with Ms. Dejesus, as is required under applicable prison regulations (37 Pa. Code § 95.234(a)(2)) in cases of inmate-to-inmate correspondence. Further, Plaintiff's conclusion that his correspondence was actually opened and read by others appears to be mere speculation inspired by his conspiracy theory.
Finally, Plaintiff's allegation that some of his outgoing mail to the news media and a religious group has been lost is also dismissed as legally frivolous. Plaintiff fails to even allege how his mail was lost. Moreover, this appears to be nothing more than a negligence claim, which is not actionable under § 1983. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 88 L. Ed. 2d 662 , 106 S. Ct. 662 (1986).
7. DENIAL OF PERSONAL PROPERTY
Plaintiff alleges that for two weeks he was not permitted access to a check for $ 3,772 which was sent to him at the prison. Further, Plaintiff claims the check was deposited in Plaintiff's inmate account against his wishes, and that the prison drew interest on the deposit during that time. This claim is dismissed as legally frivolous. The Supreme Court has held that "An unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy is available." Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533, 82 L. Ed. 2d 393 , 104 S. Ct. 3194 (1984). Since Plaintiff appears to have a state remedy for his property claim, see 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8550, a § 1983 action is inappropriate. See generally Jones v. Waters, 570 F. Supp. 1292, 1298 (E.D. Pa. 1983) (dictum).
8. DENIAL OF ADEQUATE FOOD
Plaintiff alleges that on several occasions three prison cooks, "Roberson, Stevenson, and Purdy", directed the inmates who serve food in the prison cafeteria to give Plaintiff less food than was given to the other inmates. When Plaintiff complained of this to Corrections Officers Barnett, Santos, Thomas, Saunders, Conway, and others, nothing was done about Plaintiff's complaint.
Although this allegation may be actionable under § 1983, Plaintiff has provided the Court with insufficient detail of the incidents. Accordingly, Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his complaint to advise the Court whether the aforementioned cooks are inmates or prison employees, to provide the specific involvement of each individual involved in the alleged deprivation of adequate food, and to amend the complaint's caption to include the names of each of these defendants.
9. SMOKE INHALATION
Plaintiff alleges that on several occasions the guards failed to put out fires set by inmates. As a result, Plaintiff and other inmates suffered smoke inhalation which required hospitalization. While this allegation may state a claim under § 1983, cf. McKinney v. Anderson, 959 F.2d 853 (9th Cir. 1992) (under certain circumstances exposure to secondary smoking may constitute cruel and unusual punishment), cert. granted sub nom, Helling v. McKinney, U.S. , 120 L. Ed. 2d 896, 112 S. Ct. 3024 (1992), Plaintiff fails to identify the guards involved and the appropriate date and time of the incidents. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his complaint to provide this information and, if necessary, to amend the complaint's caption accordingly.
10. DENIAL OF COPY MACHINE
Inmates do not have a constitutional right to the use of photocopying equipment. See Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 521 (9th Cir. 1991). Denial of access to free photocopying may be actionable only if it is predicated upon an allegation of actual injury amounting to a denial of access to the courts. Id. Because Plaintiff fails to allege actual injury as a result of this alleged deprivation, his claim that he was denied use of the photocopy machine is denied as frivolous.
11. DENIAL OF MEDICAL TREATMENT
Plaintiff alleges that "the administration has been denying medical treatment, by refusing to answer Plaintiff's requests to be seen at medical." To make a colorable claim of medical treatment so inadequate that it violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, Plaintiff must allege "deliberate indifference to serious medical needs." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-105, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251 , 97 S. Ct. 285 (1976). Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with sufficient information to determine whether he has stated a colorable Eighth Amendment violation. Therefore, Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his complaint to explain the nature of his medical need, the effect of denial of treatment on his physical condition, the number of requests he submitted and the responses thereto, and the individual or individuals responsible for the alleged denial of treatment.
12. DENIAL OF RELIGIOUS ASSOCIATION
Plaintiff alleges that he has been denied freedom to associate with the religious group of his preference, while other inmates in administrative segregation are ostensibly permitted to do so. However, Plaintiff fails to plead facts with sufficient details to allow the Court to assert the reasonableness of the claim. See O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 96 L. Ed. 2d 282 , 107 S. Ct. 2400 (1987) (prison officials acted in reasonable manner by precluding Islamic inmates from attending certain religious services). Plaintiff is granted leave to identify the individual or individuals responsible for the alleged violation, to provide the approximate date of the violation and details of each violation and, if necessary, to amend the complaint's caption to include appropriate names.
13. CRIMINAL CONVICTION
Plaintiff alleges that "Now this conspiracy by guards, the State Police, former Detective Yoder, and Plaintiff's personal attorney who represented Plaintiff at trial who refuses to return Plaintiff's files, and continue to refuse to correct his deliberate errors at trial in order to convict Plaintiff (Williams) of all charges in order to clear another client, represented by him." Since this allegation and other allegations against these defendants and other individuals involved in his trial were adjudicated by this Court in Civil Action Number 92-5211, which was dismissed by order dated November 30, 1992, this claim is dismissed as frivolous.
Plaintiff's dissatisfaction with his trial appears to be the basis for his inclusion of the Chester County Court of Common Pleas in his "supplemental amended complaint." The claim against this defendant is dismissed as frivolous. This issue has already been previously heard by this Court, and the Chester County Court of Common Pleas is not amenable to suit under § 1983. See Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611 , 98 S. Ct. 2018 (1978).
