Pepper v. Carroll

• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
• Writing for the Court: Farnan
• Citation: Pepper v. Carroll, 423 F.Supp.2d 442 (D. Del. 2006)
• Decision Date: 22 March 2006
• Docket Number: No. CIV.A. 05-84-JJF.,CIV.A. 05-84-JJF.
• Parties: Monty C. PEPPER, Plaintiff, v. Walden Thomas CARROLL, C/O Bambi Thomas, C/O James Gardels, and C/O Thomas Seacord, Defendants.

423 F.Supp.2d 442

Monty C. PEPPER, Plaintiff, v. Walden Thomas CARROLL, C/O Bambi Thomas, C/O James Gardels, and C/O Thomas Seacord, Defendants.

No. CIV.A. 05-84-JJF.

United States District Court, D. Delaware.

March 22, 2006.

Monty C. Pepper, Pro Se Plaintiff.

Lisa Ann Barchi, Esquire of Department of Justice, Wilmington, DE, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

FARNAN, District Judge.

Pending before the Court are State Defendants' Motion To Dismiss/Summary Judgment Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) Of The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure (D.I.33) and Plaintiffs Motion For Extension Of Time To File Answering Brief To Defendants' Motion And Opening Brief (D.I.36). For the reasons discussed, Plaintiffs and Defendants' Motions will be granted.¹

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is an inmate at the Delaware Correctional Center ("DCC") in Smyrna, Delaware. On February 15, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his First Amendment right to access the courts by refusing legal calls and additional time in the law library. Plaintiff also alleges that his First Amendment rights have been infringed through Defendants' censorship of his mail and the denial of religious services. Plaintiff further alleges that he has been verbally abused and that he fears being attacked by the correctional officers at the DCC. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that he has been denied several privileges while voluntarily housed in the Security Housing Unit (the "SHU"), such as reading material, television, cleaning products, shaving razors, boiling water, and ice, and that such denials constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

Defendants filed their Motion To Dismiss/Summary Judgment Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) Of The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure (D.I. 33) on January 26, 2006. Plaintiff filed a Motion For Extension Of Time To File Answering Brief To Defendants' Motion And Opening Brief (D.I.36) and subsequently submitted his answer brief. Several motions for injunctive relief filed by Plaintiff are also pending before the Court. (D.I.8, 12, 25).

II. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

By their Motion, Defendants first contend that Plaintiff has not been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment because verbal abuse does not give rise to a constitutional violation and because Plaintiff has not been deprived of the basic necessities of life. Second, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs First Amendment right to access the courts has not been infringed because Plaintiff has had ample access to the law library, he has not been refused legal calls, and he has failed to show a resulting injury due to any alleged deprivation. Third, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs claim for retaliation must fail because Plaintiff cannot demonstrate a causal link between the exercise of a protected activity and an adverse action. Fourth, Defendants contend that Plaintiff has failed to allege a physical injury as required to recover for mental or emotional injury under the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"). Finally, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs claims are barred by sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, or alternatively, that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party is entitled to summary judgment if a court determines from its examination of "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any," that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.² Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In determining whether there is a triable dispute of material fact, a court must review all of the evidence and construe all inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Goodman v. Mead Johnson & Co., 534 F.2d 566, 573 (3d Cir.1976). However, a court should not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000).

To defeat a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must "do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. In the language of the Rule, the non-moving party must come forward with `specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (citations omitted). However, the mere existence of some evidence in support of the nonmovant will not be sufficient to support a denial of a motion for summary judgment; there must be enough evidence to enable a jury to reasonably find for the nonmovant on that issue. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Whether Defendants Violated Plaintiffs First Amendment Right To Access The Courts

Prisoners have a First Amendment right to "adequate, effective, and meaningful" access the courts. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 822, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977). Plaintiff contends that Defendants have violated his right to access the courts by denying him legal telephone calls, slips on which to request legal calls, and additional hours in the law library and by retaliating against him for filing his Complaint.

1. Legal Telephone Calls

Plaintiff contends that he was denied the legal call forms used by inmates to request a call to an attorney. Instead, Plaintiff contends that he was asked to write his request on a piece of paper. Plaintiff contends that he made several requests on paper between October 12, 2004 and February 1, 2005, but that his requests were "trashed." Plaintiff also contends that his attorney was incompetent because she did not respond to his calls and because she failed to investigate an alleged Fourth Amendment violation related to his state criminal case.

Defendants have put forth evidence that they attempted to contact Plaintiff's attorney but that the attorney said she was too busy or did not want to speak to Plaintiff. Defendants have also put forth evidence that Plaintiff gave them the number of the Public Defender's Office, but that when they contacted the office, they were informed that Plaintiff was not a client.

The Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a triable issue of material fact. The fact that Plaintiff's attorney was ineffective or too busy to speak to Plaintiff, does not mean that Defendants violated Plaintiffs rights. Furthermore, Defendants Thomas and Seacord have submitted affidavits stating that several attempts were made to reach Plaintiffs attorney; Plaintiff has submitted no evidence that Defendants were trashing his requests. Rather, Plaintiffs evidence supports Defendants' argument that the requests weren't trashed. During the time in which Plaintiff was attempting to contact his attorney, the attorney was in the process of withdrawing as Plaintiffs counsel. (D.I. 41 at 24) (showing that Plaintiffs attorney filed a motion to withdraw as counsel on October 12, 2004). Plaintiff wrote to his attorney to confirm that Defendants Seacord and Thomas had trashed his requests, but Plaintiff received no response. Because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a triable issue of fact, the Court will grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment as it relates to the legal telephone calls.

2. Law Library Usage And Legal Assistance

Plaintiff also contends that he has been given inadequate law library time and legal assistance. The Court, however, concludes that Plaintiff has been provided adequate, meaningful access to the courts, and therefore, has failed to demonstrate a triable issue of fact. Defendants have put forth evidence, which has not been rebutted by Plaintiff, that Plaintiff had several opportunities to use the law library and its services. While in the SHU between November 29, 2004 and February 5, 2005, Plaintiff requested and received law library services 23 times. (D.I. 34 at Ex. M, N). During that time, Plaintiff also had access to the law library 77 times. (D.I. 34 at Ex. N). After leaving the SHU, Plaintiff had 19 appointments at the law library within two and a half months; he failed to appear for four of those appointments. (D.I. 34 at Ex. 0). Plaintiff essentially requests that the prison's legal resources be made available to him 24 hours a day, but the prison is not required to make available "permanent provision of counsel" or its equivalents. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996). Accordingly, the Court will grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment as it relates to Plaintiffs claim that he has been given inadequate law library time and legal assistance.

3. Plaintiffs Retaliation Claim

A prisoner's First Amendment right to access the courts is infringed when prison officials retaliate against the prisoner for taking legal action. Milhouse v. Carlson, 652 F.2d 371, 373-74 (3d Cir. 1981). A prisoner claiming retaliation must show three things: (1) that the conduct leading to the retaliation was constitutionally protected; (2) that prison officials have taken some adverse action against the prisoner; and (3) the existence of a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse action. Rauser v. Horn, 241 F.3d 330, 333 (3d Cir.2001). In order to establish a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse action, a plaintiff must first show that the exercise of the protected activity was a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse action. Id. (citing Mount Healthy Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287, 97 S.Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977)). Once a prisoner has met this burden, "the prison officials may still prevail by proving [by a preponderance of the evidence] that they would have made the same decision absent the protected conduct for...