Jackson v. Williams et al
Filing
6
Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 12/16/11. The instant complaint does not state a claim that rises to the level of constitutional magnitude and is not actionable under 42 USC Sec. 1983. (Related Doc. 1 ) (M,G)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
------------------------------------------------------:
CLIFFORD D. JACKSON, III,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
vs.
:
:
S.R.T. OFFICER WILLIAMS, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
-------------------------------------------------------
CASE NO. 1:11-CV-01841
OPINION & ORDER
[Resolving Doc. No. 1]
JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Pro se Plaintiff Clifford D. Jackson, III filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
Cuyahoga County Jail S.R.T. Officer Williams, and Cuyahoga County Jail Mail Clerk Jane Doe.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges legal mail was opened out of his presence. He seeks to bring
criminal charges against the Defendants and seeks an award of monetary damages.
I. Background
Plaintiff’s Complaint is very brief. He contends he is an inmate in the Cuyahoga County
Jail. He claims a piece of mail he received from this federal court was delivered to him by
Officer Williams. He contends the mail was opened. He informed Officer Williams that the
mail had been opened outside of his presence and he did not sign for it. He claims this is a
violation of the jail’s handbook as well as federal law.
II. Legal Standard
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364,
365 (1982) (per curiam), the district court is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis action
under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e) if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or if it
lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608-09 (6th
Cir. 1997). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact when it is premised on an
indisputably meritless legal theory or when the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). A cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted when it lacks “plausibility in the complaint.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 564 (2007). A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009).
The factual allegations in the pleading must be sufficient to raise the right to relief above the
speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the Complaint are true. Bell Atl.
Corp., 550 U.S. at 555. Plaintiff is not required to include detailed factual allegations, but must
provide more than “an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 129
S.Ct. at 1949. A pleading that offers legal conclusions or a simple recitation of the elements of
a cause of action will not meet this pleading standard. Id. In reviewing a Complaint, the Court
must construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff. Bibbo v. Dean Witter
Reynolds, Inc., 151 F.3d 559, 561 (6th Cir.1998).
III. Analysis
As an initial matter, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Officer Williams. Plaintiff
cannot establish the liability of any Defendant absent a clear showing that the Defendant was
-2-
personally involved in the activities which form the basis of the alleged unconstitutional
behavior. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976); Mullins v. Hainesworth, No. 95-3186,
1995 WL 559381 (6th Cir. Sept. 20, 1995). Plaintiff alleges Officer Williams delivered a piece
of legal mail which had been opened. There are no allegations in the Complaint which suggest
this Defendant was personally involved in opening or reviewing Plaintiff’s mail.
Read liberally, Plaintiff alleges the Mail Clerk opened and read his legal mail outside of
his presence in violation of the First Amendment. Although inmates do retain the right under
the First Amendment to receive mail, it is more limited in scope than the constitutional rights
held by individuals in society at large. Shaw v. Murphy, 532 U.S. 223, 228-29 (2001); Pell v.
Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 822 (1974); Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 404-405 (1974);
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84-85 (1987).
When considering an action that impacts an inmate’s mail, a distinction is drawn
between legal mail and non-legal mail. Legal mail is given much greater protection from
unreasonable intrusion than non-legal mail. See e.g., Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 577
(1974); Kensu v. Haigh, 87 F.3d 172, 174 (6th Cir.1996). Courts have heightened concerns
with allowing prison officials unfettered discretion to open and read an inmate's “legal mail,”
because this correspondence impacts upon the attorney-client privilege, or the prisoner’s right of
access to the courts. See Kensu v. Haigh, 87 F.3d 172, 174 (6th Cir.1996). Mail that is legal in
nature, therefore, may be opened and inspected for contraband by prison officials only in the
prisoner’s presence. Id.
Mail that is non-legal in character may be opened, inspected, and read by prison officials
provided that the inspection is conducted pursuant to a policy to maintain prison security. See
-3-
Sallier v. Brooks, 343 F.3d 868, 874 (6th Cir.2003); Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 607 (6th
Cir.1993). See Turner, 482 U.S. at 92; Young v. Weathersby, No. 1:09-CV-67, 2010 WL
3909463, at * 8 (W.D.Mich. Sept. 15, 2010). Opening and inspecting of an inmate’s non-legal
correspondence aids prison authorities in preventing escape plans, inflammatory materials, or
other contraband from getting to prisoners. See Turner, 482 U.S. at 92; Young v. Weathersby,
No. 1:09-cv-67, 2010 WL 3909463, at * 8 (W.D.Mich. Sept. 15, 2010). All of those goals
directly impact the safety and security of the prison staff and inmates.
In his Complaint, Plaintiff indicates a piece of mail from this federal court was opened
outside of his presence before it was delivered to him. Although the letter was arguably legal in
character, Plaintiff cites only a single instance in which his legal mail was opened. An isolated
incident of inadvertent mail interference does not state a claim that rises to the level of
constitutional magnitude. See, e.g., Reneer v. Sewell, 975 F.2d 258, 260 (6th Cir.1992); Smith v.
Maschner, 899 F.2d 940, 944 (10th Cir.1990); Stevenson v. Koskey, 877 F.2d 1435, 1441 (9th
Cir.1989); Morgan v. Montanye, 516 F.2d 1367, 1370-71 (2d Cir.1975); Bach v. Illinois, 504
F.2d 1100, 1102 (7th Cir.1974); Searcy v. Culhane, No. 09-CV-10174, 2009 WL 1864028, 7
(E.D. Mich. June 29, 2009). It therefore is not actionable under § 1983.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e). The Court
certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be
taken in good faith.1
1
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides:
-4-
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 16, 2011
s/ James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies that it is not
taken in good faith.
-5-
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?