2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

3-11-2010

Russell Tinsley v. Giorla

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 08-2295

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2010 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Russell Tinsley v. Giorla" (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 1746.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/1746
1

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-2295

___________

RUSSELL TINSLEY,

 Appellant

v.

GIORLA, WARDEN; BUTLER, MS. DEPUTY WARDEN;

NORTH, C/O; WHEELER; RODNEY BROCKENBROUGH; 

CUFFEE, SERGEANT; LEON A. KING, II; 

KNIGHT, LIEUTENANT; SPELLMAN, LIEUTENANT

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 05-cv-2777)

District Judge: Honorable Thomas N. O’Neill, Jr.

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

March 2, 2010

Before: SLOVITER, CHAGARES and WEIS, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: March 11, 2010)

___________

OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Russell Tinsley appeals from the order of the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granting Defendants’ motion for
2

summary judgment. We will affirm. 

I.

In June 2005, Tinsley filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §

1983 against several current and former Philadelphia Prison System (“PPS”) officials and

employees alleging that they denied him access to the courts. After the District Court

appointed counsel to represent him, Tinsley filed an amended complaint pursuant to 

§ 1983 against Leon King (then-Commissioner of PPS); Louis Giorla (then-Warden of

Curran-Fromhold Correctional Facility (“CFCF”)); CFCF Deputy Warden Osie Butler;

CFCF Correctional Officer Wheeler; CFCF Correctional Officer Lorenzo North; Rodney

Brockenbrough (then-Warden of Philadelphia Industrial Correction Center (“PICC”));

PICC Sergeant Nakia Cuffee; PICC Lieutenant Carol Knight; and PICC Lieutenant

Deurward Spellman.

In the amended complaint, Tinsley alleged that he suffered various

violations of his constitutional rights, beginning in March 2005, while he was in custody

at both CFCF and PICC. Specifically, Tinsley raised the following claims in the amended

complaint: (1) inadequate access to the prison law library in violation of the Fourteenth

Amendment; (2) denial of legal correspondence in violation of the First Amendment; (3)

seizure of legal papers in violation of the Fourth Amendment; (4) retaliation for

exercising his constitutional rights in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments;

and (5) cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth
3

Amendments.

Tinsley primarily argues that he was denied reasonable access to the law

libraries at both facilities, prohibiting him from adequately preparing for his state criminal

case. Specifically, he complained that because he has been representing himself in his

criminal action, he should have been given daily access to the law library, totaling at least

fifteen to twenty hours per week. Although the record indicates that Tinsley signed into

the law library fifty-two times from March 2005 through November 2005, he alleges that

Defendants denied him access on numerous occasions, even after he signed in. However,

at his deposition, Tinsley was unable recall the exact number of times that he was denied

library access despite having signed in.

In November 2005, Tinsley was hired as a law library trainee at PICC. In

that position, he was assigned to the library five days each week for approximately five

hours per day. Although Tinsley claimed that during that time he assisted other inmates

and did not work on his own case, Defendant Spellman testified that he fired Tinsley in

February 2006 because he was not helping other inmates with their cases and he failed to

perform his duties in the library. One week after Tinsley was fired at PICC, he was

transferred back to CFCF.

In March 2006, Tinsley’s law library and legal mailing privileges were

revoked pursuant to an order entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia

County. In August 2006, the Court vacated its earlier order and reinstated Tinsley’s law
 Tinsley challenges the District Court’s order only with respect to his access-to-courts 1

claim and his retaliation claim. Accordingly, review of all other claims has been waived. 

See Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 182 (3d Cir. 1993) (an issue is waived unless a

party raises it in its opening brief).

4

library and legal mailing privileges. Tinsley claims that even after his privileges were

reinstated, he was not granted adequate access to the law library at CFCF. Tinsley also

alleged that Defendants engaged in at least six instances of retaliation against him during

his time at CFCF and PICC as a result of his complaining about lack of library access as

well as his filing of grievances against officials who denied him access. 

At the close of discovery, Defendants moved for summary judgment on all

of Tinsley’s claims. After reviewing the parties’ arguments, the District Court

determined that no genuine issues of material fact exist with respect to Tinsley’s § 1983

claims, and granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Tinsley filed a timely

appeal of the District Court’s determination.1

II.

We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise

plenary review over the District Court’s decision to grant summary judgment. McGreevy

v. Stroup, 413 F.3d 359, 363 (3d Cir. 2005). Summary judgment is appropriate when the

“pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that

there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A court reviewing a summary
5

judgment motion must evaluate the evidence in the light most favorable to the

nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor. Brewer v.

