , h e c o m p lain e d th a t b e c a u se h e h a s b e e n re p re se n tin g h im se lf in h is cri m i nal act i on , he sho uld have been given da i l yaccess t o the l aw l i brary , t otal i ng atl east f if tee n to tw e n tyh o u rs p e r w e e k . A lth o u g h th e re c o rd in d ica tes th a t T in sle ysig n e d in to the l aw l i br aryfi fty - tw o t i m es fr om M ar ch 2005 thr ough N ovember2005, he al l eges t hat D ef en d an ts de n ied h im ac ce ss o n n u m ero u s o cc asio n s, ev en af ter he sign ed in. H o w ev er, athi s depos i t i on, T i ns l eyw as unabl e r eca l l the exa ctnum berof t i m es thathe w as deni ed l i br aryacc es s des pi t e havi ng s i gned i n.

In N o v em b er 2 0 0 5 , T insleyw as h ir ed as a law li b rarytr aine e a t PIC C . In thatpos i t i on, he w as as s i gned t o t he l i br aryfi ve day s eac h w eek f orappr oxi m at el yfi ve hour s perday . A l though T i ns l eycl ai m ed thatdur i ng thatt i m e he a s s i s t ed otheri nm at es a n d d id n o t w o rk o n h is o w n c a se , D e f e n d a n t S p e llm a n tes tifie d th a t h e f ire d T in sle yin F e b ru a ry2 0 0 6 b e c a u se h e w a s n o t h e lp in g o th e r in m a tes w ith th e ir c a se s a n d h e f a iled to per form hi s dut i es i n t he l i br ary . O ne w eek a ft erT i ns l eyw as fi r ed atPI C C , he w as tr a ns fe rr e d b a c k t o CFC F.

In M arc h 2 0 0 6 , T insley ’s l aw li b raryan d lega l m ail ing p ri v il eg es w ere re v o k e d p u rsu a n t to a n o rd e r e n ter e d b yth e C o u rt o f C o m m o n P lea s o f

P h ilad e lp h ia C ounty . I n A ugus t2006, the C our tvaca t ed i t s ear l i eror derand r ei ns t at ed Ti ns l ey ’ s l awT in sle yc h a llen g e s th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r o n lyw ith re sp e c t to h is a c c e ss -to -c o u rts 1 c la im a n d h is re ta lia tio n c la im . A c c o rd in g ly, re v ie w o f a ll o th e r c la im s h a s b e e n w a iv e d . S ee K ostv. K ozak i ew i cz, 1 F . 3d 17 6, 18 2 (3d C i r. 19 93 ) ( an is sue i s w ai ved un l ess a p artyraises itin it s o p en ing b ri ef ). 4 li b raryan d lega l m ail ing p ri v il eg es. T insleyclaim s tha t eve n af ter his privil eg es w ere rei nst at ed, he w as not gr anted adeq uate access t o the l aw l i braryatC F C F . T i nsl eyal so al l eged thatD efe ndant s engage d i n atl eas ts i x i ns t ance s of r et al i at i on agai ns thi m dur i ng hi s t i m e atC FC F and PI C C as a r es ul tof hi s compl ai ni ng aboutl ack of l i br aryacc es s as w e ll a s h is f

ilin g o f g ri e v a n c e s a g a in s t o f

f ic ia ls w h o d e n ie d h im a c c e s s . A t th e c lo se o f

d isc o v e ry , D e f

e n d a n ts m o v e d f

o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t o n a ll o f T insley ’s claim s. A fter rev iew ing the p arti es’ a rgu m en ts, the D istri ct C o u rt det erm i ned thatno genui ne i s s ues of m at er i al fac texi s tw i th r es pectt o T i ns l ey ’ s § 1983 c laim s, a n d g ra n ted D e f e n d a n ts’ m o tio n f

o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. T in sle yf iled a tim e ly appea l of the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s det erm i nat i on. 1 II. W e hav e j uri sdi ct i on ov er the ap peal und er 28 U . S . C . § 1 29 1 an d ex erci se pl enaryr evi ew overthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on t o gr ants um m aryj udgm ent . M cG r eevy v. St r oup, 413 F. 3d 359, 363 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . Sum m aryj udgm enti s appr opr i at e w hen the “pl eadi ngs , the di s coveryand di s cl os ur e mat er i al s on fi l e, and anyaff i davi t s s how that th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e a s to a n ym a ter ial f a c t an d th a t th e m o v a n t is e n tit led to jud g m en t as a m att er o f law . ” F ed . R . C iv. P. 56 (c). A co u rtrev iew ing a su m m ary5

