United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
SHRON K. LINDER, Plaintiff,
JULIO ALGARIN, et al., Defendants.
Shron K. Linder, a prisoner incarcerated at the Montgomery
County Correctional Facility, brings this pro se
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
Warden Julio Algarin, Deputy Warden Sean McGee, Gary Chesney,
Captain Joseph Interrante, Captain Smith, and Lieutenant
Flamer. He seeks to proceed in forma pauperis. For
the following reasons, the Court will grant the plaintiff
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)
claims that inmates at the Montgomery County Correctional
Facility who are housed in medium and maximum custody are not
permitted to have access to the law library. (Compl. ¶
II.D.) For ten months, plaintiff requested to use the law
library and was "constantly denied." (Id.)
Plaintiff was told that the only way he could use the law
library was with a court order. (Id.) Based on these
facts, plaintiff appears to be asserting a claim that he was
denied access to the courts. He seeks $3, 500.00 in
compensatory damages, $3, 500.00 in punitive damages, and
injunctive relief in the form of permitting medium and
maximum custody inmates to have access to the law library.
(Id. ¶ V.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
will be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis
because it appears he is not capable of prepaying the fees
required to commence this action. Accordingly, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) applies. That provision requires the
Court to dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune. Whether a complaint fails to
state a claim under § 1915(e) is governed by the same
standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), see Tourscher v.
McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999), which
requires the Court to determine whether the complaint
contains "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,
to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (quotations omitted)., 
retain a right to access the courts to pursue direct or
collateral challenges to their sentences and to challenge
their conditions of confinement. See Monroe v.
Beard, 536 F.3d 198, 205 (3d Cir. 2008). A prisoner
claiming that the defendants' actions "have
inhibited [his] opportunity to present a past legal claim
... must show (1) that [he] suffered an 'actual
injury' - that [he] lost a chance to pursue a
'nonfrivolous' or 'arguable' underlying
claim; and (2) that [he has] no other 'remedy that may be
awarded as recompense' for the lost claim other than in
the present denial of access suit." Id.
"[T]he underlying cause of action, ... is an element
that must be described in the complaint."
Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002).
the complaint fails to state a claim because it does not
describe the underlying claim in a manner that would allow
the Court to conclude that it was nonfrivolous or arguable.
To the contrary, the only information discernable from the
complaint is that the plaintiff wanted to use the law library
and was prevented from doing so. Those allegations are
insufficient on their own to establish that plaintiff
suffered an actual injury. Nor does the complaint allege that
plaintiff has no other remedy to compensate him for his lost
foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss the complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The dismissal
is without prejudice to the plaintiffs right to file an
amended complaint in the event that he can cure the defects
noted above. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293
F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002). An appropriate order follows,
which shall be docketed separately.
 However, as plaintiff is a prisoner
subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, he will be
obligated to pay the filing fee in installments pursuant to