Davis v. Corrections Corporation of America et al
Filing
32
ORDER granting 24 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The Clerk is authorized and directed to enter the appropriate Judgment of dismissal. Signed by Magistrate Judge James E. Graham on 1/17/2013. (csr)
FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTJ.S. DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIARUSVO DIV.
WAYC ROSS DIVISION
103 AN fl A II 25
WILLIAM HOPE DAVIS,
:
CLERc
----SD. 01ST. OF GA.
Plaintiff,
:
V.
CIVIL ACTION NO.: CV512-027
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION
OF AMERICA; PEGGY ANN COOPER;
and KATRENA REED,
Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff, who is currently housed at Coffee Correctional Facility in Nicholls,
Georgia, filed a cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment, and Plaintiff filed a Response. For the reasons which
follow, Defendants' Motion is GRANTED.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Plaintiff asserts that he needed to file a notice of appeal and a certificate of
probable cause to appeal after his state habeas petition was dismissed as being
untimely and a successive petition. According to Plaintiff, it would have cost $2.76 to
mail these pleadings, but the indigent postage amount allowed for legal mailings is only
$2.20 (the equivalent of approximately five (5) first class postage stamps). Thus,
Plaintiff alleges, he was not allowed to file these pleadings, which denied him access to
the courts. Plaintiff also contends that Defendant Cooper, Defendant Reed, and the
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)
mailroom staff are responsible for inmates' access to the courts, indigent legal supplies,
and indigent postage loans. Plaintiff further contends that Corrections Corporation of
America is liable for his denial of access to the courts by virtue of a policy this
corporation has in place.
Defendants contend that Plaintiff suffered no actual injury as a result of their
actions or inaction and that they are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment "shall" be granted if "the movant[s] show[ ] that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant[s are] entitled to judgment
as a matter of law." FED. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "A dispute about a material fact is genuine
and summary judgment is inappropriate if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury
could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. However, there must exist a conflict in
substantial evidence to pose a jury question." Hall v. Sunioy Indus. Grp., Inc., 764 F.
Supp.2d 1297, 1301 (M.D. Fla. 2011) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242 (1986)), and (Verbraeken v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 881 F.2d 1041, 1045 (11th
Cir. 1989)).
The moving parties bear the burden of establishing that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
See Williamson Oil Co.. Inc. v. Philip Morris USA, 346 F.3d 1287, 1298 (11th Cir. 2003).
Specifically, the moving parties must identify the portions of the record which establish
that there are no "genuine dispute[s] as to any material fact and the movant[s are]
entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Moton v. Cowart, 631 F.3d 1337, 1341 (11th
Cir. 2011). When the nonmoving party would have the burden of proof at trial, the
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)
2
moving parties may discharge their burden by showing that the record lacks evidence to
support the nonmoving party's case or that the nonmoving party would be unable to
prove his case at trial. See j (citing Celotex v. Catreft, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986)).
In determining whether a summary judgment motion should be granted, a court must
view the record and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the record in a
light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Peek-A-Boo Lounge of Bradenton, Inc. v.
Manatee Co., Fla., 630 F.3d 1346, 1353 (11th Cir. 2011).
DISCUSSION AND CITATION TO AUTHORITY
Defendants contend that Plaintiff filed a state court habeas corpus petition in the
Ware County Superior Court, and that court denied Plaintiffs petition on August 16,
2011. Defendants also contend that Plaintiff had until September 15, 2011, to file a
timely application for certificate of probable cause to appeal this denial with the Georgia
Supreme Court. Defendants assert that prison records reveal that Plaintiff did not fully
utilize his indigent postage allotment between these two (2) dates, as he mailed only
one (1) item during this period. Defendants allege that Plaintiff later mailed his
certificate of probable cause with the Georgia Supreme Court, which remains pending.
Defendants assert that their actions did not deny Plaintiff access to the courts. Rather,
Defendants assert, the question is whether Plaintiff was denied habeas corpus relief on
appeal for "the sole reason that Defendants prevented" the timely mailing of his
appellate materials "rather than that appeal has been or will be denied on the merits."