j udgm entm ot i on m us teval uat e the evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the nonm ovi ng partyand dr aw al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s i n thatparty ’ s favor . B r ew erv. Q uakerSt at e O i l R ef. C orp. , 72 F. 3d 326, 330 ( 3d C i r . 1995) . H ow ever , a partyoppos i ng s um m aryj udgm ent“mustpr es entm or e than j us t‘ bar e as s ert i ons , concl us oryal l egat i ons o r s u s p ic io n s ’ t o s h o w th e e x is te n c e o f a g e n u in e is s u e .” P o d o b n ik v . U .S . P o s ta l S e rv ., 4 0 9 F .3 d 5 8 4 , 5 9 4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). III .

A c c e ss to C o u r ts C la im Fi r s t , the D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l yconcl uded thatT i ns l eyw as unabl e t o s et for th fac t s demonstr at i ng thathe s us t ai ned an a ctual i nj uryas a r es ul tof the al l eged de ni al of ac ces s t o t he l aw l i br ar i es atC FC F and PI C C . A s m ent i oned, T i ns l eyal l eged that De f e n d a n t s ’ f

a i l u r e t o g r a n th i m a r e a s o n a b l e a mo u n to f t i me i n th e l a w l i b r a r i e s a tCF CF and PI C C – acc or di ng t o T i ns l ey , fi ft een t o tw entyhour s perw eek – vi ol at ed hi s r i ghtof access t o the cou rt s.

P r i s o n e r s h a v e a f

u n d a m e n t a l r i g h tt o a c c e s s th e c o u r t s . 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 ). 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 -c o u rts c laim is r equi r ed t o s how thatthe deni al of ac ces s caus ed ac tual i nj ury . I d. at352- 54. A ctual in ju ryo c c u rs w h e n a p riso n e r d e m o n stra tes th a t a “ n o n f riv o lo u s” a n d “ a rg u a b le” c laim w a s l os tbe c a us e of

the de ni a l of

a c c e s s t o the c ou r t s . Chr i s t op he rv. H a rbu ry , 53 6 U. S. 4 0 3 , 4 1 5 (2 0 0 2 ).6 W e agr ee w i th t he D i s tr i ctC our tthatT i ns l eyfai l ed on s um m aryj udgm ent t o s how any“ac tual i nj ury ” r es ul t i ng fr om the al l eged de ni al of hi s r i ghtt o acc es s the l aw l i br ar i es atboth fac i l i t i es . T i ns l ey , i n hi s depos i t i on, coul d notpoi ntt o anym i s s ed deadl i nes thatr es ul t ed i n a “l os s orr ej ect i on of a l egal cl ai m . ” See O l i verv. Fauver , 118 F. 3d 175, 177 ( 3d C i r . 1997) . I n addi t i on, he coul d notpoi ntt o anys peci fi c dea dl i ne m issed o r an yp rejud ice tha t he s u ff ere d as a resu lto f p ri so n o ff ici als’ all eg ed ac ti o n s. In fac t , the r ecor d s how s thatacc es s t o the l aw l i br ar i es atC FC F and PI C C enabl ed Ti ns l ey t o i ni t i at e tw o ci vi l act i ons i n t he D i s tr i ctC our tand fi l e numer ous m ot i ons i n hi s cr i m i nal act i on i n the C our tof C om m on Pl eas . A ccor di ngl y , the D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l ygr ant ed s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n th is c la im .

R e ta lia tio n C la im W e al s o agr ee w i th t he D i s tr i ctC our tthatther e i s no genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al fac tr egar di ng T i ns l ey ’ s r et al i at i on cl ai m . A s m ent i oned ea r l i er , T i ns l eyar gued thatD efe ndant s r et al i at ed aga i ns thi m i n var i ous w ay s forfi l i ng gr i evanc es agai ns tthem f o rd e n y i n g h i m a c c e s s t o th e l a w l i b r a r i e s a tCF CF a n d P I CC.

