The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Andrew Smyser Magistrate Judge
(Magistrate Judge Smyser)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, commenced this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action by filing a complaint on April 16, 2009.
The plaintiff's claims relate to the monitoring of his incoming and outgoing mail while he was incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Frackville ("SCI-Frackville"). The complaint names the following three officials of SCIFrackville: Superintendent Robert Shannon, Security Captain David Kneal and Mailroom Supervisor Mary Toner.
The plaintiff alleges the following facts in his complaint.
In January of 2006, the plaintiff received a certified mail receipt indicating that defendant Kneal had sent a package to Sonja Stebbins, a detective with the Lancaster Police Department, regarding the plaintiff. Doc. 1, at 2, para. 1; Exhibit A.
On September 11, 2006, the plaintiff received a notice from defendant Toner informing him that his incoming and outgoing mail had been monitored from September 20, 2005 to September 7, 2006. Doc. 1, at 3, para 2; Exhibit C. The notice indicated that the monitoring had been suggested by defendant Kneal and approved by defendant Shannon. Id. The plaintiff alleges that the monitoring violated Department of Correction Policy DC-ADM 803. Doc. 1, at 3, para 2; Exhibit D.
On November 2, 2006, the plaintiff received a second notice from defendant Toner informing him that his mail had been monitored from October 17, 2006 to November 1, 2006. Doc. 1, at 3, para 3; Exhibit E.
On April 10, 2007, the plaintiff received a letter from a friend who was angry because duplicates of their private correspondence were made available to a third party who used the information to humiliate, degrade and embarrass the friend. Doc. 1, at 3, para 4; Exhibit B.
On April 24, 2007, the plaintiff submitted a grievance, Grievance No. 185632, regarding his mail being copied and sent to a third party. Doc. 1, at 3, para 5; Exhibit F. The grievance was returned to the plaintiff without action on the basis that it was not timely filed. Id. On April 27, 2007, the plaintiff applied for a reconsideration and it was granted, and the grievance was remanded to the grievance coordinator for further processing. Id.
On July 1, 2007, the plaintiff sent a letter to Grievance Coordinator Mr. Damitor inquiring as to the status of the plaintiff's grievance. Doc. 1, at 3, para 6; Exhibit G. On July 20, 2007, the plaintiff received notice that his grievance was denied. Doc. 1, at 3, para 6.
On July 24, 2007, the plaintiff filed an appeal to the institution's Deputy Superintendent Verano. Doc. 1, at 3, para 7; Exhibit H. When no response was given to the plaintiff, the plaintiff sent a letter to Mr. Verano inquiring as to the status of his appeal. Exhibit H. On the copy of the letter submitted by the plaintiff, there is a note from Mr. Verano notifying the plaintiff that his office was not the proper office for appeals at the facility level and directing the plaintiff to the Superintendent. Id.
On December 9, 2007, the plaintiff filed an appeal to the Superintendent. Id. In his appeal, the plaintiff alleged that Mr. Verano had a professional responsibility to forward his appeal to the proper office. Id. The Superintendent denied the plaintiff's appeal as untimely, noting that Mr. ...