NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 10-1515
___________
DANTE BURTON,
Appellant
v.
SUPERINTENDANT GERALD L. ROZUM; MAJOR DANIEL GEHLMANN;
UNIT MANAGER EDWARD MULLIGAN; UNIT MANAGER CHRIS MCNELIS;
CHIEF GRIEVANCE OFFICER DORINA VARNER; JOHN DOE PUBLIC
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE PROVIDER
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 09-cv-00324)
Magistrate Judge: Keith A. Pesto
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 4, 2011
Before: RENDELL, CHAGARES and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed April 6, 2011 )
___________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM
Dante Burton appeals pro se and in forma pauperis from the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania‟s sua sponte dismissal of his complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons that follow, we will vacate the District
Court‟s order and remand for further proceedings.
I.
In 2009, Burton filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against several employees of
the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, alleging that he was retaliated against for
filing a successful grievance. In particular, he asserted that, after filing a grievance that
resulted in his compensation for the loss of clothing, he was transferred to another prison
block, which caused him to lose his job. He also stated that the defendants‟ explanation
for the move—that it was based on institutional security and/or operational needs—was
pretextual.
The Magistrate Judge screened the complaint sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A, which requires the court to dismiss a complaint that is frivolous or malicious,
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such action. The Magistrate Judge then dismissed, with
prejudice, the complaint after determining that Burton could not make out a prima facie
case of retaliation.
Burton now appeals. 1
II.
We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of the
sua sponte dismissal of a complaint is plenary. Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d
Cir. 2000). To survive dismissal, a complaint need only contain “sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to „state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.‟” Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
570 (2007)).
Here, the Magistrate Judge explained that a prisoner bringing a retaliation claim
must allege that: (1) the plaintiff took some action itself protected by the constitution; (2)
the defendant took adverse action sufficient to deter a person of ordinary firmness from
exercising his constitutional rights; and (3) there was a causal connection between the
plaintiff‟s protected conduct and the adverse action. Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523, 530
(3d Cir. 2003). The Magistrate Judge determined that Burton‟s complaint failed to state a
claim because “a transfer from one area of a prison to another, which is the only
constitutionally significant adverse action alleged by plaintiff, is as a matter of law
insufficient to deter any person from pursuing his constitutional rights.”
The Magistrate Judge‟s decision is problematic. First, the constitutionally
protected act at issue is Burton‟s filing of the grievance (not the transfer to a different cell
block), and a retaliation claim is not foreclosed even though the particular privilege that
1
Because Burton consented to the Magistrate Judge‟s adjudication of his
complaint, he is entitled to appeal directly to this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(3).
has been taken away does not implicate a constitutional right. See DeWalt v. Carter, 224
F.3d 607, 613 (7th Cir. 2000); Allah, 229 F.3d at 224-25. Second, although a transfer to a
different cell block may not be an adverse action “sufficient to deter” an ordinary person
from filing a grievance, the Magistrate Judge failed to acknowledge that the transfer
resulted in the loss of Burton‟s prison job, which may constitute a sufficiently serious
adverse action.
Because the Magistrate Judge‟s decision misconstrues Burton‟s allegations as to
the first two prongs of the pleading requirements for a retaliation claim, we will vacate
the decision. Moreover, we note that district courts must generally permit amendment of
a complaint that is vulnerable to dismissal where a responsive pleading has not yet been
filed, even if the plaintiff does not seek leave to amend. See Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v.
Pote Concrete Contractors, Inc., 482 F.3d 247, 252 (3d Cir. 2007) (observing that in civil
rights cases, “leave to amend must be granted sua sponte before dismissing” the
complaint); Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 235-36 (3d Cir. 2004) (stating that dismissal
without leave to amend is justified only on grounds of bad faith, undue delay, prejudice,
or futility).
Accordingly, we will vacate the February 5, 2010 decision and remand the matter
for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.