Patel v. Owens et al

Filing 65

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART THE SECOND 61 Report and Recommendations as to Plaintiff's equal protection claims, which are dismissed. The due process claims against Defendant, as far as they allege Defendant deprived him of meaningful access to legal resources, legal documents, and the courts, survive frivolity. Signed by Judge B. Avant Edenfield on 7/15/14. (wwp) Modified on 7/15/2014 (wwp).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION
SUBODHCHANIRA T. PATEL,
Plaintiff,
6:12-cv-105

V.

JANET BREWTON,
Defendant.
1i) i 11
I.

INTRODUCTION

Subodhchandra Pate!, a current inmate in
Georgia State Prison, filed this prisoner
litigation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a
variety of constitutional violations. ECF No.
1. He amended his complaint, ECF Nos. 17;
31, and then amended the amendment, ECF
No. 34. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report
& Recommendation (R&R), ECF No. 44, in
which he screened Plaintiff's claims for
viability as mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
In so doing, he did not decide three
constitutional claims that Plaintiffs latest
amendment, ECF No. 34, had raised. The
Court adopted much of the R&R but
remanded the case to the Magistrate Judge to
evaluate those three claims: equal protection
and due process arising under the Fourteenth
Amendment, and deprivation of Seventh
Amendment rights. ECF No. 60. Before the
Court is the Magistrate Judge's second Report
and Recommendation ("second R&R"),
which dismisses those three claims. After a
careful de novo review, the Court ADOPTS
IN PART the second R&R.

First, the Court ADOPTS the second
R&R's dismissal of Plaintiff's equal
protection claim.
Whether Plaintiff's due process claims
survive first-look § 1915A review is a closer
call. As noted in the second R&R, the
Supreme Court has named two situations in
which due process rights attach to prisoners:
1) "when a change in the prisoner's
conditions of confinement is so severe that it
essentially exceeds the sentence imposed by
the court," Kirby v. Siegelman, 195 F.3d
1285, 1291 (11th Cir. 1999), or 2) when the
state has previously bestowed benefits on
prisoners, and the deprivation of those
benefits works "an atypical and significant
hardship on the inmate in relation to the
ordinary incidents of prison life[,]" Id.
(internal quotations omitted).
A core component of Plaintiff's claim is
that Defendant removed his legal paperwork
and research and otherwise impeded his
ability to file subsequent suits and
(presumably) collateral attack motions. ECF
Nos. 31 at 42-43; 34 at 5. Whether this claim
has factual merit—or is capable of surviving a
later motion to dismiss—it is not facially
outside the realm of established due process
law. See, e.g., Chandler v. Baird, 926 F.2d
1057, 1061-64 (11th Cir. 1991) (discussing
situations when deficiencies in prison legal
research implicate constitutional norms); Goff
v. Jones, 500 F.2d 395, 397 (5th Cir. 1974).'
Plaintiff's claim that Defendant impeded his
legal research, taken as factually true, treads
'This Circuit adopted as binding precedent all
Fifth Circuit decisions issued prior to
September 30, 1981. Bonner v. City of
Prichard, Ala., 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th
Cir. 1981).

close enough to established precedent that it
does riot warrant § 1915A dismissal.
Therefore, the due process claim, as it relates
to the denial of access to the courts, survives.
However, that is the only due process claim
stated here that withstands preliminary
review.
Finally, Plaintiff alleges that he has been
deprived of his Seventh Amendment right to a
civil trial. These claims also arise from
Defendant's alleged deprivation of Plaintiff's
legal papers and interference with his legal
filings. Compare ECF No. 34 at 5 (inserting
Seventh Amendment claims in two
paragraphs of amended complaint), with ECF
No. 31 at 42-44 (relevant paragraphs detail
alleged taking of legal material). But the right
of access to the courts accrues in either the
First Amendment right to petition the
government, see /3111 Johnson's Restaurants,
Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 461 U.S. 731, 741 (1983), or
in the Fourteenth Amendment right to due
process, as discussed above. No law cited in
Plaintiff's complaint, nor identified by this
Court, ties prisoner legal research to the
Seventh Amendment. Accordingly,
Plaintiff's Seventh Amendment claims fail
review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
The second R&R is ADOPTED IN PART
as to Plaintiff's equal protection claims,
which are dismissed. The Plaintiff's Seventh
Amendment claims are DISMISSED. His
due process claims against Defendant, as far
as they allege Defendant deprived him of
meaningful access to legal resources, legal
documents, and the courts, survive frivolity
review.

ThisJ'day of July 2014.

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA