Frazier v. Diguglielmo

• Decision Date: 25 June 2008
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 06-4186.
• Citation: 640 F.Supp.2d 593
• Parties: Clayborn Rashied FRAZIER, Plaintiff, v. David DIGUGLIELMO, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Page 593

640 F.Supp.2d 593

Clayborn Rashied FRAZIER, Plaintiff, v. David DIGUGLIELMO, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 06-4186.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

June 25, 2008.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Clayborn Rashied Frazier, Graterford, PA, pro se.

Beth Anne Smith, Office of Attorney General, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants.

OPINION

POLLAK, District Judge.

Before the court is defendants' motion to dismiss the claims of plaintiff Clayborn Rashied Frazier, a prisoner at the State Correctional Institution at Graterford ("Graterford"), against several Graterford officers and supervisors. Plaintiff's original complaint alleged that defendants violated plaintiff's constitutional rights and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq., by interfering with his mail and seizing legal materials from his cell. See Docket No. 1 (hereinafter, "Compl."). After defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, see Docket No. 6 (hereinafter, "Mot."), plaintiff filed an amended complaint, see Docket No. 22 (hereinafter, "Amd. Compl."), containing a "clarification of issues complained of." Amd. Compl. at 6. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. See Docket No. 23 ("2d Mot."). Although plaintiff has filed several motions relating to discovery since the filing of defendants' second motion to dismiss, he has not filed a response to the merits of the motion to dismiss.

As defendants note, it is not clear on the face of the amended complaint whether plaintiff intends the amended complaint to replace or to supplement the original complaint.¹ Accordingly, defendants incorporated their response to the original complaint in their response to the amended complaint. 2d Mot. 2 n. 1. The court will construe plaintiff's amended complaint as a supplement to, rather than a replacement of, plaintiff's original complaint.

I.

When ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a district court must "accept as true the facts alleged in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from them." Markowitz v. Northeast Land Co., 906 F.2d 100, 103 (3d Cir.1990). Granting the motion is appropriate only "where it is certain that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved." Id. "[P]ro se prisoner complaints `however inartfully pleaded' are held to 'less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'" Muhammad v. Carlson, 739 F.2d 122, 123 (3d Cir.1984) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976)). Nevertheless, the court will not assume facts that cannot reasonably be inferred from a pro se complaint in order to sustain a deficient claim. See Hurney v. Carver, 602 F.2d 993, 995 (1st Cir.1979).

II.

Plaintiff has filed suit against Graterford superintendent David Diguglielmo, mailroom supervisor Kim Ulinski, deputy superintendent Michael Lorenzo, and corrections officers Jesse White, Ardell Bell, Arthur Butler, and Gamalier Soto. Plaintiff's claims arise from defendants' alleged interference with his mail and seizure of legal materials from his cell.

In combination, the complaint and amended complaint allege the following:

On July 1, 2005, plaintiff paid $8 to send a package to Sandra Frazier by certified mail. Compl. ¶ 10; Amd. Compl. ¶ 8 & Exh. D. The package contained a draft writ of error coram nobis and supporting documents, which Ms. Frazier was to photocopy and forward to the Court of Common Pleas on plaintiffs behalf. Compl. ¶¶ 10, 18. Ms. Frazier did not receive the package. See Compl. Appx. II (U.S. Postal Service complaint form filled out by Ms. Frazier on July 21, 2005). Twelve days after plaintiff attempted to send the package, on July 13, 2005, an inquiry to the U.S. Postal Service "Track & Confirm" website regarding the tracking number on plaintiff's certified mail receipt generated a response that the Postal Service had no record of the package. Amd. Compl. Exh. D, F (receipt and negative response). That same day, plaintiff sent a request to the Graterford mailroom, inquiring whether the package had been mailed from the prison. The following day, July 14, 2005, a staff member replied that the package had been sent. Amd. Compl. Exh. E. On August 15, 2005, the package was returned to plaintiff, with Sandra Frazier's address blacked out on the package and on the green certified mail acknowledgment card. Amd. Compl. ¶ 17.

