Opinions of the United
2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-13-2009
Robinson v. PA Dept Corr
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-1465
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009
Recommended Citation
"Robinson v. PA Dept Corr" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1371.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1371
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 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
DLD-157 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 07-1465
THOMAS ROBINSON;
LUIS A. RAMIREZ,
Appellants
v.
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION;
DR. JEFFREY A. BEARD; (WARDEN) DONALD T. VAUGHN;
MICHAEL SPENCER; KIMBERLY ULISNY
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 03-cv-05180)
District Judge: Honorable Lawrence F. Stengel
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
April 16, 2009
Before: BARRY, AMBRO and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: May 13, 2009)
OPINION
PER CURIAM
Appellants Thomas Robinson and Luis A. Ramirez, proceeding pro se, appeal
from the District Court’s order entering summary judgment in favor of Appellees. For the
reasons that follow, we will summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court.
On September 15, 2003, Appellants, both inmates at SCI-Graterford, filed a
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
challenging the inmate mail handling procedures implemented by the Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections (“DOC”) in 2002. Appellants claimed that the system for
reviewing and distributing their legal mail violated their First Amendment rights. The
challenged procedures provide that all mail sent to inmates is opened offsite and screened
for contraband before being delivered to the inmate. The procedures provide an
exception for privileged correspondence from attorneys or the court to inmates bearing a
“control number.” To obtain a control number, an attorney must verify that all mail
bearing a control number contains only “essential, confidential attorney-client
communication” and does not contain any contraband. A court need not make any such
verification, but may use the control number only for mail the sender truly deems
confidential. All mail bearing a control number is opened by a corrections officer in the
presence of the inmate.
Following a period of discovery, the parties cross-moved for summary judgment,
which the District Court entered in favor of Appellees. After considering our opinion in
2
Jones v. Brown, 461 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2006), and applying the test set forth in Turner v.
Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), the District Court concluded that the Pennsylvania policy was
promulgated in response to legitimate security concerns, that it was rationally related to
the DOC’s interest in preventing contraband from entering the prisons, and that the DOC
offered a viable alternative in the form of a “control number.” Appellants contested these
conclusions, arguing that they have no control over whether courts or government
attorneys obtain control numbers, that requiring corrections officers to deliver and open
mail in front of them would not impose an additional burden on the state, and that
contraband could be easily detected by corrections officers opening mail in front of
inmates.
After the District Court entered summary judgment, Judge Savage in the Western
District of Pennsylvania issued an opinion holding that the procedures in question were
unconstitutional. See Fontroy v. Beard, 485 F. Supp. 2d 592 (E.D. Pa. 2007). Both
parties appealed. See C.A. Nos. 07-2446 & 07-2514. We stayed the instant appeal
pending the outcome of the appeal in Fontroy. On March 10, 2009, we issued a
precedential opinion in Fontroy, reversing the judgment of the District Court and holding
that the mail handling procedures promulgated by the DOC did not violate the First
Amendment. See 559 F.3d 173 (3d Cir. 2009). After the Fontroy opinion was issued, we
lifted the stay in the instant appeal and asked the parties to address the impact of Fontroy
on their appeal. Appellants’ response essentially seeks to re-litigate the issues we
3
considered in reaching our decision in Fontroy. Because we have already considered all
of the arguments raised by Appellants in their brief and response to our order, we will
summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court for all of the reasons given in
Fontroy v. Beard. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4 & I.O.P. 10.6.
4