T o sh o w re talia tio n , a p riso n e r m u st d e m o n stra te th a t h e w a s e n g a g e d in con st i tuti on al l yprot ect ed co nd uct, that the p ri son o ffi ci al s caused h i m t o suff er “adverse act i on, ” and thathi s cons t i tut i onal l ypr ot ect ed conduc tw as a mot i vat i ng fac t ori n the o ff ici als’ de cisi o n to d isci p li n e h im . C arter v. M cG rad y , 2 9 2 F . 3 d 1 5 2 , 1 5 8 (3d C ir . 2002) ( ci t i ng R aus erv. H orn, 241 F. 3d 330, 333 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ) . H ow ever , pr i s on7

o f f icia ls m a ystill p re v a il b yp ro v in g th a t th e yw o u ld h a v e m a d e th e sa m e d e c isio n e v e n if the pr i s onerw as notengagi ng i n cons t i tut i onal l ypr ot ect ed conduc t . I d. T he D i s tr i ct C our tappr opr i at el yconcl uded thatT i ns l eyi s unabl e es t abl i s h a genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tr egar di ng the thi r d s t ep of the C art eranal y s i s , i . e. caus at i on.

T in sle ya lleg e d th a t D e f e n d a n ts e n g a g e d in a se rie s o f re talia to rya c ts in r e s p o n s e t o h i s f

i l i n g o f g r i e v a n c e s a g a i n s tth e m, i n c l u d i n g tr a n s f e rr i n g h i m f

r o m CF CF to P IC C , v erb all ythrea tenin g h im , firi n g h im fro m the P IC C li b rary , an d ref u sing to h ir e hi m atthe C FC F l i br ary . H ow ever , T i ns l eydi d nots etfor th evi dence s ugges t i ng that th e se a lleg e d re talia to rya c ts w e re so m e h o w m o tiv a ted b yh is re p o rtin g th e ir re f u sa l to g r a n th i m a c c e s s t o th e l i b r a r y.

F o r e x a m p le, a lth o u g h T in sle yc laim s th a t h e w a s tra n sf e rre d f ro m C F C F to P IC C f o r h a v in g f

iled g rie v a n c e s a g a in st D e f e n d a n ts W h e e ler a n d N o rth a n d f o r f ili n g h is l aw s ui ti n t he D i s tr i ctC our t , he fa i l s t o i dent i fyw ho actual l ytr ans ferr ed hi m , w ho at C FC F poss es s ed the author i tyt o t r ans ferhi m , orthats uch per s on w as aw ar e of the gr i evanc es fi l ed aga i ns tD efe ndant s W heel erand N or th. Fur therm or e, ther e i s no evi dence t o s ugges tthatthe tr ans fercons t i tut ed an “ adver s e ac t i on. ” R aus er , 241 F. 3d at 333. L i kew i s e, al though T i ns l eyal l eges thatD efe ndant s Spel l m an and K ni ght fi red hi m from his po si t i on atthe P IC C l i brarybased o n h i s hi st oryof f i l i ng gri evan ces, both Spel l m an and K ni ghtt es t i fi ed atthei rdepos i t i ons thattheyw er e unaw ar e that8

T in sle yf iled a n yg rie v a n c e s a g a in st p riso n o f f icia ls. L ik e w ise , T in sle ya d m itt e d a t h is depos i t i on thathe coul d onl yi nferthatK ni ghtand Spel l m an had pr i orknow l edge a bout hi s fi l i ng of gr i evanc es befor e theyfi r ed hi m . A ccor di ngl y , w e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ct C our tthatT i ns l eyw as unabl e t o s etfor th evi dence thathi s fi l i ng of gr i evanc es w as the m o ti v ati n g fa ctor b eh ind D ef en d an ts’ all eg ed ac ti o n s. S u m m aryjud g m en t w as th ere fo re ap p rop ri ate. A cc o rdin g ly , w e w il l aff irm the ju d g m en t of

the D istri ct C o u rt . A p p ell an t’ s m o tio n to f

ile a su p p lem e n tal a p p e n d ix is d e n ied a s th e p ro f f e re d e x h ib its e ith e r d u p lica te d o c u m e n ts p re v io u slyin c lu d e d in A p p e llee s’ s u p p lem e n tal a p p e n d ix o r re late to a w h o lly di ffe r entl i t i gat i on.