Jose Feliciano v. Thomas Dohman, 645 F. App'x 153

Pro se inmate Jose M. Feliciano sued multiple SCI‑Graterford officials alleging First, Fifth, and Eighth Amendment violations after filing a sexual‑harassment grievance against a prison counselor and later refusing to cooperate in an investigation into Corrections Officer Ballard.
Officers Dohman and Radle interviewed Feliciano, pressured him to implicate Ballard, and warned of transfer if he did not cooperate; Feliciano refused and was placed in administrative custody and later transferred to SCI‑Greene.
District Court dismissed Feliciano’s access‑to‑courts claim and official‑capacity claims at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage but allowed other claims to proceed to discovery.
After summary judgment briefing, the District Court held the remaining claims time‑barred and, alternatively, meritless; Feliciano appealed.
On appeal, the Third Circuit reviewed de novo, concluded Feliciano forfeited the access‑to‑courts challenge, and affirmed summary judgment because defendants proved they would have taken the same actions absent protected conduct and Feliciano faced no substantial risk of being identified as an informant.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of access to courts claim was properly dismissed	Feliciano alleged disruption of legal materials impeded filings	Defendants argued claim lacked an actual injury showing	Dismissed—Feliciano forfeited briefed challenge; merits fail for no actual injury (Lewis standard)
Whether defendants retaliated (First/Fifth Amendments)	Filing grievance and refusing to cooperate were protected; adverse actions followed	Defendants showed investigation and security concerns justified custody/transfer independent of protected activity	No retaliation—undisputed evidence shows same actions would have occurred absent protected conduct
Whether pressures to implicate Ballard constituted Eighth Amendment violation (risk of inmate violence)	Coercion to inform could expose him to serious harm if identified as informant	Defendants showed he was not exposed or publicly labeled; no substantial risk of identification	No Eighth Amendment liability—no genuine issue that Feliciano faced substantial risk of being labeled an informant
Whether denial of requested depositions was abuse of discretion	Additional depositions would develop causation/evidence of retaliation	Defendants argued depositions would not change undisputed evidence that actions were independent of protected conduct	No abuse—depositions would not undermine defendants’ evidence that protected conduct was not the cause

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) (access‑to‑courts requires actual injury)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (Eighth Amendment requires known substantial risk and deliberate indifference)
Rauser v. Horn, 241 F.3d 330 (3d Cir. 2001) (retaliation burden‑shifting framework)
Carter v. McGrady, 292 F.3d 152 (3d Cir. 2002) (retaliation and independent penological justification)
Northington v. Jackson, 973 F.2d 1518 (10th Cir. 1992) (labeling inmate as informant can implicate Eighth Amendment)
Barefoot Architect, Inc. v. Bunge, 632 F.3d 822 (3d Cir. 2011) (de novo review for dismissal and summary judgment)
Kaucher v. County of Bucks, 455 F.3d 418 (3d Cir. 2006) (summary judgment standard)