Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kaseem Ali-X v. All the Employees of Mail Room Staffs

June 8, 2012

KASEEM ALI-X, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ALL THE EMPLOYEES OF MAIL ROOM STAFFS, DEFENDANTS.



APPEARANCES: Plaintiff pro se Kaseem Ali-X East Jersey State Prison Rahway, NJ 07065

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Simandle, Chief Judge:

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER

This matter having come before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff's submission of a Complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis without prepayment of fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and The Court having considered Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, and having screened the Complaint for dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, and the Court finding that dismissal of the Complaint is not warranted at this time;

AND IT APPEARING THAT: Plaintiff seeks to assert various constitutional claims against fictitious mailroom employees arising out of an alleged pattern and practice of opening properly marked incoming legal mail outside of his presence on approximately ten occasions between May 24, 2010 and September 30, 2011, and of confiscating the contents of such mail on approximately four occasions; and it further appearing that

The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that a pattern and practice of opening legal mail, including mail sent to and from courts, outside a prisoner's presence impinges upon an inmate's First Amendment right to freedom of speech, and that such practices are valid only if they are "reasonably related to legitimate penological interests." Jones v. Brown, 461 F.3d 353, 358-64 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1997)), cert. denied, 127 S.Ct. 1822 (2007). See also Bieregu v. Reno, 59 F.3d 1445, 1452 (3d Cir. 1995), implied overruling on other grounds recognized in Oliver v. Fauver, 118 F.3d 175, 177-78 (3d Cir. 1997); and it further appearing that

The Supreme Court has held that "the Fourth Amendment proscription against unreasonable searches does not apply within the confines of the prison cell," Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526 (1984), and numerous lower courts have held that this applies as well to searches of a prisoner's incoming mail, see, e.g., Horacek v. Grey, 2010 WL 914819 at *5 (W.D. Mich. March 12, 2010); Thomas v. Kramer, 2009 WL 937272 at *2 (E.D. Calif., April 7, 2009); Hall v. Chester, 2008 WL 4657279 at *6 (K. Kan. Oct. 20, 2008); Rix v. Wells, 2008 WL 4279661 at *2 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 16, 2008; and it further appearing that

In order to state a claim for denial of access to the courts in violation of the First Amendment, a prisoner must show "actual injury" with respect to litigation challenging his conviction or the conditions of his confinement, see, e.g., Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-55 and n.3 (1996); Oliver v. Fauver, 118 F.3d 175, 177-78 (3d Cir. 1997). Here, Plaintiff describes neither the nature of the litigation nor any circumstance that could be considered "actual injury" with respect to a protected form of litigation;

IT IS, therefore, on this 6th day of June , 2012, hereby

ORDERED that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and

(b); and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall file the Complaint without prepayment of fees or security; and it is further

ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), the Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order by regular mail upon the Attorney General of the State of New Jersey and the Warden of East Jersey State Prison; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff's First Amendment claim challenging the pattern and practice of opening his legal mail outside his presence MAY PROCEED; and it is further

ORDERED that the access-to-courts claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim; and it is further ORDERED that the Fourth Amendment claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.