Scarpinato v. Galipeau et al

Filing 70

OPINION AND ORDER: The court DENIES Law Library Supervisor Sonnenberg's motion for summary judgment ECF 53 . Signed by Judge Jon E DeGuilio on 3/5/2025. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(ely)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
DANIEL LEE SCARPINATO,
Plaintiff,
v.

CAUSE NO. 3:23-CV-121-JD

SONNENBERG,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Daniel Lee Scarpinato, a prisoner without a lawyer, is proceeding in this case
against Law Library Supervisor Donya Sonnenberg “in her personal capacity for
monetary damages for denying him access to the law library in 2021 and 2022, causing
prejudice to his state-law claim for compensation for lost property[.]” ECF 12 at 7. Law
Library Supervisor Sonnenberg filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF 53.
Scarpinato filed a response, Law Library Supervisor Sonnenberg filed a reply, and
Scarpinato filed an authorized sur-reply. ECF 60, 61, 62, 63, 64. Law Library Supervisor
Sonnenberg’s motion for summary judgment is now fully briefed and ripe for ruling.
Summary judgment must be granted when “there is no genuine dispute as to
any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a). A genuine issue of material fact exists when “the
evidence is such that a reasonable [factfinder] could [find] for the nonmoving party.”
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). To determine whether a genuine

issue of material fact exists, the court must construe all facts in the light most favorable
to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor. Heft v.
Moore, 351 F.3d 278, 282 (7th Cir. 2003). A party opposing a properly supported
summary judgment motion may not rely merely on allegations or denials in its own
pleading but must “marshal and present the court with the evidence she contends will
prove her case.” Goodman v. Nat’l Sec. Agency, Inc., 621 F.3d 651, 654 (7th Cir. 2010).
Prisoners have a fundamental right to access the courts to pursue non-frivolous
legal claims. Jones v. Van Lanen, 27 F.4th 1280, 1287 (7th Cir. 2022). An access-to-thecourts claim hinges on whether there was prejudice to a non-frivolous legal claim.
Marshall v. Knight, 445 F.3d 965, 969 (7th Cir. 2006) (“[O]nly if the defendants’ conduct
prejudices a potentially meritorious [claim] has the right been infringed.”). Thus, to
establish a constitutional deprivation in this context, Scarpinato must show: “(1) a nonfrivolous, underlying claim; (2) the official acts frustrating the litigation;” and (3) actual
injury. Jones, 27 F.4th at 1287 (quoting Harer v. Casey, 962 F.3d 299, 308 (7th Cir. 2020)).
“To establish an ‘actual injury,’ an inmate must show that an attempt to pursue
nonfrivolous litigation was hindered by unjustified acts or conditions caused by the
defendants.” Purkey v. Marberry, 385 F. App’x 575, 578 (7th Cir. 2010); see also Tarpley v.
Allen County, 312 F.3d 895, 899 (7th Cir. 2002) (defining “actual injury” as “the
hindrance of efforts to pursue a nonfrivolous legal claim”). That is, Scarpinato must
show inadequate access to legal materials “prevented him from pursuing a
nonfrivolous, or potentially meritorious, legal action[.]” Wilson v. Gaetz, 700 F. App’x
540, 542 (7th Cir. 2017).
2

Law Library Supervisor Sonnenberg provides evidence showing the following
facts: During all relevant times, Law Library Supervisor Sonnenberg served as the Law
Library Supervisor at Westville Correctional Facility (“WCF”). ECF 49 at 2. WCF
maintains a law library available to inmates upon request, which provides typewriters,
computers, scanning equipment, writing utensils, legal forms, paper, and other material
for preparing legal documents. ECF 53-17 at 2. To request physical access to the law
library during business hours, inmates must submit a “Law Library Request,” State
Form 19704. Id. If an inmate’s request for law library access is based on a court deadline,
he is given increased priority for scheduling. ECF 53-3 at 2.
On January 4, 2022, Scarpinato filed a “Notice of Tort Claim” in the LaPorte
Superior Court against 12 WCF officials claiming they unlawfully confiscated his
property in June 2020. ECF 53-5. The case was docketed as Scarpinato v. Galipeau, et al.,
Cause No. 46D03-2202-CT-223 (“Scarpinato I”), and assigned to Judge Jeffrey L. Thorne.
Id. On January 20, 2022, Judge Thorne ordered Scarpinato’s claim docketed for review
so he could screen the claim and determine whether it may proceed. ECF 53-6; see also
Ind. Code § 34-58-1-1 (requiring trial courts to docket pro se prisoner claims and take no
further action until screened); Ind. Code § 34-58-1-2 (Indiana’s screening statute).
Pursuant to Indiana’s Frivolous Claim Law, Indiana Code § 34-58-1-2(a), a prisoner’s
claim “may not proceed if the court determines that the claim: (1) is frivolous; (2) is not
a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from liability for such relief.” On February 25, 2022, Judge Thorne
entered a screening order in Scarpinato I, which waived the initial filing fee and found
3

