Monroe v. Beard
| Decision Date | 29 July 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 07-3711.,07-3711. |
| Citation | 536 F.3d 198 |
| Parties | Edward MONROE, sui juris; Devon Collins, sui juris; Anthony Dickerson, sui juris; Gregory Stover, sui juris; Robert J. Royster, sui juris; Charles Poulson, Jr., sui juris; Richard K. Johnson, sui juris; Salim Hickman, sui juris; Howard Gibson, sui juris; Maurice Everett, sui juris; Alexander Davis, sui juris; Lawrence Belser, sui juris, Appellants v. Jeffrey A. BEARD, Ph.D; David Diguglielmo; Shaffer, Executive Deputy Secretary; Donald T. Vaughn; Murray, Deputy; Buzzard, Major; Field, Major; Michael A. Lorenzo; Thomas Dohman; Scott Pasquale; Jeffrey Baker; Sharon Luquis; Sylvia Pallott; Eric Jones; Knauer, Lt.; Moyer, Lt.; Radle, Lt.; Lt. Owens; Grunder, Lt.; Linda Miller; Kim Ulisny; Mary Cannino; c/o Haiston; Unknown Accomplice; Lt. Scott Bowman; c/o J.R. Andalora; Sgt. Vojacek; c/o Strong; c/o N. Hall; c/o N. Hollis; Sgt. Hale; c/o Reese; c/o Short; c/o A. Campbell; c/o Leblanc; Lt. A. Flaims; c/o McMichael; c/o D.M. Weaver; Lt. Lapinkski; c/o Stokes; c/o Ulkowski. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Edward Monroe, Devon Collins, Anthony Dickerson, Gregory Stover, Robert J. Royster, Charles Poulson, Jr., Salim Hickman, Howard Gibson, Maurice Everett, Alexander Davis, Lawrence Belser, Appellants, Pro Se.
Claudia M. Tesoro, Esquire, Office of Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellees.
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, HARDIMAN and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges.
Fifteen current and former inmates1 at the State Correctional Institute (SCI) at Graterford, Pennsylvania filed a pro se lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against various employees of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC). Brought in forma pauperis and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the complaint alleged that the defendants violated the plaintiffs' constitutional rights by confiscating their legal materials, including certain publications and Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) materials. The District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and their motion for summary judgment. Because the plaintiffs have not established that the defendants' confiscation of their materials violated their constitutional rights, we will affirm the District Court's dismissal of their lawsuit.
In 2004, William Fairall, DOC Deputy Chief Counsel, learned that inmates at prisons across the country were filing fraudulent liens and judgments against prosecutors and prison officials.2 Evidently, inmates were filing financing statements under Article 9 of the UCC, which sets forth a process for perfecting security interests in property.3 These liens and judgments, accessible on financing statement forms, are easy to file. Once registered, however, the fraudulent liens are very burdensome to remove. For example, in a New Jersey incident, criminal defendants registered a fraudulent $14.5 million lien with the New Jersey Department of Revenue against a federal prosecutor and a $ 3.5 million lien against a federal judge for using their "copyrighted" names in court papers and hearings; it took a federal court order to remove them. In addition to the substantial effort and expense required to expunge the liens, the fraudulent filings ruined the victims' credit reports. See Decl. of William Fairall, Deputy Chief Counsel of the Department of Corrections ¶¶ 3-7; Third Decl. Of John W. Moyer, Lieutenant, Internal Security Office, SCI-Graterford, ¶¶ 3-4; John Shiffman, Defendants Go on the Offensive, PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, Jun. 6, 2004, at B 1.4
In 2004, security staff at various DOC institutions reported that inmates were receiving information and documents concerning the filing of liens under the UCC. Additionally, in June 2005, the DOC discovered that a Pennsylvania inmate had filed a fraudulent lien against a state court judge, a superintendent, and DOC Secretary Jeffrey Beard (a defendant in this action); although the DOC sought to expunge the lien and the Pennsylvania Department of State issued adjudications declaring the financing statements fraudulent, the inmate appealed both adjudications. Moreover, officials learned that inmates within the DOC were charging others fees of up to $1,500 to start the UCC redemption process As a result of these events, in July 2005, DOC management issued a memorandum to all its institutions, declaring as "contraband" all UCC forms, documents relating to UCC filings, materials on "redemption" and copyrighting names, and publications regarding the "redemption or lien filings." Specifically, it established that the possession and receipt of these publications violated its policy on inmate mail privilege, DC-ADM 803, which prohibits "[w]ritings that advocate, assist or are evidence of criminal activity or facilitate misconduct." The memorandum also directed prison officials to investigate inmates believed to be engaged in copyrighting their names or filing liens. But it cautioned that the material should not be destroyed until inmates had an opportunity to object using an "Unacceptable Correspondence Form," indicating that they had an independent, legitimate purpose for possessing the items.
Informed of this policy, Internal Security Staff at SCI-Graterford began tracking and keeping a list of which Graterford inmates had been receiving these materials. In August 2005, Lieutenant Moyer instructed corrections officers to raid the cells of inmates on the list of names compiled. The officers entered the cells, strip-searched the inmates, ordered them to redress, handcuffed them, and ordered them to stand outside while the officers searched their cells. During this search, officers confiscated all of the inmates' contraband and non-contraband legal materials, including legal briefs, transcripts, notes of testimony, exhibits, copies of reference books, treatises, journals, and personal handwritten notes.