Quaker State Oil Ref. Corp., 72 F.3d 326, 330 (3d Cir. 1995). However, a party opposing

summary judgment “must present more than just ‘bare assertions, conclusory allegations

or suspicions’ to show the existence of a genuine issue.” Podobnik v. U.S. Postal Serv.,

409 F.3d 584, 594 (3d Cir. 2005). 

III.

Access to Courts Claim

First, the District Court properly concluded that Tinsley was unable to set

forth facts demonstrating that he sustained an actual injury as a result of the alleged denial

of access to the law libraries at CFCF and PICC. As mentioned, Tinsley alleged that

Defendants’ failure to grant him a reasonable amount of time in the law libraries at CFCF

and PICC – according to Tinsley, fifteen to twenty hours per week – violated his right of

access to the courts.

Prisoners have a fundamental right to access the courts. Lewis v. Casey,

518 U.S. 343, 346 (1996). However, a prisoner making an access-to-courts claim is

required to show that the denial of access caused actual injury. Id. at 352-54. Actual

injury occurs when a prisoner demonstrates that a “nonfrivolous” and “arguable” claim

was lost because of the denial of access to the courts. Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S.

403, 415 (2002). 
6

 We agree with the District Court that Tinsley failed on summary judgment

to show any “actual injury” resulting from the alleged denial of his right to access the law

libraries at both facilities. Tinsley, in his deposition, could not point to any missed

deadlines that resulted in a “loss or rejection of a legal claim.” See Oliver v. Fauver, 118

F.3d 175, 177 (3d Cir. 1997). In addition, he could not point to any specific deadline

missed or any prejudice that he suffered as a result of prison officials’ alleged actions. In

fact, the record shows that access to the law libraries at CFCF and PICC enabled Tinsley

to initiate two civil actions in the District Court and file numerous motions in his criminal

action in the Court of Common Pleas. Accordingly, the District Court properly granted

summary judgment on this claim. 

Retaliation Claim

We also agree with the District Court that there is no genuine issue of

material fact regarding Tinsley’s retaliation claim. As mentioned earlier, Tinsley argued

that Defendants retaliated against him in various ways for filing grievances against them

for denying him access to the law libraries at CFCF and PICC.

To show retaliation, a prisoner must demonstrate that he was engaged in

constitutionally protected conduct, that the prison officials caused him to suffer “adverse

action,” and that his constitutionally protected conduct was a motivating factor in the

officials’ decision to discipline him. Carter v. McGrady, 292 F.3d 152, 158 (3d Cir.

2002) (citing Rauser v. Horn, 241 F.3d 330, 333 (3d Cir. 2001)). However, prison
7

officials may still prevail by proving that they would have made the same decision even if

the prisoner was not engaging in constitutionally protected conduct. Id. The District

Court appropriately concluded that Tinsley is unable establish a genuine issue of material

fact regarding the third step of the Carter analysis, i.e. causation.

Tinsley alleged that Defendants engaged in a series of retaliatory acts in

response to his filing of grievances against them, including transferring him from CFCF

to PICC, verbally threatening him, firing him from the PICC library, and refusing to hire

him at the CFCF library. However, Tinsley did not set forth evidence suggesting that

these alleged retaliatory acts were somehow motivated by his reporting their refusal to

grant him access to the library.

For example, although Tinsley claims that he was transferred from CFCF to

PICC for having filed grievances against Defendants Wheeler and North and for filing his

lawsuit in the District Court, he fails to identify who actually transferred him, who at

CFCF possessed the authority to transfer him, or that such person was aware of the

grievances filed against Defendants Wheeler and North. Furthermore, there is no

evidence to suggest that the transfer constituted an “adverse action.” Rauser, 241 F.3d at

333.

Likewise, although Tinsley alleges that Defendants Spellman and Knight

fired him from his position at the PICC library based on his history of filing grievances,

both Spellman and Knight testified at their depositions that they were unaware that
8

Tinsley filed any grievances against prison officials. Likewise, Tinsley admitted at his

deposition that he could only infer that Knight and Spellman had prior knowledge about

his filing of grievances before they fired him. Accordingly, we agree with the District

Court that Tinsley was unable to set forth evidence that his filing of grievances was the

motivating factor behind Defendants’ alleged actions. Summary judgment was therefore

appropriate. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. Appellant’s

motion to file a supplemental appendix is denied as the proffered exhibits either duplicate

documents previously included in Appellees’ supplemental appendix or relate to a wholly

different litigation.