Salkeld v. Tennis

Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
9-13-2007
Salkeld v. Tennis
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-1776
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Salkeld v. Tennis" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 438.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/438
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 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
BLD-348 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 07-1776
________________
TONY C. SALKELD,
Appellant
v.
FRANKLIN TENNIS, Individually and in
official capacity as Superintendent at
S.C.I. Rockview; FRANCES DOUGHERTY,
Ind. & in his official capacity as
business mgr. at S.C.I. Rockview; ALL
OTHERS WORKING IN THE MAIL ROOM
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 05-cv-00225)
District Judge: Honorable Thomas I. Vanaskie
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal as Untimely, Possible Dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B), or Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
August 16, 2007
Before: MCKEE, FUENTES AND VANANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges
(Filed September 13, 2007)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Appellant Tony Salkeld, an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at
Rockview in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
that the defendants violated his right of access to the courts. The District Court dismissed
the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The District Court
also dismissed Salkeld’s motion to restrain SCI-Rockview from opening “privileged”
mail concerning legal issues because Salkeld had failed to file a brief in support of his
motion as required by a local rule. Salkeld filed an appeal.1 Because no substantial
question is presented, L.A.R. 27.4, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order.
We need not repeat the details of Salkeld’s claims here as they are well-known to
the parties and are summarized in the District Court’s memorandum. In brief, Salkeld
contends his constitutional right of access to the courts was violated when the prison did
not advance him sufficient funds to mail a state court filing in a timely fashion. Salkeld
contends that because defendants’ actions prevented him from timely filing a statement of
issues complained of on appeal in the Pennsylvania Superior Court, all of his appellate
issues were waived. Salkeld further contends that the Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections’ inmate mail policy (policy number DC-ADM 803) is unconstitutional
because it does not provide for the advancement of funds to non-indigent inmates for
legal mail.
1
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The parties were previously
advised that this appeal was listed for possible dismissal as untimely. However, Salkeld
filed a motion under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6) which was granted by
the District Court. Accordingly, the instant appeal is properly before us.
2
We agree that the District Court properly dismissed Salkeld’s claims, but for
different reasons. See Erie Telecomms. v. Erie, 853 F.2d 1084, 1089 & n.10 (3d Cir.
1988) (an appellate court may affirm a correct decision by a lower court on grounds
different than those used by the lower court in reaching its decision). An inmate alleging
a violation of Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977), must show an actual injury, a
requirement that derives from the doctrine of standing. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343,
349 (1996). Specifically, the inmate must show that the alleged shortcomings in the
prison policy “hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim.” Id. at 351. See also Reynolds
v. Wagner, 128 F.3d 166, 183 (3d Cir. 1997) (no First Amendment right to subsidized
mail). However, the injury requirement is not satisfied by just any type of frustrated legal
claim; the legal claim must relate to a direct or collateral challenge to a prisoner’s
sentence or conditions of confinement. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 349 (“Impairment of any other
litigating capacity is simply one of the incidental (and perfectly constitutional)
consequences of conviction and incarceration.”) (emphasis in original). Here, Salkeld
alleged only that he was unable to timely file a statement of matters appealed from in a
“civil matter” pending in Pennsylvania state court. Further, the state court docket
attached to Salkeld’s amended complaint shows that he was a defendant in that civil
litigation. Accordingly, the District Court properly dismissed Salkeld’s amended
complaint. We also find no error in the District Court’s decision deeming Salkeld’s
motion for a temporary restraining order withdrawn because of Salkeld’s failure to
comply with a local rule requiring the timely filing of a supporting legal brief.
3
For the foregoing reasons, no substantial question is presented and we will affirm
the order of the District Court.
4