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 9-18-2009 

# J ohn Pe rry v

. L a cka wann a C ty C hi ldre n & Y

out 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 . 09-2403

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 " J o hn P e rry v

. L a cka wann a C ty C hi ldr e n & Y

out " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 639. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/639BL D- 3 0 6 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- 2403

___________ J OHN J OS E P H P E RR Y, A ppel l ant

v. LA CK A W A N N A CO U N TY CH I LD RE N & Y O U TH SER V I CE S; LT . J ODI S M I TH, o f

S CI W a yma r t ; LAURA BANTA, P r i s o n He a r i n g Ex a mi n e ra tS CI W ay m art; S U P E R IN T E N D E N T JO S E P H N IS H , at S C I W ay m art

____________________________________ 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 M id d le 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. 3: 09- cv- 00675) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e W i l l i am J. N eal on

____________________________________ S u b m itted P u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ) or f o r P o s s ib le 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 Sept ember17, 2009 B efor e: M C K E E , FI SH E R A N D C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: Sept ember18, 2009)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM A ppel l antJ ohn J os eph Perr ys eeks r evi ew of the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or derdi s m i s s i ngPerryal l eged thatthe l ett erw as i n K uehner ’ s pur s e w hen Pi err o s t ol e i t , and that 1 K u e h n e r r e p o rt e d th e th e f t to th e S c ra n to n P o lic e D e p a rt m e n t.

2 hi s compl ai ntpur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) . W e conc l ude thatthe appe al does notpr es enta s ubs t ant i al ques t i on. A l though w e r es tourdeci s i on i n parton di ffe r ent g r o u n d s , we wi l l s u mma r i l ya f f i r m th e Di s tr i c tCo u r t ’ s j u d g me n t . S e e 3 d Ci r . L. A. R. 27. 4; I . O . P. 10. 6. I. Perr y , an i nm at e atSC I - W aym art , i ni t i at ed a pr o s e ci vi l act i on pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1983 agai ns tL acka w anna Count yC hi l dr en & Y outh Ser vi ces ( “C Y S”) and thr ee S C I-W a ym a rt o f

f icia ls: Jo d i S m ith , L a u ra B a n ta, a n d Jo se p h N ish . In th e c o m p lain t, P e rrya lleg e d th a t an in d iv id u a l n a m e d Jo se p h P ier ro sto le a lette r P e rryh a d se n t to h is g irlfr ien d , K a re n M a rie K u e h n e r. A c c o rd in g to P e rry , P ier ro p ro v id e d th e lette r to 1 L acka w anna Count yC hi l dr en & Y outh Ser vi ces ( “C Y S”) and r eport ed thatthe l ett er s how ed that“s tr ong s exual cont act ” had oc curr ed betw een Perryand K uehnerdur i ng an O c to b e r 4 , 2 0 0 8 , v is it a t w h ic h P e rr y ’s tw o m in o r c h ild re n w e re p re s e n t. B ase d u p o n the in fo rm ati o n in the let ter, C Y S all eg ed lyco n tacted S C I-W ay m art an d req u ested an inv esti g ati o n into P erry ’s be h av ior. P erryclaim ed that o ff ici als at S C IW a ym a rt w ro n g f

u llyp u t a c o p yo f

th e lette r in to h is d isc ip lin a ryf ile a n d u se d it as a b a sis to p u n ish h im . S p e c if

ica lly , P e rrya lleg e d th a t S C I-W a ym a rt e m p lo y e e Jo d i S m ith vi ew ed a vi deot ape of

the O ct ober4, 2008, vi s i tbetw een K uehnerand Perry , and o b serv ed n o rule inf

rac ti o n s. H o w ev er, ba sed u p o n the c o n tents o f th e lett er a n d S m ith ’sPerryal s o al l eged thatSC I - W aym artpr ovi ded the mi s conductr eportt o C SY , w hi ch 2 i ni t i at ed i t s ow n i nves t i gat i on conce rni ng the w el far e of Perry ’ s m i norchi l dr en dur i ng v isi ts t o S C I-W ay m art. U lt im ately , C S Y fo u n d n o ev iden ce o f n eg lect, alth o u g h P erry c o m p lain s th a t “th e re p o rt h a s b e e n a d d e d to [ h is] f ile . . . a n d c a n b e u se d in th e f a m ily c o u rt f o r a n yp ro c e e d in g p e rt in e n t to th e p la in tif f ’s c u s to d yo f

