Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-9-2007
Lopez v. Howard
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-2361
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Lopez v. Howard" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 1501.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/1501
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 06-2361
________________
JOHNNY LOPEZ,
Appellant
v.
CATHY L. HOWARD; LISA A. SEMANS; STATE OF DELAWARE
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of Delaware
(D.C. Civ. No. 06-cv-00107)
District Judge: Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
March 8, 2007
Before: SLOVITER, MCKEE AND AMBRO, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: March 9, 2007)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Johnny Lopez, a prisoner at the Delaware Correctional Center, appeals an order of
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware dismissing his civil rights
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b)(1). For the following
reasons, we will affirm.
Lopez instituted this action against the State of Delaware and two state judicial
employees alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional right of access to the
courts. Lopez alleges that members of the Delaware Supreme Court’s administrative staff
deliberately frustrated his efforts to obtain appellate review of his drug convictions. In
support of this claim, Lopez points out that the Delaware Supreme Court’s opinion
affirming his conviction does not address every argument that he raised in his filings with
the Court. He also argues that the lack of a signature on the opinion and the Court’s
denial of his motion for a signature is evidence that the opinion is a forgery. He requests
monetary and injunctive relief.1
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of the District Court’s
dismissal is plenary. See Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). We must
“accept as true all well-pled factual allegations . . . [and] examine whether, under any
reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief.” Delaware
Nation v. Pennsylvania, 446 F.3d 410, 415 (3d Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). Because
Lopez is proceeding pro se, we must liberally construe his pleadings. See Dluhos v.
1
Lopez also attacks the validity of his conviction. We note that such a challenge may
be brought in federal court only via a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Leamer v.
Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 540-42 (3d Cir. 2002). Lopez has already filed a federal habeas
petition, and an appeal of the District Court’s denial of habeas relief is pending before this
Court (3d Cir. No. 06-3758).
2
Strasberg, 321 F.3d 365, 369 (3d Cir. 2003). In evaluating the sufficiency of the
complaint, we may take judicial notice of official court records for the purpose of
ascertaining whether an allegedly “lost” claim was actually litigated. See In re Indian
Palms Associates, Ltd., 61 F.3d 197, 205 (3d Cir. 1995); Kramer v. Time Warner Inc.,
937 F.2d 767, 774 (2d Cir. 1991).
First, we take judicial notice of records from the Delaware Supreme Court that
contradict Lopez’s perfunctory allegations that members of the Court’s administrative
staff deliberately concealed his filings from the judges. We note that the Delaware
Supreme Court docket sheet lists all the submissions that Lopez claims to have sent to
that Court. Moreover, the Delaware Supreme Court expressly stated in its opinion that it
had “reviewed the record carefully” prior to denying Lopez’s appeal. Lopez v. State, 861
A.2d 1245, 1251 (Del. 2004). Even if we disregard these official documents and accept
the allegations of official misconduct as true, the complaint still fails to state a denial of
access claim because there is no indication that Lopez was precluded from asserting a
non-frivolous claim. See Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 414-16 (2002).
Although Lopez claims that the Delaware Supreme Court never addressed his challenge
to the legality of the state’s search and seizure and the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting his conviction, the Court’s opinion indicates that these claims were analyzed
on the merits. See Lopez, 861 A.2d at 1248-50.
We also reject Lopez’s inference regarding the significance of the Delaware
Supreme Court’s issuance of an unsigned opinion. Lopez does not cite, and we are
3
unable to locate, any provision under Delaware law that entitles an appellant before the
Delaware Supreme Court to a signed opinion.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Lopez has failed to state a claim on
which relief may be granted. Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s dismissal
of the complaint.
4