Cathy v. Kuzmicz

Background

Charles Ray Cathy, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and sought money damages. The court conducted the required preliminary screening of a prisoner complaint. Under that screening standard, the court had to identify claims that could proceed and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or sought money from an immune defendant.

Legal Standards

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a federal constitutional or statutory right was violated by a person acting under state law. The court explained that prisoners have a constitutional right to access the courts and a First Amendment right to send and receive mail. Properly marked legal mail generally must be opened only in the prisoner’s presence, although prison officials may inspect mail under appropriate procedures. Restrictions on publications must be reasonably related to legitimate prison interests. A retaliation claim requires allegations that a state actor took adverse action because of protected conduct, that the action chilled the prisoner’s rights, and that it did not reasonably advance a legitimate prison goal.

Claims

Legal package. Cathy alleged that an appellate attorney mailed him a box of legal documents on August 2, 2018, but the package was mistakenly logged by mailroom staff, sent to a warehouse, and returned to the sender. The court held that Cathy had not provided enough information to show an actual injury to his efforts to pursue a nonfrivolous claim concerning his conviction or confinement. The court also held that the package was not opened outside his presence; it was accidentally returned. The allegations against defendants based only on their involvement in the prison appeal process did not state a claim because prisoners have no constitutional right to a prison grievance system. The allegations against supervisors also did not show personal involvement in the alleged violation. The court dismissed this claim with leave to amend.

Legal mail. Cathy alleged that a letter from the National Legal Professional Associates, Margaret A. Robinson Advocacy Center, was marked as not meeting the criteria for confidential mail and was not opened in his presence. He alleged that he notified Reynolds and Kuzmicz, but they did not respond. The court held that these allegations were sufficient to state a claim against Reynolds and Kuzmicz.

Legal publications. Cathy alleged that he was unable to receive issues of Prison Legal News and Human Rights Defense. He alleged that Hood, Hallock, Parry, and Short knew the publications should be delivered but failed to deliver them. The court held that these allegations were sufficient to state a claim against those defendants.

Retaliation. Cathy alleged that Kuzmicz and Thompson intimidated him and arranged for yard officers to pat him down after he filed appeals about his mail. He also alleged that a legal letter was returned with its postage ripped off in retaliation for his protected conduct. The court held that he had not alleged enough facts showing retaliation or that the defendants’ actions were motivated by his protected conduct. The court dismissed this claim with leave to amend.

Disposition

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered that the complaint be dismissed with leave to amend under the standards described in the order. Cathy was permitted to inform the court that he wished to proceed only with the claims found cognizable; if he made that choice, the remaining claims would be dismissed with prejudice. Otherwise, he had to file an amended complaint by December 6, 2019. The order also stated that an amended complaint would replace the original complaint and had to include all claims Cathy wished to pursue.