Filed: Mar. 29, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-29-2007 Rivera v. Rogers Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-2936 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007 Recommended Citation "Rivera v. Rogers" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 1405. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/1405 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the Unite
Summary: Opinions of the United 2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-29-2007 Rivera v. Rogers Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-2936 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007 Recommended Citation "Rivera v. Rogers" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 1405. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/1405 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United..
More
Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-29-2007
Rivera v. Rogers
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-2936
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Rivera v. Rogers" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 1405.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/1405
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 06-2936
________________
PETER JOE RIVERA,
Appellant
v.
GRACE ROGERS; A.L. SANTIAGO;
C. BUCHANAN; G. BANKOWSKI;
L. CHIPPETTA
___________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civ. No. 02-cv-02798)
District Judge: Honorable Dennis M. Cavanaugh
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
MARCH 23, 2007
Before: FISHER, ALDISERT AND WEIS, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: March 29, 2007)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Appellant, Peter Joe Rivera, appeals from the District Court’s order dismissing his
complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For essentially the reasons set forth by the
District Court, we will affirm.
The facts and procedural history of this case are well known to the parties, and
need not be restated in great detail here. In March 1992, a jury found Rivera guilty of two
counts of sexual assault of a nine-year-old in the second degree, two counts of aggravated
criminal sexual contact in the first degree, one count of endangering the welfare of a
child, and one count of lewdness. Rivera was sentenced to a ten year prison term. He
was also found guilty on a second two-count indictment, and sentenced that same day to
serve a consecutive four year term of imprisonment. In October 2001, before Rivera
completed his term of incarceration, he was civilly committed to the Special Treatment
Unit (“STU”) in Kearny, New Jersey, pursuant to the New Jersey Sexually Violent
Predator Act.
Shortly after arriving at the STU, Rivera was given the Resident Handbook which
outlines the rules and procedures enforced at the STU. It is specifically noted in the
handbook that “[f]or security purposes, the designated DOC Mail Officer will open all
packages in the mailroom” unless the package is clearly marked “Legal Mail.” See
Supplemental Appendix (“Ra”) at 64, 75. It further states that STU’s staff must review
any and all tapes that enter the STU. See Ra65. Rivera’s girlfriend sent him a package,
which was received on March 21, 2002, containing three tapes and a letter written in
Spanish. Rivera was advised in a memorandum from the STU’s mailroom supervisor
dated March 25, 2002, that the contents of the package were prohibited items insofar as
the tapes were not from the “source of sale” and the letter contained sexually explicit
content. Rivera was thus informed that the package would be stored in the mailroom
2
pending “disposal.” Rivera chose to have the package returned to his girlfriend. Despite
the fact that Rivera managed to receive the letter his girlfriend had written by having her
send it through his attorney as legal mail (which is not viewed or checked by STU’s
staff), the incident prompted Rivera to file the underlying § 1983 complaint against the
named defendants. In that complaint, Rivera alleges loss of personal property, denial of
access to the courts, exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (“ETS”) and interference
with his personal mail.
In an order entered on December 22, 2002, the District Court dismissed Rivera’s
claims for loss of personal property, denial of access to the courts and exposure to ETS
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Rivera filed an interlocutory
appeal, and the District Court stayed further proceedings pending this Court’s disposition
of that appeal. We dismissed Rivera’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction in an order issued on
June 30, 2003, see C.A. No. 03-1025, and the proceedings resumed in the District Court
with defendants eventually filing a motion for summary judgment with respect to Rivera’s
challenge to the constitutionality of STU’s mail policy. The District Court granted
summary judgment in favor of defendants in a Memorandum Opinion and Order entered
on May 22, 2006. This timely appeal followed.
We have jurisdiction over the instant appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
exercise plenary review over a District Court’s order granting a motion to dismiss a
complaint and for summary judgment. See Debiec v. Cabot Corp., 352 F.3d 117, 128 n.3
(3d Cir. 2003); Broselow v. Fisher,
319 F.3d 605, 607 (3d Cir. 2003). We have carefully
3
reviewed the record, as well as the parties’ briefs, and find the appeal to be meritless.
