NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 14-3246
___________
TYRONE GLENN,
Appellant
v.
THERESA DELBALSO; JAMES PORZUCEK;
CHRISTINE MCMILLAN; DORINA L. VARNER,
all sued in their official and individual capacities
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 1-13-cv-02730)
District Judge: Honorable Yvette Kane
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 10, 2015
Before: CHAGARES, JORDAN and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: April 15, 2015)
___________
OPINION*
___________
PER CURIAM
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
Tyrone Glenn, a Pennsylvania inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
appeals from the District Court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. For
the reasons set forth below, we will affirm in part and vacate in part the District Court’s
order and remand for further proceedings.
I.
Glenn’s complaint raises two categories of constitutional claims against various
officials at the State Correctional Institute at Retreat. First, he claims the defendants
violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by failing to follow grievance
procedures. Second, he claims defendant Theresa DelBalso violated his First
Amendment rights by retaliating against him for filing grievances about food portions.
Specifically, Glenn claims DelBalso placed him on the maximum grievance restriction—
90 days—to punish him for filing grievances, not because the grievances he filed were
frivolous, which would be appropriate under the grievance policy. Glenn notes that in
her response to his grievance appeal, DelBalso stated that she was upholding the
frivolous designations and grievance restriction because he was the only inmate
complaining about food portions. He also alleges that her failure to enforce certain
language in the grievance policy exhibits retaliatory animus. The District Court
examined Glenn’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and dismissed it sua
sponte for failure to state a claim. Glenn filed a timely notice of appeal.
2
II.
“[I]n civil rights cases district courts must offer amendment—irrespective of
whether it is requested—when dismissing a case for failure to state a claim unless doing
so would be inequitable or futile.” Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors,
Inc., 482 F.3d 247, 251 (3d Cir. 2007); Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103,
108 (3d Cir. 2002). Although the District Court cited this general rule, it dismissed
Glenn’s complaint without leave to amend and without determining whether amendment
would be futile or inequitable. Because we cannot say that amendment would be futile as
to Glenn’s retaliation claim, we will vacate that portion of the District Court’s order and
remand.
To state a First Amendment retaliation claim, a plaintiff must allege that he
engaged in protected conduct, he suffered an adverse action, and a causal link existed
between the protected conduct and adverse action. See Rauser v. Horn, 241 F.3d 330,
333 (3d Cir. 2001). As iterated in his complaint, Glenn’s retaliation claim was vague
and, as the District Court concluded, too speculative to survive dismissal. See Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (holding that “[f]actual allegations must be
enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level” to avoid dismissal). That
said, the claim was not per se invalid or based on a flawed legal theory, and Glenn has
somewhat clarified his claim in his appellate brief. Construed liberally, Glenn seems to
argue that DelBalso placed him on the maximum grievance restriction because he filed
grievances, not because the grievances he filed were frivolous. See United States v.
3
Miller, 197 F.3d 644, 648 (3d Cir. 1999) (noting the “time-honored practice of construing
pro se plaintiffs’ pleadings liberally”). In other words, Glenn claims he was singled-out
and punished for engaging in protected activity, which suggests he might be able to state
a retaliation claim. Cf. Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523, 530 (3d Cir. 2003). If Glenn can
further support this claim to make it plausible, such as by providing further allegations
that suggest DelBalso was acting in a retaliatory manner, rather than appropriately
sanctioning him for filing frivolous grievances, his retaliation claim may survive
dismissal. As such, amendment may not be futile, and the District Court erred by
dismissing Glenn’s retaliation claim without granting him leave to amend. See Fletcher-
Harlee Corp., 482 F.3d at 251.
We agree, however, with the District Court’s dismissal of Glenn’s due process
claim without leave to amend. Access to prison grievance procedures is not a
constitutionally-mandated right, and allegations of improprieties in the handling of
grievances do not state a cognizable claim under § 1983. See Massey v. Helman, 259
F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2001) (collecting cases and stating that “[t]he courts of appeals
that have confronted the issue are in agreement that the existence of a prison grievance
procedure confers no liberty interest on a prisoner.”); Hoover v. Watson, 886 F. Supp.
410, 418 (D. Del.) aff’d, 74 F.3d 1226 (3d Cir. 1995) (holding that if a state elects to
provide a grievance mechanism, violations of its procedures do not give rise to a § 1983
claim). Because this claim was legally flawed, amendment would have been futile and,
4
as such, dismissal with prejudice was proper and we will affirm that portion of the
District Court’s order.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand the
case to the District Court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
5