Foreman v. Lowe , 261 F. App'x 401 ( 2008 )

Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
1-16-2008
Foreman v. Lowe
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-1995
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Foreman v. Lowe" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1731.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1731
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-1995
___________
MICHAEL FOREMAN,
Appellant
v.
CRAIG LOWE, Warden;
A.W. ROMANCE; A. W. MCLAUGHLIN;
LT. KUMBURIS; PIKE COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY;
I.C.E.; MR. POSLZNY; MR. CLARKE; MR. O'NEILL
__________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 06-cv-00580)
District Judge: Honorable A. Richard Caputo
_________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 10, 2008
Before: RENDELL, JORDAN and GARTH, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: January 16, 2008)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
PER CURIAM
Michael Foreman appeals pro se from an order of the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissing his civil rights action brought pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bur. of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We will affirm.
In March 2006, Foreman, an immigration detainee held at the Pike County
Correctional Facility (“PCCF”), submitted an in forma pauperis complaint challenging his
maximum custody status and alleging that the restraints attendant to such status denied
him access to the courts. He named as defendants the PCCF and the Bureau of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), along with officials and employees of
both institutions. Foreman sought monetary damages and reassignment to the general
population.
The PCCF defendants filed a motion for judgement on the pleadings. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(c). Separately, the ICE defendants moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, for
summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); 56. The District Court granted the
motions, concluding that Foreman’s maximum custody classification did not violate his
due process rights and that he failed to demonstrate any injury resulting from the denial of
access to certain legal materials. This timely appeal followed.1
1
We exercise plenary review over orders granting motions for judgment on the
pleadings and motions for summary judgment. See Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 535
(3d Cir. 2002); Gallo v. City of Philadelphia, 161 F.3d 217, 221 (3d Cir. 1998). In
reviewing an order granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings, we accept all factual
allegations in the complaint as true, and we draw all reasonable inferences in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff. See Turbe v. Government of Virgin Islands, 938 F.2d
427, 428 (3d Cir. 1991) (holding that when a Rule 12(c) motion alleges plaintiff’s failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, we analyze the motion under the same
standard as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss). “[W]hen ruling on a defendant’s motion
2
Foreman first complained that he was improperly placed in maximum custody
status.2 Because Foreman was an immigration detainee at the time of the alleged
constitutional violations, he is entitled to the same protections as a pretrial detainee. See
Edwards v. Johnson, 209 F.3d 772, 778 (5th Cir. 2000); see also Stevenson v. Carroll,
495 F.3d 62, 69 n.4 (3d Cir. 2007). In the pretrial detainee setting, claims are reviewed
pursuant to the Due Process Clause. See Hubbard v. Taylor, 399 F.3d 150, 158 (3d Cir.
2005). Thus, to determine whether challenged conditions of Foreman’s confinement
amount to punishment, “a court must decide whether the disability is imposed for the
purpose of punishment or whether it is but an incident of some other legitimate purpose.”
Id. (citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 538-39 (1979)). “Absent a showing of an
expressed intent to punish on the part of detention facility officials, that determination
generally will turn on ‘whether an alternative purpose to which [the restriction] may
rationally be connected is assignable for it, and whether it appears excessive in relation to
the alternative purpose assigned [to it].’” Stevenson, 495 F.3d at 67 (citing Bell, 441 U.S.
to dismiss, a judge must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the
complaint.” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007)). A grant of summary judgment will be
affirmed if our review reveals that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and
that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
We review the facts in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary
judgment was entered. See Coolspring Stone Supply, Inc. v. American States Life Ins.
Co., 10 F.3d 144, 146 (3d Cir. 1993).
2
There is no suggestion that Foreman’s classification affected the time he spent in
detention.
3
at 538). Foreman did not present any evidence demonstrating that the defendants had an
express intent to punish him. Furthermore, although he complained about “sitting on
maximum custody status for no reason,” prison records indicate that Foreman’s security
classification was a result of his inability to follow the facility’s rules and regulations. In
particular, Foreman was found guilty of threatening physical harm, possessing property
belonging to another person, acting insolently toward a staff member, refusing to obey an
order, and creating a minor disturbance. The warden informed Foreman that a custody
status change would be considered when he corrected his behavior. It is clear, therefore,
that Foreman’s classification resulted from the legitimate purpose of preserving prison
security, rather than from an effort to punish him. For these reasons, we conclude that the
District Court properly rejected this claim.
In his second claim, Foreman alleged that, as a result of his maximum custody
classification, he was allowed to use the prison law library only at midnight. He asserts
that this limited access interfered with his ability to timely file objections to a Magistrate
Judge’s Recommendation in separate civil rights action. Detainees have a right of access
to the courts. See Love v. Summit County, 776 F.2d 908, 912 (10th Cir.1985); see also
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996). Importantly, however, an inmate must allege an
actual injury to his ability to litigate a claim to demonstrate that his constitutional right of
access to the courts has been violated. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 352-53. An actual injury is
shown only where a nonfrivolous, arguable claim is lost. See Christopher v. Harbury, 536
4
U.S. 403, 415 (2002). We agree with the District Court that the defendants did not impair
Foreman’s right of access to the courts. Tellingly, the docket sheet from the separate civil
rights case indicates that Foreman obtained an extension of time within which to file his
objections, and that he met that deadline. Thus, Foreman’s right of access to the courts
was not violated.
For these reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s order.
5