×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Summary Judgment Denied in Court Access Retaliation Claim
A federal district court in Pennsylvania held that disputed issues of fact
required a trial in a Pennsylvania state prisoner's lawsuit that prison
officials had retaliated against him for having filed lawsuits by
confiscating his legal papers, which caused him to lose some court cases
and prevented him from filing new ones. The court held the plaintiff had
alleged an actual denial of access to the courts. The court dismissed on
summary judgment claims that prison officials had destroyed his typewriter
due to a lack of factual support for the claim. This ruling is still good
law in light of the supreme court's ruling in Lewis v. Casey which
requires "actual injury" to state a court access claim, however,
retaliation claims alone have no such requirement. See: Smith v. Smith,
578 F. Supp. 1373 (ED PA 1984).
required a trial in a Pennsylvania state prisoner's lawsuit that prison
officials had retaliated against him for having filed lawsuits by
confiscating his legal papers, which caused him to lose some court cases
and prevented him from filing new ones. The court held the plaintiff had
alleged an actual denial of access to the courts. The court dismissed on
summary judgment claims that prison officials had destroyed his typewriter
due to a lack of factual support for the claim. This ruling is still good
law in light of the supreme court's ruling in Lewis v. Casey which
requires "actual injury" to state a court access claim, however,
retaliation claims alone have no such requirement. See: Smith v. Smith,
578 F. Supp. 1373 (ED PA 1984).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Smith v. Smith
| Year | 1984 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 578 F. Supp. 1373 (ED PA 1984). |
| Level | District Court |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
SMITH v. SMITH, 578 F. Supp. 1373 (E.D.Pa. 02/3/1984)
[1] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
[2] 81-1919
[3] 578 F. Supp. 1373, 1984
[4] February 3, 1984
[5] HAROLD X (SMITH)
v.
LIEUTENANT A. SMITH, et al.
[6] Harold X (Smith), pro se, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. , Carl Vaccaro, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Defendant.
[7] Luongo, Ch.J.
[8] The opinion of the court was delivered by: LUONGO
[9] LUONGO, Ch.J.
[10] This is a prisoner's § 1983 action alleging facts which may be construed as claims of deprivation of property without due process and violations of plaintiff's First Amendment rights of access to the courts and to practice his religion. In an earlier opinion, Harold X (Smith) v. Lieutenant A. Smith, 561 F. Supp. 416 (E.D. Pa. 1983), I denied defendants' motion for summary judgment and allowed plaintiff the opportunity to amend his complaint to provide greater specificity and to file affidavits based on the affiant's personal knowledge. Plaintiff filed his amended complaint and affidavits, following which defendant Marks renewed his motion for summary judgment. After considering plaintiff's most recent submissions, I will grant Marks' motion.
[11] Because I find that plaintiff's submissions have cured most of the defects identified in my earlier opinion, it is necessary for me to address the legal issues raised in the original motion for summary judgment and reserved by that earlier opinion. Based on the following analysis, I will deny the summary judgment motions of defendants Smith, Heacock and Kohut.
[12] Plaintiff's second amended complaint alleges that when defendant Marks became Commissioner of the Bureau of Corrections in mid-1980, he issued a memorandum requiring that all typewriters of prisoners involved in "the work stoppage" be destroyed and all their legal papers confiscated. Plaintiff had previously alleged that his property was destroyed pursuant to this policy. Docket No. 12. Plaintiff also submitted affidavits in support of these allegations. Inmate Joseph Baynes attested that he removed from Lieutenant Smith's wastebasket a memorandum from Commissioner Marks ordering the confiscation and/or destruction of all typewriters belonging to inmates involved in the May 8, 1980 work stoppage. Affiant Baynes also stated that he saw Lieutenant Smith throw plaintiff's typewriter onto the floor at Graterford. No dates have been given for these occurrences.
[13] Although plaintiff has been less than precise about dates in all of his submissions, the following scenario can be pieced together from the information he and defendants have supplied. Plaintiff was transferred from Graterford on May 9, 1980. His property was shipped to him at some later date. While plaintiff's property was still as Graterford, Lieutenant Smith threw plaintiff's typewriter onto the floor. Plaintiff did not see his property again until the end of 1980. Defendant Kohut, in his answers to interrogatories, stated that plaintiff's typewriter was received at the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh (SCIP) on or about May 16, confirming the date by a copy of the Inmate Personal Property Inventory used in the transfer of plaintiff's property. If this date is accurate, Lieutenant Smith must have thrown the typewriter before May 16. He could not have committed that act pursuant to Marks' instruction, as plaintiff has alleged, because Marks did not become Commissioner until June 12, a fact which is uncontroverted.
