The opinion of the court was delivered by: Walls, Senior District Judge
Defendants Collins I'Jama, Danielle Barnave and Beverly Bailey move for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 to dismiss plaintiff Matthew Tucker's claims for civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 78, the Court decides these motions without oral argument. Defendants' motions are granted.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On January 23, 2004, plaintiff Matthew Tucker, a patient who is involuntarily committed at Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital, filed his Complaint against "Collins I'Jama, Clerk of Court, Superior Court of N. Jersey, Newark, N. Jersey," alleging that he "submitted several complaints to Mr. Collins I'Jama's office" and that "[i]t has been over a year and a half and counting and the office of Mr. Collins I'Jama has not filed or processed Tucker's Complaints [sic]." (Compl. (No. 1) at 1, 2-3.) According to plaintiff, "Mr. I'Jama's actions has caused prolonged deprivation to Matthew Tucker's Right to Due Process and Equal Protection of the law." (Id. at 3.) The Court dismissed plaintiff's Complaint on absolute immunity grounds on March 1, 2004. Following plaintiff's appeal, the Third Circuit vacated the Court's ruling and remanded for further proceedings on April 6, 2006.
On November 3, 2006, plaintiff moved to amend his Complaint to name additional defendants, but Magistrate Judge Ronald J. Hedges denied that motion in a January 5, 2007 Letter Order. In a June 25, 2007 Opinion and Letter Order, this Court reversed Magistrate Judge Hedges's January 5, 2007 Letter Order with respect to plaintiff's motion to amend his Complaint. On July 3, 2007, plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint, naming Beverly Bailey and Danielle Barnave as defendants.
Defendants now move for summary judgment. Plaintiff opposes the motions.*fn1
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate where the moving party establishes that "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that [it] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A factual dispute between the parties will not defeat a motion for summary judgment unless it is both genuine and material. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510 (1986). A factual dispute is material if, under the substantive law, it would affect the outcome of the suit and it is genuine if a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party. See id. at 248. The moving party "always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of 'the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,' which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553 (1986).
Once the moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56, "its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts" in question. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356 (1986). To survive a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must present "more than a scintilla of evidence showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Woloszyn v. County of Lawrence, 396 F.3d 314, 319 (3d Cir. 2005). The non-moving party must go beyond the pleadings and, by affidavits or other evidence, designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323-24. "Conclusory statements, general denials, and factual allegations not based on personal knowledge [are] insufficient to avoid summary judgment." Olympic Junior, Inc. v. David Crystal, Inc., 463 F.2d 1141, 1146 (3d Cir. 1972).
At the summary judgment stage, the court's function is not to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter, but rather to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. In doing so, the court must construe the facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See id. at 255; Curley v. Klem, 298 F.3d 271, 276-77 (3d Cir. 2002).
Plaintiff alleges that defendants denied him his constitutional right of access to the courts by failing to mail specific legal documents prepared by plaintiff to the Superior Court of New Jersey. (See, Amnd. Compl. (No. 57) at 6). Plaintiff further alleges negligence on the part of defendants in the handling or mishandling of the specified mail. (Id. at 7). "To state a claim under §1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law." West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Section 1983 "does not create substantive rights, but provides a remedy for the violation of rights created by federal law." Groman v. Township of Manalapan, 47 F.3d 628, 633 (3d Cir. 1995) (citing Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 816 (1985)). "The first inquiry in any §1983 suit, therefore, is whether the plaintiff has been deprived of a right 'secured by the Constitution and laws." Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 140 (1979).
To succeed on his §1983 claims, plaintiff must prove actual, specific conduct by the defendants which violated his constitutional right of access to the courts. Ruffin v. Beal, 468 F.Supp. 482, 490 (E.D.Pa. 1978); See also Gittlemacker v. Prasse, 428 F.2d 1, 3 (3d Cir. 1970). The Third Circuit has recognized that "the Supreme Court has removed negligent denials of access from the reach of § 1983." Turner v. Donnelly, 156 Fed. Appx. 481, 483 (3d Cir. 2005) (citing Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328 (1986)); see also Berg v. County of Allegheny, 219 F.3d 261, 274 (3d Cir. 2000) ("Negligence by public officials is not actionable as a due process violation."); Snyder v. Nolen, 380 F.3d 279, 291 n.1 (7th Cir. 2004) ("An allegation of simple negligence will not support a claim that an official has denied an individual access to the courts."). In addition to proving deliberate denial of access, plaintiff must also "prove that he suffered an actual injury, and the claim must be alleged with sufficient clarity to show that it has some arguable merit." Tucker v. Monroe, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 17373 (3d Cir. Aug. 12, 2008) (citing Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002); Oliver v. Fauver, 118 F.3d 175, 177 (3d Cir. 1997); Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996)).
The facts surrounding plaintiff's mailing of the complaints are not in dispute. As revealed in plaintiff's deposition, in each instance he wrote the complaint, (Dep. of Matthew Tucker, 15:11-18), placed it in an envelope, (Id. 15:19-21), addressed and sealed the envelope himself, (Id. 15:22-25), and then handed the envelope to defendant Bailey. (Id. 76:25 - 77:22). Plaintiff then observed Bailey take the envelope to the third floor office and place it on a table. (Id. 77:3-25 and 79:2-9). Thereafter, plaintiff observed defendant Barnave pick up the envelope from the table and leave the office, he presumed, to take it downstairs for ...