Following the search, the officers took the seized materials to the Internal Security Office and placed each inmate's materials into separate boxes. Each inmate received a letter setting forth the DOC's rationale for the raid and informing him that he could object to the searches by filling out an "Unacceptable Correspondence Form." From August 2005 to July 2006, Lieutenant Moyer conducted a preliminary review of the materials and evaluated which items were immediately returnable. In October and November 2005, he met with the inmates and offered to return the returnable items, but many inmates refused the offer.5
A second set of reviews occurred in August 2006 after Moyer and legal counsel evaluated the confiscated materials and, for each inmate, created a list of documents that were and were not returnable. Moyer met with each of the inmates, presented him with the compiled list, and offered to let each inmate review his material and take back the returnable materials. Although four of the plaintiffs reviewed the materials, the rest refused to review any of the materials presented. All of the inmates refused to take back material that was deemed returnable.
Pursuant to a court order, in September and October 2006, Moyer and two other officers supervised a review of the materials by nine of the plaintiffs involved in this action. All but one of the plaintiffs refused defendants' offer to receive back items deemed returnable.
After pursuing complaints through the both the prison's special and normal grievance procedures,6 the plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit, which the District Court construed as arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They collectively alleged that the defendants: (1) executed searches and seizures of plaintiffs' cells in violation of the Fourth Amendment; (2) inflicted unnecessary and wanton pain without penological justification in violation of the Eighth Amendment7; (3) confiscated their legal materials, thereby depriving them of their First Amendment right of access to the courts; (4) deprived them of property without Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment; (5) deprived them of their First Amendment right to use UCC materials and publications advocating the redemption process and copyrighting their names; and (6) are engaged in activity violating the Commerce Clause and the Anti-Peonage Act. The District Court granted the defendants' motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and dismissed their Fourth, Eighth, and First Amendment access to the courts claims, as well as their Commerce Clause and Anti-Peonage claims. However, it allowed their other claims to proceed. Thereafter, the defendants moved for summary judgment on the remaining claims, and the plaintiffs filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motions. Plaintiffs now appeal both orders.
We have jurisdiction over the District Court's orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over the District Court's order dismissing claims under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). See Sands v. McCormick, 502 F.3d 263, 267 (3d Cir.2007). Reviewing such an order, we accept as true all allegations in the plaintiff's complaint as well as all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from them, and we construe them in a light most favorable to the non-movant. Bright v. Westmoreland County, 380 F.3d 729, 735 (3d Cir.2004). To survive a motion to dismiss, "a plaintiff must allege facts that raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)." Victaulic Co. v. Tieman, 499 F.3d 227, 234 (3d Cir.2007)(citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)).
A. First Amendment, Access to Court Claim
Under the First and Fourteenth...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ball v. Beckley
...451 U.S. 527, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981)). Pre-deprivation notice is not constitutionally required. See id.Monroe v. Beard, 536 F.3d 198, 210 (3d Cir. 2008). Thus, there are two crucial components to any inmate due process claim in this setting: (1) the confiscation of property; ......
-
Booze v. Wetzel, CIVIL NO. 1:13-CV-2139
...no other remedy that may be awarded as recompense for the lost claim other than in the present denial of access suit." Monroe v. Beard, 536 F.3d 198, 205 (3d Cir.2008) (quoting Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415, 122 S.Ct. 2179, 153 L.Ed.2d 413 (2002)) (internal quotations omitted). ......
-
Rivera v. Chester Cnty.
...and legal materials. "Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, prisoners retain a right of access to the courts." Monroe v. Beard, 536 F.3d 198, 205 (3d Cir. 2008), citing Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350-1 (1996). "Access to the prison law library is not a 'freestanding' right, however,......
-
Drake v. Filko
...the District Court's dismissal of Appellants' complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Monroe v. Beard, 536 F.3d 198, 205 (3d Cir.2008); and the District Court's denial of Appellants' motion for summary judgment, State Auto Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Pro Design, ......
-
Prisoners' Rights
...(right of access not violated though prisoner dissatisfied with appointed attorney because assistance “ineffective”); Monroe v. Beard, 536 F.3d 198, 206 (3d Cir. 2008) (right of access not violated by prison official seizing prisoner’s legal materials because materials later accessible an......
-
Review Proceedings
...assistance where petitioner’s request for materials from law library denied because petitioner had access to attorney); Monroe v. Beard, 536 F.3d 198, 206 (3d Cir. 2008) (no lack of access to courts where plaintiffs given opportunity to review confiscated legal documents); Cochran v. Morri......
-
Law's Body
...24 DUQ. L. REV. 1, 21 (1985)) ("In Plato's philosophy . . . death should not be hastened by suicide.").94. See, e.g., Monroe v. Beard, 536 F.3d 198, 203 n.4 (3d Cir. 2008) (rejecting "flesh and blood" advocates who believe "that a person has a split personality: a real person and a fictiona......
-
Chapter 8 Due Process and Other Associated Rights
...v. Miller, 1982. 695 F.2d 1044. McCollum v. Williford, 1986. 793 F.2d 903. Meachum v. Fano, 1976. 427 U.S. 215. Monroe v. Beard, 2008. 536 F.3d 198 Montanye v. Haymes, 1976. 427 U.S. 236. Morrissey v. Brewer, 1972. 408 U.S. 471. Murry v. Giarratano, 1989. 492 U.S. 1 Olim v. Wakinekona, 1983......