As the District Court noted, the Fourteenth Amendment provides the standard for
evaluating the constitutionally protected interests of individuals who have been
involuntarily committed to a state facility. See Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 312
(1982). In determining whether the constitutional rights of an involuntarily committed
individual have been violated, the court must balance the individual’s liberty interests
against the relevant state interests with deference shown to the judgment exercised by
qualified professionals.
Id. at 321-22. Given that Rivera has been convicted of a crime
and is being detained in the Special Treatment Unit because of his classification as a
sexually violent predator under New Jersey’s Sexually Violent Predator Act, his status is
similar to that of a prisoner and we agree with the District Court’s decision to proceed
with its analysis of his First Amendment claim by looking to case law interpreting a
prisoner’s rights.
The District Court’s Memorandum Opinion contains a thorough application of the
test set forth in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), and we see no reason to reiterate
that entire analysis here. While clearly prisoners and those involuntarily committed, by
virtue of their incarceration and custody status, “do not forfeit their First Amendment
right to use of the mails,” Jones v. Brown,
461 F.3d 353, 358 (3d Cir.2006) (citations and
quotations omitted), that right may be limited by institutional regulations that are
reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.
Turner, 482 U.S. at 92. The
District Court considered whether there was a valid, rational connection between the
4
challenged STU mail regulation and a legitimate governmental interest, whether there are
alternative means of exercising the right, the effect of accommodation of the right on the
STU facility generally, and whether there are ready alternatives. See Jones v. Brown, 461
F.3d at 360; Nasir v. Morgan,
350 F.3d 366, 371-372 (3d Cir. 2003). As noted by the
District Court, it is indisputable that STU has a legitimate interest in both the safety of its
facility and the rehabilitation of its patients. See Waterman v. Farmer,
183 F.3d 208, 215
(3d Cir. 1999)(“[I]t is beyond dispute that New Jersey has a legitimate penological
interest in rehabilitating its most dangerous and compulsive sex offenders.”). A policy
that allows staff to open packages that are not marked as “legal mail” assures that
packages containing contraband (i.e., items either harmful to the staff and patients, or
detrimental to a patient’s rehabilitation) are not being passed on to patients through the
mail. Moreover, Rivera is free to send and receive mail, including letters from his
girlfriend, so long as the content of the mail he receives is not sexually explicit.
Additionally, we find no error in the District Court’s conclusion that there are no ready
alternatives and that the current policy appears to be the only viable alternative, thus
further supporting the reasonableness of STU’s policy.
The District Court also properly dismissed Rivera’s claims for loss of personal
property, denial of access to the courts and exposure to ETS pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6). See Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65 (3d Cir. 1996). We will affirm a dismissal
for failure to state a claim if we can “‘say with assurance that under the allegations of the
pro se complaint, which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted
5
by lawyers, it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support
of his claim which would entitle him to relief.’” McDowell v. Del. State Police, 88 F.3d
188, 189 (3d Cir. 1996) (quoting Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)). As
defendants correctly point out, Rivera raised his ETS claim in a separate action docketed
at D. N.J. Civ. No. 03-cv-03689. On appeal, we agreed with the District Court’s
conclusion that Rivera failed to state a claim regarding his exposure to ETS under Helling
v. McKinney,
509 U.S. 25 (1993), and Estelle v. Gamble,
429 U.S. 97 (1976). See C.A.
No. 04-2030. Rivera’s claims of loss of personal property and denial of access to the
courts fare no better. Given the material at issue in the instant case and the foregoing
discussion regarding Rivera’s First Amendment claim, his loss of personal property claim
merits no further discussion. Finally, in the absence of an allegation of actual injury
caused by the limitations Rivera asserts he has experienced at STU, he cannot prevail on a
claim challenging his access to the court. See Lewis v. Casey,
518 U.S. 343, 350-51
(1996) (requiring an actual injury to establish a violation of the right of access to the
courts).
Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
