Rivera v. Monko

• Decision Date: 15 June 2022
• Docket Number: 20-2531
• Citation: 37 F.4th 909
• Parties: Michael RIVERA, Appellant v. Kevin MONKO; Wynston Gilbert; John Doe
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

37 F.4th 909

Michael RIVERA, Appellant

v.Kevin MONKO; Wynston Gilbert; John Doe

No. 20-2531

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued on April 30, 2021

Opinion filed: June 15, 2022

Devi Rao [ARGUED], Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center, 501 H Street, NE, Suite 275, Washington, DC 20002, Counsel for Appellant

Michael J. Scarinci [ARGUED], Office of Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Strawberry Square, 15th Floor, Harrisburg, PA 17120, Counsel for Appellee

Before: PHIPPS, NYGAARD and ROTH, Circuit Judges

OPINION OF THE COURT

ROTH, Circuit Judge:

Prisoners have a well-settled constitutional right to access the courts to challenge their convictions and conditions of confinement. But how far does that right extend? Does it follow litigants to the courthouse door, only to retreat as soon as their complaints have been filed? Or does it reach into the courtroom as those complaints are adjudicated? Michael Rivera argues that, at the time of his civil rights trial, he had a clearly established right to access the courts at all stages of litigation. He appeals the District Court's order dismissing his complaint against two corrections officers and a prison law librarian who, he alleges, completely deprived him of the ability to research evidentiary and court rules ahead of and during his trial. He contends that, as a result, he lost a potentially meritorious claim.

The District Court found that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time of the alleged violation, a prisoner had no clearly established right to access legal materials at the trial stage of a civil rights case.

Precedent forces us to agree with the District Court: existing Supreme Court and Third Circuit Court of Appeals law had not clearly established a prisoner's right to access the courts after he or she filed a complaint. Going forward, however, there should be no doubt that such a right exists. The ability of a prisoner to access basic legal materials in a law library, such as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and the rules of the court in which the prisoner is litigating, does not stop once a prisoner has taken the first step towards the courthouse's door. Prisoners need to continue to have a right to access the courts after they file their complaints; otherwise, the right is illusory. Under the facts alleged here, the defendants violated this right, even though they may not have been aware at the time that they did so. Thus, while qualified immunity bars Rivera's claim in this case, it would not bar similarly situated prisoners' claims in the future.

A. Background

Rivera is an inmate at SCI-Fayette. He was temporarily transferred to SCI-Retreat in July 2017 in order to represent himself in a trial challenging his conditions of confinement.¹ He was assigned to the Restricted Housing Unit (RHU) from which inmates may access a satellite "mini law library." Rivera's trial was scheduled to begin on a Monday. On Friday, he submitted a request slip to Lieutenant Monko, seeking access to the mini law library. Lieutenant Monko stated that Rivera could visit the library sometime that day and approved his request for continuing access to the library throughout his trial.

That evening, Sergeant Gilbert escorted Rivera to the mini law library. The library did not contain any physical books, only two computers. Both were inoperable. Sergeant Gilbert told Rivera that he would "get with Lieutenant Monko and the Law Librarian on Monday and try to get the computer fixed."² He never did. The computers remained inoperable during Rivera's entire stay at SCI-Retreat. As a result, Rivera had no way to access the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and the court rules.

Rivera then asked Sergeant Gilbert whether he could borrow paper copies of the rules from the main law library since he could not use the computers in the mini law library. His request was denied because "the Law Librarian said no."³ Rivera requested access to hard copies again, after his trial had started, and was again refused.

Rivera alleges that this complete lack of access to legal materials hindered his ability to represent himself at trial. He claims that when he testified at trial, he did not know he needed to provide foundational testimony about the unsworn declaration and medical records he planned to introduce as exhibits. The judge refused to admit his evidence on hearsay grounds. The jury entered a verdict in favor of the defendants. According to Rivera, access to the Federal Rules of Evidence would have assisted him in being able to get his evidence admitted and likely would have changed the outcome of his trial.

