Walter Tormasi v. George Hayman , 464 F. App'x 73 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                            NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 11-3499
    ___________
    WALTER A. TORMASI,
    Appellant
    v.
    GEORGE HAYMAN, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (DOC) COMMISSIONER;
    JAMES BARBO, DOC DIRECTOR OF DIVISION OF OPERATIONS; RONALD H.
    CATHEL, NEW JERSEY STATE PRISON (NJSP) ADMINISTRATOR; AL
    KANDELL, NJSP ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR; DONALD MEE, NJSP
    ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR; MICHELLE RICCI, NJSP ASSOCIATE
    ADMINISTRATOR;BUTLER, INVESTIGATOR, JSP/DOC SPECIAL
    INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION (SID) AGENT; DOLCE, INVESTIGATOR, NJSP/DOC
    (SID) AGENT; MAGINNIS, INVESTIGATOR, NJSP/DOC (SID) AGENT; SIERRA,
    INVESTIGATOR, NJSP/DOC (SID) AGENT; WOJCIECHOWICZ, INVESTIGATOR,
    NJSP/DOC (SID AGENT); PAMELA TRENT, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR
    ____________________________________
    On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of New Jersey
    (D.C. Civil Action No. 07-cv-05683)
    District Judge: Honorable Joel A. Pisano
    ____________________________________
    Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
    April 2, 2012
    Before: JORDAN, HARDIMAN and ROTH, Circuit Judges
    (Opinion filed: April 3, 2012)
    ___________
    OPINION
    ___________
    PER CURIAM
    Walter Tormasi appeals the District Court’s order granting Appellees’ motion for
    summary judgment. For the reasons below, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.
    The procedural history of this case and the details of Tormasi’s claims are well
    known to the parties, set forth in the District Court’s opinion, and need not be discussed
    at length. Briefly, Tormasi filed a civil rights complaint alleging that Appellees denied
    him access to the courts when they confiscated some of his legal materials and
    disciplined him for possession of contraband. The District Court granted Appellees’
    motion for summary judgment, and Tormasi filed a notice of appeal.
    We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review the District Court’s
    order granting summary judgment de novo and review the facts in the light most
    favorable to the nonmoving party. Burns v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 
    642 F.3d 163
    , 170 (3d
    Cir. 2011). A grant of summary judgment will be affirmed if our review reveals that
    “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to
    judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
    Although his state post-conviction proceedings were over, Tormasi claims that he
    was afraid that if he filed future state post-conviction petitions or a federal habeas
    petition, he would be disciplined for possessing his appendices which contained the
    Anarchist’s Cookbook. We agree with the District Court that Appellees did not impede
    Tormasi’s litigation of any claims challenging his criminal conviction. As noted by the
    District Court, Tormasi could have simply referred to his prior briefs for citations to the
    material or arranged for a copy of the contraband materials to be sent to the state or
    2
    federal court. Thus, the fact that Tormasi is not permitted to possess the Anarchist’s
    Cookbook in prison does not violate his right to access to the courts or his freedom of
    speech. Because we agree with the District Court that Appellees did not did not impede
    or frustrate Tormasi’s claims regarding his criminal conviction, we need not address
    whether his potential claims had any merit. Lewis v. Casey, 
    518 U.S. 343
    , 351-52
    (1996).
    Tormasi also argues that the seizure of his documents and the disciplinary action
    against him was an exaggerated response by Appellees. Tormasi argued that the contents
    of the Anarchist’s Cookbook are available to prisoners. To support this argument, he
    submitted over three hundred pages of encyclopedia entries on ammunition, explosives,
    grenades, gunpowder, rockets, etc. He does not explain how any specific entry
    corresponds to a section of the Anarchist’s Cookbook or how the passages from the
    encyclopedia would threaten prison security in a manner similar to the Anarchist’s
    Cookbook. We agree with the District Court that the Appellees’ confiscation of the
    Anarchist’s Cookbook from a prisoner was a reasonable response to the security concerns
    that book poses to a correctional environment. Turner v. Safley, 
    482 U.S. 78
    , 89-90
    (1987).
    For the above reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-3499

Citation Numbers: 464 F. App'x 73

Judges: Hardiman, Jordan, Roth

Filed Date: 4/3/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023