Before the package was returned to plaintiff, on August 2, 2005, plaintiff re-drafted and mailed the writ of error coram nobis, this time sending it by certified mail to Vivian Miller in the Office of the Clerk of Quarter Sessions of Philadelphia's Criminal Justice Center. Compl. ¶ 13; Amd. Compl. ¶ 13. Two days later, plaintiff received the green certified mail acknowledgment card from Miller indicating that she had received the package. Compl. Exh. C; Amd. Compl. Exh. G. On August 11, 2005, plaintiff received notice from the Office of the Clerk of Quarter Sessions stating that the office was not the proper place to file his writ, and that the writ would be forwarded to the motions court of the Criminal Justice Center. Amd. Compl. ¶ 14 & Exh. H.

Meanwhile, on August 4, 2005, defendants White and Soto searched plaintiff's prison cell and confiscated two cartons of his legal materials. Compl. ¶ 13. Plaintiff was handcuffed for ninety minutes during the search. Compl. ¶ 19.

Plaintiff received a memorandum dated August 10, 2005 from defendant Lorenzo explaining why the August 4 seizure occurred. Amd. Compl. Exh. J. According to the memorandum, the search was intended to confiscate materials related to the Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC"), which certain inmates were using "to file fraudulent or bogus liens against Department staff." Id. The memorandum stated that UCC-related materials were considered contraband and would not be returned, but that any non-UCC-related materials would be returned. The memorandum also informed plaintiff that he had the right to file an objection to the seizure using an attached form and the right to file a grievance if his materials were not returned following his objection. Id.

October 10, 2005, plaintiff's cell was again searched. Defendants Bell and Butler confiscated the writ of coram nobis that plaintiff had attempted to mail on July 1 (and that was returned to him on August 15), as well as his complaints to the U.S. Postal Service. Compl. ¶ 15; Amd. Compl. ¶ 8.

On June 27, 2007, approximately nine months after plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, plaintiff received a letter from senior deputy attorney general Beth Ann Smith and a five-page inventory of the documents that had been seized from him on August 4, 2005. See Amd. Compl. Exh. K. The letter informed plaintiff that legal materials relating to his criminal and habeas cases could be returned to him, with the exception of his writ of error coram nobis, which was deemed unreturnable because it contained exhibits pertaining to the UCC. Two pages of the inventory listed items that would be returned to plaintiff, and three pages listed items that would not be returned. Id.; Amd. Compl. ¶ 20. On July 3, 2007, the items deemed returnable were returned to plaintiff. Amd. Compl. ¶ 21. On July 5, 2007, plaintiff was informed by letter that "pursuant to DOC policy, the confiscated UCC-related documents [could] not be shipped home" and that the UCC-related documents would "remain in a secured area at Graterford until the UCC cases are resolved." Amd. Compl. ¶ 23 & Exh. L.

Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages; the return of all of his legal materials; an injunction barring Graterford officials from confiscating UCC-related materials; and costs and attorneys' fees.² Compl. ¶¶ 22-24; Amd. Compl. at 7.

III.

Plaintiff brings the instant claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, claiming that defendants' interference with his mail and seizure of legal materials from his cell violated his rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, the Commerce Clause, various criminal statutes, and RICO. Defendants have moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) (6) to dismiss all claims for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Defendants also contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to plaintiff's claims for damages.

For the reasons discussed below, it is apparent that plaintiff's aggregate pleading—the complaint and amended complaint together—does state a claim under the First Amendment (as applied to states via the Fourteenth Amendment). The court will grant defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's other constitutional and RICO claims. The court also finds that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity against plaintiff's claim for money damages on the First Amendment claim.

A.

Plaintiff alleges two different claims under the First Amendment: first, that plaintiff's right of access to the courts was violated by defendants' confiscation of plaintiff's legal mail, and second, that his free speech rights were violated by the confiscation of all legal materials that defendants deemed related to the UCC. See Compl. ¶¶ 18, 22. Defendants contend that plaintiff's court access claim fails because plaintiff has alleged no actual injury; that his free speech claim fails under Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987); and that defendants are, in any case, entitled to qualified immunity. Mot. 4-9, 18-19.

1.

A prisoner's First Amendment rights include a right of access to courts. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977). To plead a violation of this right, a plaintiff must allege that the state's interference with his mail led to an "actual injury," meaning "that he or she has been hindered in an effort to pursue a nonfrivolous legal claim." Jones v. Brown, 461 F.3d 353, 359 (3d Cir.2006) (citing Lewis v. Casey, 518...