B. Procedural History

Rivera filed a grievance shortly after the jury verdict, alleging that he was denied access to legal materials at his trial. He exhausted his administrative remedies through the prison grievance process. He then filed a pro se action in Pennsylvania state court against Lieutenant Monko, Sergeant Gilbert, and the unnamed law librarian.⁴ The law librarian was not served. Lieutenant Monko and Sergeant Gilbert removed the case to United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and then moved to dismiss Rivera's complaint, contending that 1) Rivera's complaint did not state a viable access-to-courts claim, and 2) the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. The District Court⁵ awarded qualified immunity to all defendants (including the unserved law librarian), finding that no legal authority clearly established Rivera's right to access his prison's law library at the time of his trial. Rivera appealed.

II.⁶

Our review of a district court's dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is plenary.⁷ We "accept all factual allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief."⁸ Complaints filed by pro se litigants, such as Rivera, are liberally construed,⁹ but must still "allege sufficient facts ... to support a claim."¹⁰ We also exercise plenary review over a district court's grant of qualified immunity, which is an issue of law.¹¹ In qualified immunity cases, we accept the plaintiff's allegations as true and draw all inferences in his favor,¹² even where, as here, a court decides only whether a right is clearly established and not whether it has been violated.¹³

III.

Properly construed under the liberal standard afforded to pro se litigants, Rivera's complaint does state an access-to-courts claim. It is also clear from the complaint that Rivera's right to access legal materials before and during his civil rights trial was violated. However, "[t]he standard for qualified immunity is tilted in favor of shielding government actors and ... protect[s] all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law."¹⁴ Its protection is difficult to break:

immunity from liability attaches to government officials except where 1) the plaintiff has alleged facts showing a violation of a constitutional right, and 2) at the time of the challenged conduct, the right the defendant violated was clearly established.¹⁵ Only the first condition is met here. A prisoner's right to access the courts beyond the filing of the complaint was not yet clearly established in the Supreme Court or in this Court. It is now established in this Court, going forward.

A. Violation of a Constitutional Right

To state a claim for denial of access to the courts, an inmate must allege both that he was denied "the tools ... need[ed] ... in order to challenge the conditions of [his] confinement" and that an actual injury resulted.¹⁶ "Where prisoners assert that defendants' actions have inhibited their opportunity to present a past legal claim, they must show (1) that they ... lost a chance to pursue a ‘nonfrivolous’ or ‘arguable’ underlying claim; and (2) that they have no other ‘remedy that may be awarded as recompense’ for the lost claim other than in the present denial of access suit."¹⁷

Rivera in the allegations of his complaint has stated such a claim: He had a potentially meritorious lawsuit concerning his conditions of confinement. He had successfully filed his complaint and survived pretrial proceedings. However, because of his inability both before and at trial to access the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, he was not able to introduce important records and statements into evidence. The jury decided against him. He claims that if he had had access to the Federal Rules of Evidence, he would have been able to introduce the reports and statements into evidence and that the jury was likely to have held in his favor. Through the denial of access to the law library materials, his right of access to the courts was terminated before he achieved his remedy.

Because we recognize that a prisoner has a constitutional right of access to the courts in order to file a lawsuit concerning the conditions of his confinement, it is ludicrous to hold that the right of access stops once the complaint has been filed. We know of very few lawyers who could litigate such an action without being able to refer to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. A pro se prisoner is much less likely to be able to do so.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed with this standard holding that "a prisoner's simple ability to file a complaint is not dispositive."¹⁸ "A prisoner states an access-to-courts claim when he alleges that even though he successfully got into court by filing a complaint ..., his denial of access to legal materials caused a potentially meritorious claim to fail."¹⁹

It is clear to us that when a prisoner asserts a potentially meritorious conditions of confinement claim, his access to the court must encompass continuing...