14. MISINFORMATION IN PLAINTIFF'S RECORDS
Plaintiff appears to be alleging that prison officials provided outdated and prejudicial information to the FBI in connection with a records request which Plaintiff made to the FBI pursuant to his application for release on parole. Because of this, Plaintiff believes that his FBI records now include misinformation which is harmful to his reputation. This claim is dismissed as legally frivolous. Although Plaintiff believes this to be further evidence of a conspiracy against him, this appears to be, at best, a negligence claim which is not actionable under § 1983. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 88 L. Ed. 2d 662 , 106 S. Ct. 662 (1986).
15. DENIAL OF TYPEWRITER
Plaintiff alleges that his requests to purchase a typewriter for use in his cell have been denied. He alleges that there is only one typewriter in the law library and that denial of a personal typewriter violates his First Amendment rights. This claim is denied as legally frivolous. Plaintiff has no First Amendment or other constitutional right to purchase a typewriter. Moreover, he fails to demonstrate actual injury due to the lack of a personal typewriter. See Peterkin, 855 F.2d at 1041.
16. COST OF LEGAL SUPPLIES
Plaintiff alleges that the cost of legal supplies and photocopying at the prison is excessive, thereby violating his First Amendment rights as an indigent prisoner. This claim is dismissed as legally frivolous. As with the claimed denial of access to photocopying and to a typewriter, Plaintiff has failed to show the requisite actual injury. Peterkin, 855 F.2d at 1041. Moreover, the volume of written material Plaintiff has submitted in connection with this and other actions filed in this Court is proof positive that his right to free speech and access to the courts has not been impeded by the cost of legal supplies and photocopying at Chester County Prison. See Kershner v. Mazurkiewicz, 670 F.2d 440 (3d Cir. 1982).
17. DENIAL OF ADEQUATE LAW LIBRARY ACCESS
Plaintiff alleges that he is allowed only seven hours per week in the law library. Although Plaintiff cites guidelines which allow the prison to deny segregated prisoners, such as Plaintiff, any law library time, he argues that, by contrast, other segregated prisoners are allowed more than seven hours per week in the law library. It is settled that the constitutional right of access to the courts includes inmates access to adequate law library time. See, Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 52 L. Ed. 2d 72 , 97 S. Ct. 1491 (1977). Plaintiff's claim is legally frivolous because he has not demonstrated that the access he has been provided is not adequate. Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to show that any deprivation of access to the library beyond seven hours has involved actual injury. Peterkin, 855 F.2d at 1041.
18. DENIAL OF GRIEVANCE FORMS
Although Plaintiff alleges that he has been denied forms with which to file administrative grievances, he makes reference in his complaint to letters he has written to prison officials addressing his administrative complaints. Consequently, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that the alleged failure to provide him grievance forms has denied him the ability to use the prison grievance process. Accordingly, this complaint is dismissed as legally frivolous.
19. MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiff's complaint contains a sweeping request for injunctive relief. Before such extraordinary relief can be granted Plaintiff must show that irreparable injury will result if this relief is not granted prior to the final adjudication of the claims on their merits. Perkins v. Wagner, 513 F. Supp. 904, 906 (E.D.Pa. 1981) (applying standard for granting injunctive relief in the context of a prisoner claim). Plaintiff must also show a reasonable probability of success on the merits and that possible harm to the opposing party is minimal. Id. The motion for a preliminary injunction must be denied because the facts that Plaintiff has alleged in the complaint and in the motion do not meet these requirements.
On the basis of the foregoing, the complaint is dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), with leave to amend as specified herein. The motion for a preliminary injunction is also denied.
An appropriate order follows.
AND NOW, TO WIT, this 19th day of May, 1993, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The Clerk is directed to strike the name of Michelle Dejesus from the caption of this complaint, and to establish a separate case file and docket number for the complaint and request to proceed in forma pauperis signed by Dejesus. The Plaintiffs are directed to submit their pleadings separately, signed by either Williams or Dejesus. The Clerk shall file documents received from this point forth on the docket of the case relating to the plaintiff that signed the document at issue. The new case relating to Dejesus shall be deemed related to the above captioned case, and shall be assigned to the same judge assigned to the above captioned case.
2. As to Plaintiff Williams:
i. Since it appears that Williams is unable to prepay the costs of commencing this suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.
ii. The motion for leave to file a "supplemental amended" complaint is GRANTED.
iii. The motions for injunctive relief are DENIED.
iv. The amended complaint is DISMISSED, with leave to amend within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. The new amended complaint shall relate only to those claims in which the Court allowed Plaintiff leave to amend, as set forth in the attached Memorandum. Upon the filing of a new amended complaint, the Clerk shall not make service until so ORDERED by the Court.
v. The motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice, plaintiff having failed, to date, to demonstrate that this case involves the type of "special circumstances" that justify the appointment of counsel. See Muslim v. Frame, No. 93-CV-0554 (E.D.Pa. April 27, 1993).
vi. The motion for limitation of filing and miscellaneous fees for copies is DENIED for the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum.
vii. The motion for consolidation of this case with Dejesus's is DENIED without prejudice to Plaintiff's right to reassert it if the Court permits the filing of a complaint in both this action and Dejesus's action.
viii. The motion for service of process is DENIED. The Court will determine whether service shall take place after review of the complaint filed by Williams, if any, in response to this Order.
EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.