h is m in o r c h ild re n .” Perryal s o al l eged thathe fi l ed tw o gr i evanc es and a r eques tforr evi ew of the 3 videot aped vis i t s. S C I- W aym artoff i ci al s denied the requ est s. 3 r evi ew of a vi deot ape of an O ct ober11, 2008, vi s i tbetw een K uehnerand Perryatw hi ch no chi l dr en w er e pr es ent , Sm i th concl uded that“s tr ong s exual cont act ” l i kel yoccurr ed as r e p o r t e d , a n d a c c o r d i n g l y i s s u e d a m i s c o n d u c tr e p o r ta g a i n s tP e rry. 2 A ccor di ng t o t he compl ai nt , SC I - W aym artgr ant ed Perrya form al hear i ng c o n c e rn i n g th e m i s c o n d u c tr e p o r t . P e rry a l l e g e d l y w i s h e d t o e n t e ra p l e a o f n o tg u i l t y, 3 b u t th e h e a ri n g e x a m in e r, L a u ra B a n ta , p ro c e e d e d a s if P e rr yh a d e n te re d a g u ilty p le a . W i thouthonor i ng Per r y ’ s r eques tforB ant a t o r evi ew the vi deot apes of the O ct ober4 and 11 vi s i t s , B ant a s anct i oned Perr yt o 30 day s of s ol i t aryconfi nement , 60 day s w i thout vi s i t i ng pr i vi l eges , and l os s of i ns t i tut i onal empl oym ent . Perryappea l ed t o the pr i s on re v iew c o m m itt e e , the su p e rin ten d e n t, an d th e c h ief h e a rin g e x a m in e r, b u t th e a p p e a ls w er e al l deni ed bas ed on Perr y ’ s purpor t ed gui l typl ea. B a se d u p o n th e se e v e n ts, P e rryc laim e d to h a v e su f f e re d v io latio n s o f

h is c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts. A s re lief , h e so u g h t to h a v e h is “ re c o rd c lea re d o f a ll rep o rts c o n c e rn in g th is c laim ,” c rim in a l p ro se c u tio n c o n c e rn in g “ a ll fa lse re p o rts m a d e a g a in st”A l though Perr ys oughtt o have c r i m i nal char ges br oughtagai ns tthe def endant s , s uch 4 re lie f m a yn o t b e o b ta in e d in a c iv il a c tio n u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 . A l though the D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed Perry ’ s compl ai ntw i thoutpr ej udi ce, w e have 5 j ur i s di ct i on beca us e the di s m i s s al w as pur s uantt o § 1915( e) and bec aus e anyamendm ent of the compl ai ntw oul d be fut i l e. See D eut s ch v. U ni t ed St at es , 67 F. 3d 1080, 1083 ( 3d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). 4 him , and recoveryof h i s cost s and f ees. 4 B e c a u se th e D istric t C o u rt g ra n ted P e rryp e rm iss io n to p ro c e e d in f o rm a p a u p e ris ( “I FP”) , i tr evi ew ed the compl ai ntunderthe Pr i s on L i t i gat i on R eform A ctof 1995 (“P L R A ”), 28 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 . O n A p ri l 28 , 2 0 0 9 , p ri o r t o serv ice, th e D istri ct C o u rt concl uded thatPerr y ’ s compl ai ntw as fr i vol ous and di s m i s s ed i tw i thoutpr ej udi ce pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) . T hi s t i m el ypr o s e appe al fol l ow ed. II. W e h av e jurisdicti o n o v er this ap p ea l pu rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . O u r st an d ard 5 o f re v ie w is p le n a ry. S e e T o u rs c h e r v . M c C u llo u g h , 1 8 4 F .3 d 2 3 6 , 2 4 0 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). Be c a u s e P e r r yi s p r o c e e d i n g I F P , we mu s td i s mi s s th e a p p e a l u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 91 5( e ) ( 2) ( B) i f i tl a c ks a n a r gu a bl e ba s i s i n f a c torl a w . N e i t z ke v. W i l l i a ms, 49 0 U. S. 319, 325 ( 1989) . W e mays um m ar i l yaff i r m i f the appe al pr es ent s no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on. See 3d C i r . L . A . R . 27. 4; I . O . P. 10. 6. W e mayaff i r m on gr ounds di ffe r entfr om thos e r el i ed upon bythe D i s tr i ctC our t . See M or s e v. L ow erM er i on School D i s t . , 132 F . 3 d 9 0 2 , 9 0 4 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). T o es t abl i s h a § 1983 ci vi l r i ght s cl ai m , a cl ai m antm us ts how : “( 1) thatthe5

conductcompl ai ned of w as comm i t t ed bya per s on act i ng undercol orof s t at e l aw ; and ( 2) thatthe conduc tdepr i ved a pe r s on of r i ght s , pr i vi l eges , ori m m uni t i es s ecur ed byt he C ons t i tut i on orl aw s of the U ni t ed St at es . ” R obb v. C i tyof Phi l adel phi a, 733 F. 2d 286, 2 9 0 -9 1 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 4 ) (c iti n g P a rra tt v . T a y lo r, 4 5 1 U .S . 5 2 7 , 5 3 5 (1 9 8 1 )). L ib e ra lly co n stru ing P erry ’s pro se c o m p lai n t, see D luh o s v . S tr asb erg , 3 2 1 F . 3 d 3 6 5 , 3 6 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ), w e c o n c lu d e th a t P e rr yf a ile d to s ta te a § 1 9 8 3 c la im .