[14] Plaintiff has not directly controverted defendant's assertion that plaintiff's property was received in Pittsburgh by May 16. Based on his statement that he never saw his property at Pittsburgh, he may be unable to do so. While I am aware of the difficulties plaintiff faces as a pro se litigant and as an inmate in determining the facts, I can't ignore that the timing issue raises grave doubts that events could have transpired as plaintiff has alleged. There is another glaring inconsistency in plaintiff's submissions. In his first amended complaint, plaintiff alleges:
[15]
d -- As soon as defendant Marks took control of the Bureau of Corrections he ordered that the Plaintiff typewriter be destroyed and that his most value legal files and papers be destroyed along with any other material not yet turned over to the Plaintiff that was civil in nature and defendant Kohut lead the instruction on what to confiscate and or destroy inorder to meet defendant Marks instructions to keep the plaintiff out of court system for as long as they could.
[1] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
[2] 81-1919
[3] 578 F. Supp. 1373, 1984
[4] February 3, 1984
[5] HAROLD X (SMITH)
v.
LIEUTENANT A. SMITH, et al.
[6] Harold X (Smith), pro se, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. , Carl Vaccaro, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Defendant.
[7] Luongo, Ch.J.
[8] The opinion of the court was delivered by: LUONGO
[9] LUONGO, Ch.J.
[10] This is a prisoner's § 1983 action alleging facts which may be construed as claims of deprivation of property without due process and violations of plaintiff's First Amendment rights of access to the courts and to practice his religion. In an earlier opinion, Harold X (Smith) v. Lieutenant A. Smith, 561 F. Supp. 416 (E.D. Pa. 1983), I denied defendants' motion for summary judgment and allowed plaintiff the opportunity to amend his complaint to provide greater specificity and to file affidavits based on the affiant's personal knowledge. Plaintiff filed his amended complaint and affidavits, following which defendant Marks renewed his motion for summary judgment. After considering plaintiff's most recent submissions, I will grant Marks' motion.
[11] Because I find that plaintiff's submissions have cured most of the defects identified in my earlier opinion, it is necessary for me to address the legal issues raised in the original motion for summary judgment and reserved by that earlier opinion. Based on the following analysis, I will deny the summary judgment motions of defendants Smith, Heacock and Kohut.
[12] Plaintiff's second amended complaint alleges that when defendant Marks became Commissioner of the Bureau of Corrections in mid-1980, he issued a memorandum requiring that all typewriters of prisoners involved in "the work stoppage" be destroyed and all their legal papers confiscated. Plaintiff had previously alleged that his property was destroyed pursuant to this policy. Docket No. 12. Plaintiff also submitted affidavits in support of these allegations. Inmate Joseph Baynes attested that he removed from Lieutenant Smith's wastebasket a memorandum from Commissioner Marks ordering the confiscation and/or destruction of all typewriters belonging to inmates involved in the May 8, 1980 work stoppage. Affiant Baynes also stated that he saw Lieutenant Smith throw plaintiff's typewriter onto the floor at Graterford. No dates have been given for these occurrences.
[13] Although plaintiff has been less than precise about dates in all of his submissions, the following scenario can be pieced together from the information he and defendants have supplied. Plaintiff was transferred from Graterford on May 9, 1980. His property was shipped to him at some later date. While plaintiff's property was still as Graterford, Lieutenant Smith threw plaintiff's typewriter onto the floor. Plaintiff did not see his property again until the end of 1980. Defendant Kohut, in his answers to interrogatories, stated that plaintiff's typewriter was received at the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh (SCIP) on or about May 16, confirming the date by a copy of the Inmate Personal Property Inventory used in the transfer of plaintiff's property. If this date is accurate, Lieutenant Smith must have thrown the typewriter before May 16. He could not have committed that act pursuant to Marks' instruction, as plaintiff has alleged, because Marks did not become Commissioner until June 12, a fact which is uncontroverted.
[14] Plaintiff has not directly controverted defendant's assertion that plaintiff's property was received in Pittsburgh by May 16. Based on his statement that he never saw his property at Pittsburgh, he may be unable to do so. While I am aware of the difficulties plaintiff faces as a pro se litigant and as an inmate in determining the facts, I can't ignore that the timing issue raises grave doubts that events could have transpired as plaintiff has alleged. There is another glaring inconsistency in plaintiff's submissions. In his first amended complaint, plaintiff alleges:
[15]
d -- As soon as defendant Marks took control of the Bureau of Corrections he ordered that the Plaintiff typewriter be destroyed and that his most value legal files and papers be destroyed along with any other material not yet turned over to the Plaintiff that was civil in nature and defendant Kohut lead the instruction on what to confiscate and or destroy inorder to meet defendant Marks instructions to keep the plaintiff out of court system for as long as they could.