2012 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

4-3-2012

Walter Tormasi v. George Hayman

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-3499

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012

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 2012 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

"Walter Tormasi v. George Hayman" (2012). 2012 Decisions. Paper 1187.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012/1187
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-3499

___________

WALTER A. TORMASI,

 Appellant

v.

GEORGE HAYMAN, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (DOC) COMMISSIONER; 

JAMES BARBO, DOC DIRECTOR OF DIVISION OF OPERATIONS; RONALD H. 

CATHEL, NEW JERSEY STATE PRISON (NJSP) ADMINISTRATOR; AL 

KANDELL, NJSP ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR; DONALD MEE, NJSP 

ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR; MICHELLE RICCI, NJSP ASSOCIATE 

ADMINISTRATOR;BUTLER, INVESTIGATOR, JSP/DOC SPECIAL 

INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION (SID) AGENT; DOLCE, INVESTIGATOR, NJSP/DOC 

(SID) AGENT; MAGINNIS, INVESTIGATOR, NJSP/DOC (SID) AGENT; SIERRA, 

INVESTIGATOR, NJSP/DOC (SID) AGENT; WOJCIECHOWICZ, INVESTIGATOR, 

NJSP/DOC (SID AGENT); PAMELA TRENT, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil Action No. 07-cv-05683)

District Judge: Honorable Joel A. Pisano

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

April 2, 2012

Before: JORDAN, HARDIMAN and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: April 3, 2012)

___________

OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM
2

Walter Tormasi appeals the District Court’s order granting Appellees’ motion for 

summary judgment. For the reasons below, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

The procedural history of this case and the details of Tormasi’s claims are well 

known to the parties, set forth in the District Court’s opinion, and need not be discussed 

at length. Briefly, Tormasi filed a civil rights complaint alleging that Appellees denied 

him access to the courts when they confiscated some of his legal materials and 

disciplined him for possession of contraband. The District Court granted Appellees’ 

motion for summary judgment, and Tormasi filed a notice of appeal.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the District Court’s 

order granting summary judgment de novo and review the facts in the light most 

favorable to the nonmoving party. Burns v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 642 F.3d 163, 170 (3d 

Cir. 2011). A grant of summary judgment will be affirmed if our review reveals that 

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

judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

Although his state post-conviction proceedings were over, Tormasi claims that he 

was afraid that if he filed future state post-conviction petitions or a federal habeas 

petition, he would be disciplined for possessing his appendices which contained the 

Anarchist’s Cookbook. We agree with the District Court that Appellees did not impede 

Tormasi’s litigation of any claims challenging his criminal conviction. As noted by the 

District Court, Tormasi could have simply referred to his prior briefs for citations to the 

material or arranged for a copy of the contraband materials to be sent to the state or 
3

federal court. Thus, the fact that Tormasi is not permitted to possess the Anarchist’s 

Cookbook in prison does not violate his right to access to the courts or his freedom of 

speech. Because we agree with the District Court that Appellees did not did not impede 

or frustrate Tormasi’s claims regarding his criminal conviction, we need not address 

whether his potential claims had any merit. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351-52

(1996).

Tormasi also argues that the seizure of his documents and the disciplinary action 

against him was an exaggerated response by Appellees. Tormasi argued that the contents 

of the Anarchist’s Cookbook are available to prisoners. To support this argument, he 

submitted over three hundred pages of encyclopedia entries on ammunition, explosives, 

grenades, gunpowder, rockets, etc. He does not explain how any specific entry 

corresponds to a section of the Anarchist’s Cookbook or how the passages from the 

encyclopedia would threaten prison security in a manner similar to the Anarchist’s

Cookbook. We agree with the District Court that the Appellees’ confiscation of the 

Anarchist’s Cookbook from a prisoner was a reasonable response to the security concerns 

that book poses to a correctional environment. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-90

(1987).

For the above reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.