CEPHAS v. GREEN et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG ON 1/23/13. 1/23/13 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER. (jpd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION

DARREN L. CEPHAS
v.

NO. 12-5647

WARDEN FRANK GREEN, et al .
MEMORANDUM

~

JANUARY~ , 2013

GOLDBERG, J.

Currently before the Court is plaintiff Darren L. Cephas's
pro se amended complaint, apparently brought pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, against three prison officials.

For the following

reasons, the Court will dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2) (B) (ii).

I.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In his initial complaint, plaintiff asserted a First

Amendment claim based on his allegation that the mail office at
the Delaware County Prison, where he was previously incarcerated,
obscured postmark dates on his legal mail when marking the
exterior of the envelope. 1

Plaintiff claimed that, as a result

of the markings, he was unable to determine when the mail entered
the prison and that he was therefore "rushed to finish legal work
sooner."

(Compl. i

V.)

In an October 25, 2012 order, the Court

dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim because
plaintiff did not allege that he suffered an actual injury.
Plaintiff also failed to clearly describe how any of the named

1

It appears that an official from the local post office
requested that the prison mark the stamps on the envelope because
inmates were attempting to reuse stamps.
(See Compl. i IV.b.)
1

defendants were involved in the violation of his rights.

He was

given an opportunity to file an amended complaint, which he did.
In his amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that, by
obscuring the postmark date on the exterior of the envelope, the
defendants tampered with his mail and/or committ-ed mail fraud.
He alleges that he was prejudiced by the practice because (1) he
could not determine when the mail arrived at the prison, which
made it difficult to prove when he received the mail and/or
whether there was a delay in receiving the mail;

(2) the markings

interfered with his ability to "seek expert or professional help
or advice"; and (3) the marking of his mail caused him mental
stress.

~~

(Am. Compl.

3-5.)

Plaintiff further notes that he

felt taunted because, when the postmark date was visible on the
exterior of the envelope, prison officials would make a note on
the envelope to the effect of "here's your date."

(Id.

~

5.)

Additionally, plaintiff alleges that the named defendants were
aware that his mail was being marked as a result of his
grievances and letters, but failed to take action to stop the
practice.
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
As plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, 28 U.S.C.

§

1915(e) (2) (B) applies.

That provision

requires the Court to dismiss the amended complaint if it is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune.
Whether an amended complaint fails to state a claim under §
2

1915(e) is governed by the same standard applicable to motions to
dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) (6), see
Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999), which
requires the Court to determine whether the pleading contains
"sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face."
U.S. 662, 678

(2009)

Ashcroft v. Igbal, 556

(quotations omitted).

As plaintiff is

proceeding pro se, the Court must construe his allegations
liberally.
2011).

Higgs v. Att'y Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir.

However, even a pro se plaintiff must recite more than

"labels and conclusions" to state a claim.

Bell Atl. Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Ray v. First Nat'l Bank of
Omaha, 413 F. App'x 427, 429-30 (3d Cir. 2011)

(per curiam).

III. DISCUSSION

Prisoners retain a right to access the courts to pursue
direct or collateral challenges to their sentences and to
challenge their conditions of confinement.
536 F.3d 198, 205 (3d Cir. 2008).

See Monroe v. Beard,

To succeed on a claim that he

was denied access to the courts, a prisoner must establish an
actual injury, such as the "loss or rejection of a legal claim."
Oliver v. Fauver, 118 F.3d 175, 177 (3d Cir. 1997).

The lost

claim must be nonfrivolous and arguable, and "must be described
in the complaint."

Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415

(2002) .
Nothing in the amended complaint suggests that plaintiff
lost an underlying legal claim, let alone a nonfrivolous claim,
3

as a result of the defendants' behavior.

In other words, despite

his contention that the defendants' actions make it difficult to
prove when he received his legal mail, he does not allege that
this difficulty actually affected an arguable past or potential
claim.

See Watson v. Sec'y Pa. Dep't of Corr., 436 F. App'x 131,

135-36 (3d Cir. 2011)

(per curiam)

(plaintiff failed to state a

claim based on allegations that "defendants tampered with his
legal mail and interfered with his access to the courts" when he
failed to describe the lost legal claim in his complaint).

The

amended complaint also fails to allege facts to plausibly explain
how the defendants' marking of plaintiff's mail interfered with
his ability to "seek expert or professional help or advice." 2
(Am. Compl.

~

3.)

Furthermore, the mere fact that the defendants are marking
the exterior of the envelope does not establish a violation of
plaintiff's constitutional rights. 3

See Patin v. LeBlanc, Civ.

A. No. 11-3071, 2012 WL 3109402, at *20 (E.D. La. May 18, 2012)
("[Plaintiff] has failed to point to any identifiable
constitutional violation or protected right pertaining to the
exterior of the envelope of mail received by a prisoner."),
report and recommendation adopted by, 2012 WL 3109398

(E.D. La.

July 31, 2012); cf. Nachtigall v. Bd. of Charities & Corr., 590

2

Notably, plaintiff has not alleged that prison officials
opened his confidential legal mail.
See Jones v. Brown, 461 F.3d
353, 359 (3d Cir. 2006).
3

18

Nor do the defendants' actions constitute mail fraud.
§ 1341.

u.s.c.

4

See

F. Supp. 1223, 1224

(D.S.D. 1984)

(stamping of mail by prison did

not violate free speech, due process, or any privacy right).
Finally, plaintiff's allegation that he felt taunted by the
markings on the envelopes also fails to state a constitutional
claim.

See,

~'

2775024, at *1

Dunbar v. Barone, No. 12-1337, 2012 WL

(3d Cir. July 10, 2012)

(per curiam)

(" [T]hreats

or taunts, without more, are not sufficient to constitute a
violation of the Eighth Amendment.").
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss the

amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e) (2) (B) (ii).

As

plaintiff has already been given an opportunity to amend, and as
the Court cannot discern a basis for a viable claim in light of
plaintiff's amendment, the Court concludes that further attempts
at amendment would be futile.

An appropriate order follows.

5