United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
March 28, 2014
COREY BRACEY, Plaintiff,
SECRETARY JEFFREY BEARD; ANDREA MEINTEL; DIRECTOR BUREAU OF TREATMENT SERVICES; RICHARD ELLERS, DIRECTOR OF BUREAU OF HEALTHCARE; J. BARRY JOHNSON DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR WESTERN REGION; BRIAN COLEMAN SUPERINTENDENT; DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT FACILITY MANAGEMENT GATES; DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT CENTRALIZED SERVICES ARNELL; MAJOR ZAKEN; CARL WALKER, UNIT MANAGER; COUNSELOR BUSTASS; CAPTAIN BERRIER; DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT CENTRALIZED SERVICES BRYANT; DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT FACILITY HALL; CORRECTIONS CLASSIFICATION PROGRAM WOODS; DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT FACILITY MANAGEMENT HANNAH; CORRECTIONS CLASSIFICATION PROGRAM MANAGER BISER; DR. SAVAADRA; DR. FONDER; MHM CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, INC.; DR. GALLUCCI; WILLIAM LEGGETT CAPTAIN; DSFM WHIETSEL; SHIRLEY MOORE-SMEAL; KATHLEEN GNALL DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR RE-ENTRY AND SPECIALIZED TREATMENT SERVICES, Defendants.
ORDER Re: ECF No. 128
MAUREEN P. KELLY, Magistrate Judge.
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Expeditious Relief of Tampering with U.S. Mail of Plaintiff ("the Motion"), which was filed on March 13, 2014. ECF No. 128. On March 27, 2014, Defendants responded to the Motion as ordered by the Court. ECF No. 129. Plaintiff complains in the Motion that legal mail sent to him by the Court was opened outside of his presence and asks the Court to contact the Superintendent to verify that the documents were actually sent by the Court so that the grievance Plaintiff filed regarding the matter can be properly investigated.
The opening of prison mail outside the prisoner's presence on a single occasion, however, does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation, Schreane v. Holt, 2012 WL 1563887, at *2 (3d Cir. May 4, 2012). Moreover, inmates do not have a constitutional right to prison grievance procedures in the first instance and do not have a liberty interest protected by the due process clause in the grievance procedures. Fears v. Beard , 532 F.Appx. 78, 81 (3d Cir. 2013). In addition, Plaintiff acknowledges that he, in fact, received the documents that were sent by the Court. Under these circumstances, Plaintiff's Motion is properly denied. The following Order is entered:
AND NOW, this 28th day of March, 2014, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Expeditious Relief of Tampering with U.S. Mail of Plaintiff, ECF No. 128, and Defendants' Response thereto, ECF No. 129, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED.