Burse v. Jenkins, 2:15-cv-02992

Perrin Burse, an inmate at Chillicothe Correctional Institution (CCI), alleged staff forced him to reduce or mail out legal materials during a temporary housing transfer in Feb–Mar 2015, placed him in segregation, delayed his receipt/review of a DVD from the Ohio Innocence Project, and caused loss of some legal documents.
The DVD was relevant to a new-trial proceeding in State of Ohio v. Burse; Burse claims the delay/segregation prevented him from timely presenting newly discovered evidence and caused adverse rulings in several pending matters.
Defendants enforced ODRC Policy 59-LEG-01 (limits on inmate legal property); staff contend Burse was given orders to reduce materials, refused, and was disciplined for policy violations.
Procedurally: Burse filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; cross-motions for summary judgment were filed. The magistrate judge recommended denying Burse’s motion, granting defendants’ motion, and denying as moot Burse’s preliminary injunction (Burse was later released from CCI).
Court found Burse failed to timely exhaust administrative remedies (his informal grievance was filed six months after the events, while the rule requires filing within 14 days), and in the alternative found his constitutional claims (access-to-courts and retaliation) lacked merit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exhaustion under PLRA	Burse contends he pursued grievances; placement in segregation impeded exhaustion	Defendants: Burse filed only an untimely informal grievance and did not complete the 3-step process	Court: Failed to exhaust; informal grievance untimely, no evidence of further steps completed — summary judgment for defendants
Denial of access to courts	Burse says mailing/discarding materials and delayed DVD review caused actual prejudice in pending cases (notably his new-trial motion)	Defendants: Policy enforcement limited property but did not completely deny access; any delays did not cause actual, specific prejudice	Court: No actual injury shown (no showing that any non-frivolous claim or appeal was lost because of conduct); claim fails
First Amendment retaliation	Burse asserts segregation and confiscation were motivated by his litigation/filings	Defendants: Discipline was for violating property policy, a legitimate penological objective; decisionmakers unaware of DVD/use	Court: No evidence adverse action was motivated at least in part by protected conduct; retaliation claim fails
Injunctive relief	Burse sought preliminary injunction to preserve access to courts	Defendants: Moot because Burse was released	Court: Motion denied as moot

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden shifting)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (genuine dispute standard for summary judgment)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574 (summary judgment context)
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (prison regulations valid if reasonably related to penological interests)
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (prisoner must show actual injury to state denial-of-access claim)
Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (recognition of prisoners' right of access to courts)
Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378 (retaliation claim elements)
Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468 (application of retaliation standard to prisoners)
Green v. Johnson, 977 F.2d 1383 (property limits constitutional unless they completely deny access)