that Scarpinato’s claim failed to comply with Indiana Code §§ 34-13-3-3, 34-13-3-7, and
34-13-7-1. ECF 53-7. The order gave Scarpinato 30 days to file additional pleadings or
documents to cure the deficiencies. Id. Scarpinato understood the deficiencies found in
the screening order to mean that he must file a brief to accompany his notice of tort
claim. ECF 33-1 at 26; see also Ind. Code § 34-13-7-1(b) (imposing additional initial filing
requirements for tort claims filed by inmates, including the submission of a brief).
On March 10, 2022, Scarpinato submitted a law library pass request based on his
upcoming deadline in Scarpinato I. ECF 1-1 at 95-96. Scarpinato noted on the request he
had a deadline of March 27, 2022, to file a brief. Id. In response to this request, Law
Library Supervisor Sonnenberg gave Scarpinato a law library pass for March 14, 2022 at
4:00 p.m. Id. at 97. However, when Scarpinato arrived at the law library on this date, the
library was closed. ECF 13-2 at 8. Scarpinato did not submit any filings in Scarpinato I
before the March 28, 2022 deadline, or otherwise file a motion seeking an extension of
this deadline. See Scarpinato I at Chronological Case Summary (“CCS”); ECF 33-1 at 2728. Because nothing was filed by the March 28, 2022 deadline, Scarpinato I was
dismissed and administratively closed. See Scarpinato I at CCS.
In an envelope with a post mark date of April 8, 2022, Scarpinato mailed a
document entitled “Plaintiff’s Brief” to the LaPorte Superior Court, intending to comply
with the Court’s screening order in Scarpinato I. ECF 53-8; ECF 33-1 at 26-27.
Scarpinato’s brief did not have a caption or case number, so it was docketed in the
LaPorte Superior Court as a new cause of action on April 18, 2022, under Scarpinato v.
State, Cause No. 46C01-2204-CT-535 (“Scarpinato II”), and assigned to Judge Thomas J.
4

Alevizos. ECF 53-8; ECF 33-1 at 28. On April 21, 2022, Judge Alevizos ordered
Scarpinato to comply with inmate requirements for proceeding as an indigent within 45
days, in accordance with Ind. Code § 33-37-3-3. ECF 53-9. To comply with this order,
Scarpinato needed to file with the LaPorte Superior Court: a statement regarding his
indigency; an affidavit if he also sought waiver of the initial partial filing fee; and a
“certified copy of [his] trust fund account statement for the six (6) months immediately
preceding submission of the complaint or petition[.]” Ind. Code § 33-37-3-3(a). In order
to obtain these documents to provide to the LaPorte Superior Court, Scarpinato
submitted three law library pass requests on May 2, 2022, May 16, 2022, and May 23,
2022. ECF 1-1 at 98-101. On May 25, 2022, a member of WCF staff emailed Law Library
Supervisor Sonnenberg asking her to add Scarpinato to the law library list. ECF 45-1 at
13. On June 6, 2022, another member of WCF staff emailed Law library Supervisor
Sonnenberg asking her to add Scarpinato to the law library list. Id. at 14. Law Library
Supervisor Sonnenberg responded to and acknowledged this email. Id. at 15. However,
there’s no evidence Sonnenberg was ever able to attend the law library before his
deadline in Scarpinato II.
In an envelope with a post mark date of June 21, 2022, Scarpinato mailed a
request for assistance and unsigned affidavit to the Scarpinato II court, explaining he’d
been prevented from complying with the court’s order to provide proof of indigency.
ECF 53-9. On July 6, 2022, the Scarpinato II court construed Scarpinato’s filing as seeking
an extension of time to comply with indigency requirements and granted Scarpinato 60
days “to provide the Court with his Official Certificate of Prisoner Account signed by
5

an agent of the Westville Correctional Facility and an account statement for the
previous six (6) months before the filing date.” ECF 53-10. Scarpinato never received a
copy of this order, so he was unaware of his extended deadline. ECF 33-1 at 40.
On August 4, 2023, after Scarpinato learned from this Court’s screening order in
the instant case that Scarpinato II was still open, he filed a motion requesting a status
hearing and a certified trust fund account statement in Scarpinato II. ECF 53-12; ECF 331 at 42-43. On August 4, 2023, Judge Alevizos issued an order partially waiving
Scarpinato’s filing fees and court costs and instructing Scarpinato to pay the remaining
$13.31 within 60 days. ECF 53-13. Scarpinato did not receive a copy of this order. ECF
33-1 at 48-49. Around September 2023, Scarpinato became aware that an order had been
entered in Scarpinato II by searching the docket in the law library, though he did not
know what the order said. Id. On April 4, 2024, Judge Alevizos dismissed Scarpinato II
without prejudice for failure to pay the reduced filing fee of $13.31. ECF 53-14. On May
28, 2024, Scarpinato filed a motion to reconsider the dismissal order, noting he did not
receive the court’s previous order. ECF 53-14. On May 31, 2024, Judge Alevizos issued
an order acknowledging Scarpinato did not receive the prior order. ECF 53-16.
Nevertheless, Judge Alevizos dismissed Scarpinato II with prejudice for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted under Indiana’s screening statute, Indiana
Code § 34-58-1-2(a)(2), because the brief did not name any defendants with
particularity. Id. Because neither party disputes these facts, the court accepts them as
undisputed.

