Humphrey v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 712 F. App'x 122

Humphrey, a Pennsylvania inmate, sued prison officials after his legal materials were confiscated following his addition of the DOC and a John Doe to a state replevin action (Case A) and a settlement-enforcement action (Case B).
He alleged deprivation of First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, seeking declaratory relief and damages; district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims.
Humphrey’s underlying state suits rested on purported contracts and a $4.83 billion claim tied to alleged government bonds created using his identifying information; the court found those suits frivolous and lacking basic contract elements.
He claimed denial of access to courts (papers confiscated caused dismissals), First Amendment retaliation, conspiracy to impede litigation, Fourth Amendment unlawful seizure, and claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, and 1985(3).
The district court (and this panel) held that access-to-courts and retaliation claims failed because the underlying litigation was frivolous (no protected conduct), conspiracy failed absent a viable underlying tort, Fourth Amendment and due-process claims failed given prison-cell context and adequate post-deprivation remedies, and § 1981/1982/1985 claims lacked any racial or class-based animus.
The Third Circuit summarily affirmed the dismissal and denied Humphrey’s stay motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Access to courts	Confiscation prevented service and caused dismissal of Cases A and B; injured his ability to litigate	Seizure did not cause actionable injury; underlying suits are frivolous	Dismissed — must show actual injury from non-frivolous underlying claim; Humphrey’s suits were frivolous
Retaliation (First Amendment)	Mazeski ordered seizure in retaliation for adding DOC, deterring litigation	Even if action occurred, plaintiff’s litigation was not protected because it was frivolous	Dismissed — no protected activity when claims are frivolous; alternative basis acceptable
Fourth Amendment / Due Process	Seizure of cell materials violated Fourth and due-process rights	Fourth Amendment inapplicable to cell contents; adequate post-deprivation remedies exist	Dismissed — Fourth Amendment not applicable to cell contents; due process fails because of adequate post-deprivation remedies
Conspiracy and § 1981/1982/1985 claims	Defendants conspired to deny access and acted with discriminatory/animus-based motive	Conspiracy fails without viable underlying tort; no allegation of racial or class-based animus	Dismissed — conspiracy requires viable underlying tort; statutory claims lack alleged discriminatory animus

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard for plausibility)
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) (prisoner must show actual injury from denial of access to courts; underlying claim must be nonfrivolous)
Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) (Fourth Amendment does not protect against cell searches and seizures of cell contents)
Brennan v. Norton, 350 F.3d 399 (3d Cir. 2003) (filing frivolous litigation is not protected petitioning activity for retaliation claims)
Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236 (3d Cir. 1999) (standard of appellate review for dismissal)
Rauser v. Horn, 241 F.3d 330 (3d Cir. 2001) (elements of prisoner retaliation claim)
Bistrian v. Levi, 696 F.3d 352 (3d Cir. 2012) (retaliation prong is an objective inquiry: would a person of ordinary firmness be deterred)
Monroe v. Beard, 536 F.3d 198 (3d Cir. 2008) (permissibility of confiscating certain UCC materials in prison)
Brown v. Philip Morris Inc., 250 F.3d 789 (3d Cir. 2001) (construction of §§ 1981 and 1982 requirements)
Farber v. City of Paterson, 440 F.3d 131 (3d Cir. 2006) (construction of § 1985(3) requirements)