A. C Y S is a n a g e n c yo f

L a c k a w a n n a C o u n ty , P e n n sy lv a n ia. T o sta te a § 1 9 8 3 c laim agai ns ts uch a l ocal governi ng body , Perryw as r equi r ed t o al l ege thatC Y S had an es t abl i s hed pol i cyorcus t om thatr es ul t ed i n the al l eged c ons t i tut i onal vi ol at i ons . See M onel l v. D ep’ tof Soc. Ser vs . , 436 U . S. 658, 690- 91 ( 1978) ; s ee a l s o M arr an v. M arr an, 376 F. 3d 143, 155- 56 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( a pr i m a fa ci e cl ai m agai ns ta countyori t s agenc y m us ti nvol ve an a l l egat i on of a pol i cyorcus t om thatdi r ect ed orcaus ed the cons t i tut i onal d e p r i v a t i o n ) . P e r r y ’ s c o mp l a i n tc a n n o tb e r e a d t o i d e n t i f ya n yc u s t o m o rp o l i c yb yCY S t o s at i s fythe M onel l r equi r ement . A ccor di ngl y , di s m i s s al w as appr opr i at e. B. W e the ref

o re turn to P erry ’s claim s ag ains t th e thre e n am ed S C I-W ay m art offi ci al s , Sm i th, B ant a, and N i s h. Perry ’ s cl ai m s agai ns tthe off i ci al s focus pr i m ar i l yon hi s per s onal l ett ert o K uehner : he cont ends thatthe off i ci al s s houl d have know n thatt he l ett erw as s t ol en and s houl d nothave c ons i der ed i t , and thatbeca us e the l ett erdi d not6

sp e c if ya d a te a n d lo c a tio n o f th e “ stro n g se x u a l co n tac t,” it d id n o t p ro v id e “ p ro b a b le c a u s e ” f o r t h e in v e s tig a tio n o r d is c ip lin a ry a c tio n a g a in s t h im . E v e n a f f o rd in g P e rry ’s a lleg a tio n s th e lib e ra l co n stru c tio n th e ya re d u e , w e f a il t o se e h o w P e rry ’s a lleg a tio n s c o n c e rn in g h is le tter to K u e h n e r c a n su p p o rt a § 1 9 8 3 c laim a g a in st th e S C I-W a ym a rt o f f icia ls. P e rrysp e c if

ica llyin v o k e d th e F irst, F o u rth , an d N in th A m endment s of the C ons t i tut i on. W i th r egar d t o the Four th A m endment , Perrydi d not al l ege thatanythi ng w as s ei zed f r om hi m , and i n anyevent , i ti s w el l es t abl i s hed that“the Four th A m endmentpr os cr i pt i on agai ns tunr eas onabl e s ear ches does notappl yw i thi n the c o n f in e s o f th e p riso n c e ll. ” H u d so n v . P a lm e r, 4 6 8 U .S . 5 1 7 , 5 2 6 (1 9 8 4 ). W ith re g a rd to th e F i r s tA m e n d m e n t , P e r r y d i d n o tc l a i m a n y i n t e r f e r e n c e w i th h i s c o n s t i tu t i o n a l l ypr ot ect ed r i ghtt o r eas onabl e corr es pondence w i th the out s i de w or l d, s ee Pr ocuni erv. M a rtin e z , 4 1 6 U .S . 3 9 6 , 4 1 8 (1 9 7 4 ), o v e rru led o n o th e r g ro u n d s, T h o rn b u rg h v . A b b o tt, 490 U . S. 401 ( 1989) , and a s i ngl e i ns t ance of i nt er fer ence w i th hi s m ai l w oul d nothave been s uffi ci entt o cons t i tut e a Fi r s tA m endmentvi ol at i on i n anyevent . See B i er egu v. R e n o , 5 9 F . 3 d 1 4 4 5 , 1 4 5 2 ( 3 d C i r . 1 9 9 5 ) , o v e rru l e d o n o th e rg r o u n d s , L e w i s v . C a s e y, 518 U . S. 343 ( 1996) . Fi nal l y , w e ar e notaw ar e of a nys uppor tforPerry ’ s cl ai m thatt he N i nth A m endmentpr ot ect s agai ns tanyof the eve nt s des cr i bed i n hi s compl ai nt . I ndeed, the N i nth A m endmentdoes noti ndepende nt l ypr ovi de a s our ce of i ndi vi dual co n sti tuti o n al ri g h ts. S ee , e.g., Jen k ins v . C . I. R . , 4 8 3 F . 3 d 9 0 , 9 2 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ); S c h o w e n g e rd t v . U n ite d S ta te s , 9 4 4 F .2 d 4 8 3 , 4 9 0 (9 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ).7

B as ed upon ourr evi ew , w e conc l ude thatthe onl ypot ent i al § 1983 cl ai m that Perrym i ghthave r ai s ed aga i ns tthe SC I - W aym artoffi ci al s w oul d be a pr ocedur al due p r o c e s s c l a i m r e l a t i n g t o th e d i s c i p l i n a ryp r o c e e d i n g s a g a i n s th i m. I n th a tr e g a r d , we have gi ven part i cul arcons i der at i on t o Perry ’ s al l egat i ons thathe s oughtt o pl ead “ not g u ilty ” to th e d isc ip lin a ryin f ra c tio n , b u t th e S C I-W a ym a rt o f f icia ls f a iled to c o n sid e r h is pr opos ed evi dence ( i . e. , r evi ew of the O ct ober4 and 11 vi deot apes ) , i m pos ed s anct i ons upon hi m , and deni ed hi s appea l s , al l bas ed upon a purpor t ed gui l typl ea. N otal l di s ci pl i naryorpuni t i ve meas ur es t aken i n a pr i s on envi r onm enti m pl i cat e a p ri so n er’s co n sti tuti o n al ri g h t t o p roc ed u ral du e p roc ess. R athe r, d u e p roc ess righ ts are o n lytrig g e re d w h e re th e p riso n “ im p o se s a typ ica l an d sig n if ica n t h a rd sh ip o n th e in m a te i n r el at i on t o t he or di naryi nci dent s of pr i s on l i fe. ” M i t chel l v. H orn, 318 F. 3d 523, 531 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (q u o tin g S a n d in v . C o n n e r, 5 1 5 U .S . 4 7 2 , 4 8 4 (1 9 9 5 )). P riso n e rs g e n e ra lly d o n o t h a v e in h e re n t li b e rtyin ter e sts in p a rticu lar m o d e s, p lac e s, o r f e a tu re s o f

th e ir confi nement . See H ew i t tv. H el m s , 459 U . S. 460, 466- 68 ( 1983) , abr ogat ed bySandi n, 5 1 5 U .S . a t 4 8 3 . P e rrya lleg e d th a t, as a re su lt o f th e d isc ip lin a ryp ro c e e d in g s, h e w a s s a n c tio n e d to 3 0 d a y s o f

so lit a ryc o n f

in e m e n t, 60 d a y s w ith o u t v isitin g p riv ileg e s, a n d lo ss o f h is i ns t i tut i onal empl oym ent . T hes e s anct i ons do notqual i fyas an “a typi cal ors i gni fi cant har ds hi p” underSandi n. T hi r tyday s of s ol i t aryconfi nementi s notatypi cal . See Sandi n, 5 1 5 U .S . at 4 8 6 . In a d d iti o n , p riso n e rs d o n o t h a v e c o n stitu tio n a lly -p ro tec ted in ter e sts inpr i s on vi s i t at i on ori n hol di ng a j ob. See K y . D ep’ tof C orr . v. T hom ps on, 490 U . S. 454,

460 ( 1989) ; B l ock v. R uther for d, 468 U . S. 576, 588 ( 1984) ; J ames v. Q ui nl an, 866 F. 2d 6 2 7 , 6 2 9 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 9 ). B e c a u se th e sa n c tio n s im p o se d u p o n P e rryw e re in su f f icie n t to tri gg er due p rocess prot ect i on s, P errycann ot s t at e a proced ural du e process cl ai m against the S C I- W aym artoff

i ci al s based u po n h i s di sci pli naryproceed i ng s.

III . W e have r evi ew ed the r ecor d i n thi s m att erand conc l ude thatther e i s no su b stan ti al qu esti o n to b e p rese n ted o n ap p ea l. A cc o rdin g ly , w e w il l sum m aril yaf firm the j udgm entof the D i s tr i ctC our t . See 3d C i r . L . A . R . 27. 4; I . O . P. 10. 6.

8