6

Law Library Supervisor Sonnenberg argues summary judgment is warranted in
her favor because Scarpinato cannot show actual injury, as neither Scarpinato I nor
Scarpinato II were dismissed due to his inability to access the law library. Specifically,
she argues that (1) Scarpinato I was dismissed because Scarpinato did not include a
caption or case number on his amended brief, which caused the brief to be filed as a
separate lawsuit and assigned to another judge, and (2) Scarpinato II was ultimately
dismissed for failure to state a claim, which was not connected to his inability to access
the law library. ECF 54 at 5-7. In response, Scarpinato argues that both Scarpinato I and
Scarpinato II were dismissed because he was unable to access the law library to correct
the deficiencies in his pleadings. ECF 60 at 4-6. Specifically, he argues his inability to
access the legal resources in the law library prevented him from understanding the
necessary requirements to file a brief and to correct the deficiencies in his filings as
outlined by the state courts. Id. at 5.
Here, construing the facts in the light most favorable to Scarpinato, a reasonable
jury could conclude his inadequate access to legal materials “prevented him from
pursuing a nonfrivolous, or potentially meritorious, legal action[.]” See Wilson, 700 F.
App’x at 542. Specifically, with regard to Scarpinato I, it’s undisputed Scarpinato was
prevented from attending the law library before his March 27, 2022, deadline to file an
amended brief. Scarpinato’s failure to include a case number or heading on the
amended brief can be reasonably attributed to his inability to access legal materials
before the deadline. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996) (an inmate can show
actual injury by providing evidence “that a complaint he prepared was dismissed for
7

failure to satisfy some technical requirement which, because of deficiencies in the
prison’s legal assistance facilities, he could not have known.”). For example, the court’s
dismissal order in Scarpinato I instructed Scarpinato to file an amended brief that
complied with Indiana Code § 34-13-7-1. If Scarpinato had been permitted to attend the
law library and obtain a copy of Indiana Code § 34-13-7-1, he would have learned he
needed to submit to the trial court: (1) a copy of his complaint; (2) a list of all cases he
previously filed involving the same or similar cause of action; (3) a copy of all relevant
documents pertaining to the disposition of each previous case; and (4) a brief. Ind. Code
§ 34-13-7-1. Thus, with adequate time in the law library, Scarpinato could have
submitted a brief that satisfied the requirements of Indiana Code § 34-13-7-1 and did
not result in Scarpinato I being administratively closed and his brief being docketed as a
new lawsuit in Scarpinato II. And while it’s true that Scarpinato II was ultimately
dismissed because the brief did not name any defendants with particularity, this
inadequacy can likely be attributed to the fact that Scarpinato intended the brief to be
filed in Scarpinato I, not as a new freestanding lawsuit. A reasonable jury could therefore
conclude that, by denying Scarpinato adequate time in the law library and failing to
provide him with numerous orders from the LaPorte Superior Court, “official acts

8

frustrat[ed] the litigation” and caused this otherwise potentially meritorious claim to be
dismissed. 1
Accordingly, because a reasonable jury could conclude Law Library Supervisor
Sonnenberg’s “official acts” of denying Scarpinato access to the law library frustrated
Scarpinato’s litigation in Scarpinato I and Scarpinato II and caused his potentially
meritorious claims to be dismissed, summary judgment must be denied in this case.
For these reasons, the court DENIES Law Library Supervisor Sonnenberg’s
motion for summary judgment (ECF 53).
SO ORDERED on March 5, 2025
/s/JON E. DEGUILIO
JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1 Law Library Supervisor Sonnenberg also argues that, even if Scarpinato was denied adequate

law library access, he was able to access legal materials via his tablet. ECF 54 at 4. Scarpinato disputes that
he had a tablet during the relevant time period. ECF 61 at 4. In her reply, Law Library Supervisor
Sonnenberg notes Scarpinato mentioned having a tablet in his deposition. ECF 63 at 1-4. But in his surreply, Scarpinato explains that he was referring to having a tablet in the past, and that he did not have a
tablet during the time period relevant to this case. ECF 64. There is therefore a disputed material fact
regarding whether Scarpinato had access to legal materials via his tablet during the relevant time period.

9