Summary
In Allen v. Maxfield, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44371 (W.D. Va. June 29, 2006) at *2, this court held that "[t]o state a claim that interference with legal mail has abridged his right to access the courts, an inmate must demonstrate some actual harm or prejudice to his ability to communicate with the court or with counsel."
Summary of this case from Thomas v. BledsoeOpinion
Civil Action No. 7:06cv00378.
June 29, 2006
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Derrick Waddell Allen, a Virginia inmate proceedingpro se, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendant, "Officer Maxfield," improperly opened Allen's legal mail outside of Allen's presence. Allen seeks $300,000 in damages. The court finds that Allen's complaint fails to state a claim upon which the court may grant relief and, therefore, dismisses Allen's action without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
I.
Allen alleges that Officer Maxfield opened a piece of returned mail Allen had sent to a law firm outside of Allen's presence. However, Allen concedes that the envelope was not clearly marked as legal mail, that the envelope was stamped "return to sender" and was rejected by the addressee as unsolicited mail, and that the name and address of the intended recipient was almost entirely obscured by the "return to sender" label. Additionally, Allen admits that, after thorough examination, he does not believe that Maxfield or anyone else retained any portion of his legal papers. Allen speculates, though, that Maxfield "may have" copied the documents and "may have" distributed copies to the administrative staff. Allen also speculates that Maxfield "may have" delayed the processing of or "may have" destroyed other legal mail.
II.
To state a claim that interference with legal mail has abridged his right to access the courts, an inmate must demonstrate some actual harm or prejudice to his ability to communicate with the court or with counsel. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) (holding that when an inmate has had access to court, but alleges that officials deprived him of some item necessary for meaningful pursuit of his litigation, such as his already prepared legal materials, the inmate must allege facts showing actual injury or specific harm to his litigation efforts resulting from denial of the item); see also White v. White, 886 F.2d 721, 724 (4th Cir. 1989) (holding that, in order to state a claim based on delay or non-delivery of legal mail, an inmate must allege that he suffered actual adverse consequences as a result of the delay or that the non-delivery deprived him of meaningful access to the courts). Allen does not claim that Maxfield or other prison employee has deprived him of the legal mail, only that they opened it. Further, Allen managed to file this suit and has filed extensively in another case pending in this court. Accordingly, the court finds that Allen has failed to allege actual harm or prejudice to his ability to access the courts.III.
For the stated reasons, Allen's complaint is dismissed pursuant to § 1915A(b)(1).