(Doc. No. 24, p. 6).
Plaintiff asserts that Defendants' Motion should be denied. Plaintiff contends that
Defendants' Motion is premature, as his application for certificate of probable cause to
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)
appeal is still pending in the Georgia Supreme Court. Plaintiff avers that the pendency
of his appeal in the Georgia Supreme Court refutes Defendants' claim that this appeal is
frivolous.
The Supreme Court, in Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 824-25 (1977),
determined that "it is indisputable that indigent inmates must be provided at state
expense with paper and pen to draft legal documents, with notorial services to
authenticate them, and stamps to mail them." "This however does not entitle inmates
to unlimited free postage." Shabazz v. Barrow, No. 7:05-cv-46, 2007 WL 121139, at *2
(M.D. Ga. Jan. 11, 2007) (citing Hoøøins v. Wallace, 751 F.2d 1161, 1161-62 (11th Cir.
1985), for the propositions that the rights of inmates must be balanced with budgetary
constraints and that Bounds does not require states to pay the postage on every item of
legal mail each and every prisoner wishes to send).
"Access to the courts is clearly a constitutional right, grounded in the First
Amendment, the Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Fifth Amendment,
and/or the Fourteenth Amendment." Chappell v. Rich, 340 F.3d 1279, 1282 (11th Cir.
2003) (citing Christopher v. Harburv, 536 U.S. 403, 415 n.12 (2002)). In order to pass
constitutional muster, the access allowed must be more than a mere formality. Bounds
v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 822 (1977); Chappell, 340 F.3d at 1282. The access must be
"adequate, effective, and meaningful." Bounds, 730 U.S. at 822. For an inmate to state
a claim that he was denied access to the courts, he must establish that he suffered
"actual injury" by showing that the defendant's actions hindered his ability to pursue a
nonfrivolous claim. Christopher, 536 U.S. at 415; Jackson v. State Bd. of Pardons &
Paroles, 331 F.3d 790, 797 (11th Cir. 2003). The pursuit of claims which are protected
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)
4
are those in which a plaintiff is attacking his sentence, directly or collaterally, or
challenging the conditions of his confinement. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343
(1996). Stated another way, the "only specific types of legal claims [which] are
protected by this right [are] the nonfrivolous prosecution of either a direct appeal of a
conviction, a habeas petition, or a civil rights suit." Hyland v. Parker, 163 F. App'x 793,
798 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing Bass v. Singjary, 143 F.3d 1442, 1445 (11th Cir. 1998)).
There is no issue of material fact when the non-moving party has failed to prove the
existence of an element essential to his case. Regions Bank v. Provident Bank, Inc.,
345 F.3d 1267, 1279 (11th Cir. 2003). 'Actual injury" is an essential element to a claim
asserting the denial of access to the courts. See Christopher, 536 U.S. at 415.
At this point, the Georgia Supreme Court has not summarily rejected Plaintiffs
appeal as being untimely filed in that court, but that does not mean that the court will not
do so.' The Georgia Supreme Court may determine at a later date that Plaintiffs
appeal of the Ware County Superior Court's was timely filed. In that event, Plaintiff will
have suffered no actual injury due to the alleged action or inaction of Defendants. The
Georgia Supreme Court, however, has made no determination regarding the timeliness
of Plaintiffs application for certificate of probable cause. It cannot be determined at this
time whether Plaintiff suffered any actual injury in his pursuit of a non-frivolous appeal,
which is an essential element of an access to the courts claim, Plaintiffs Complaint is
premature. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiffs
complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. Should the Georgia Supreme Court reject
Plaintiffs filing because it was untimely filed, Plaintiff may file another complaint with
1
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)
www.gasupreme.us/docket search/results one record.php?caseN umber=S 121 1207 1.
5
this Court and allege that his access to the courts was hindered due to prison
personnel's actions or inaction.
The Clerk is authorized and directed to enter the appropriate Judgment of
dismissal.
SO ORDERED, this
-77k
/ day of January, 2013.
—c
MES E. GRAHAM
NITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?