Kenneth Abraham v. Carl Danberg , 322 F. App'x 169 ( 2009 )

Opinions of the United
2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
4-24-2009
Kenneth Abraham v. Carl Danberg
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 08-4379
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009
Recommended Citation
"Kenneth Abraham v. Carl Danberg" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1482.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1482
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 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
BLD-146 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-4379
___________
KENNETH R. ABRAHAM,
Appellant
v.
COMMISSIONER CARL DANBERG; WARDEN PHELPS;
DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
MICHAEL BRYAN; PATRICK SMITH
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
(D.C. Civil No. 08-cv-00311)
District Judge: Honorable Sue. L. Robinson
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
March 26, 2009
Before: McKEE, FISHER and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges
(Filed: April 24, 2009)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Kenneth Abraham, an inmate at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, appeals
from an order by the District Court denying his motion for a preliminary injunction. For
the reasons that follow, we will dismiss Abraham’s appeal.
I.
Abraham filed a lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking injunctive relief
regarding his access to the prison law library. Abraham was working on a post-
conviction brief due in the Delaware Supreme Court and requested that the SHU library
provide him with six out-of-state cases that were cited in a footnote of the Delaware
Supreme Court opinion, Cole v. State, 922 A.2d 354 (Del. 2005). The brief was due on
November 19, 2008, and Abraham argued that these cases, which were published in the
Southern, Pacific, and Northwest Reporters, may be helpful to his case. The library
denied his repeated requests, informing Abraham that cases outside of the Third Circuit
were “not available.” Abraham alleged that the library also ignored his questions and, at
times, completely failed to respond to his requests in order to purposely hinder his
litigation. On September 23, 2008, Abraham moved the District Court for a preliminary
injunction directing the SHU law library to provide him with the six out-of-state cases
and mandate timely responses to his research requests.
The District Court denied Abraham’s motion because he could not meet the
requirements for injunctive relief. Abraham appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Because Abraham is proceeding in forma pauperis, we must dismiss
2
the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) if it is legally frivolous. We may summarily
affirm if the appeal presents no substantial question. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4 and 3d Cir.
I.O.P. 10.6.
II.
Ordinarily, an appellate court uses a three-part standard to review a district court’s
decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction: findings of fact are reviewed for clear
error, conclusions of law are evaluated under a plenary standard, and the ultimate decision
to grant the preliminary injunction is reviewed for abuse of discretion. However, when
First Amendment rights are at issue, we have a “constitutional duty to conduct an
independent examination of the record as a whole . . .” Rogers v. Corbett, 468 F.3d 188,
192 n.5 (3d Cir. 2006).
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted only
if: (1) the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) denial will result in irreparable
harm to the plaintiff; (3) granting the injunction will not result in irreparable harm to the
defendant; and (4) granting the injunction is in the public interest.” NutraSweet Co. v.
Vit-Mar Enters., Inc., 176 F.3d 151, 153 (3d Cir. 1999). Because of the intractable
problems of prison administration, a request for injunctive relief in the prison context
must be viewed with considerable caution. Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir.
1995).
3
Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts. Bounds v. Smith, 430
U.S. 817, 821 (1977). To show a First Amendment violation, an inmate must show that
he was actually injured by the alleged denial of access. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343,
350 (1996). Such an injury would occur, for example, if an inmate “was so stymied by
inadequacies of the law library that he was unable even to file a complaint.” Lewis, 518
U.S. at 351; see also Oliver v. Fauver, 118 F.3d 175, 177 (3d Cir. 1997) (defendants’
actions resulted in the “loss or rejection of a legal claim.”) The Constitution does not
require a prison to enable an inmate to litigate as effectively as one would like once in
court. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 354.
Abraham has not demonstrated that he sustained actual injury. Abraham was
given a copy of Cole v. State and as the District Court noted, Abraham has previously
practiced law and should know that state court decisions from states other than Delaware
have no precedential value in Delaware courts. Besides, Abraham merely alleged that
these out-of-state cases “could” be helpful or “may” be key, thereby suggesting that they
were not essential to his claims. Moreover, the record indicates that the SHU paralegal
provided Abraham with substantial assistance and accommodated his research requests in
a timely matter, and even Abraham’s own exhibits show that the library provided him
with the cases they had readily available. Finally, according to Delaware Supreme
Court’s docket, Abraham filed his brief. See Abraham v. State, 2009 Del. LEXIS 8, No.
441, 2008 (Del. Feb. 18, 2009). Thus, he has not shown that he was hindered in his
4
efforts to pursue his legal claims and the denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction
was, therefore, proper. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351.
For the foregoing reasons, we will dismiss Abraham’s appeal pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). His outstanding motions are all denied.
5