Linwood Brant v. Varano
16-2696
| 3rd Cir. | Nov 16, 2017Background
- In Feb 2011 Brant was placed in RHU at SCI-Coal Township; he told Captain Stetler he intended to file a lawsuit and/or grievances. Shortly thereafter officers packed his property and Brant later discovered legal papers and other items missing or destroyed.
- Some documents were recovered by other inmates and forwarded to Lt. Williams; Brant received only about ten pages back—key affidavits related to a PCRA claim remained missing.
- In July–August 2011 Williams allegedly threatened to tamper with Brant’s stored legal materials; Williams later admitted to an inmate he destroyed Brant’s legal files; prison responses sometimes attributed loss to mice.
- Brant sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in 2013 against multiple DOC employees for denial of access to courts and retaliation; some defendants were dismissed; others moved for summary judgment.
- The magistrate recommended partial denial of summary judgment as to Knarr and Williams; the district court nonetheless granted summary judgment for all defendants. Brant appealed.
- The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment on the access-to-courts claim (PCRA petition was untimely) but reversed as to summary judgment for Knarr and Williams on retaliation claims and remanded those claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of access to courts | Brant: destruction of affidavits prevented presentation of a nonfrivolous PCRA claim | Defendants: no cognizable injury; PCRA petition was filed and dismissed as untimely | Court: Summary judgment proper for defendants — Brant’s PCRA was untimely, so no actual injury shown |
| Retaliation by Officer Knarr (discarding legal materials) | Brant: threatened to sue on morning of Feb 25; Knarr destroyed legal work same day and admitted doing so because of lawsuits | Knarr: routine packing/confiscation; denies discarding legal material; no legitimate penological reason shown | Court: Reversed summary judgment for Knarr — prima facie protected activity, adverse action, and suggestive temporal link; defendants failed to show they would have acted absent retaliation |
| Retaliation by Lt. Williams (destroying stored materials after grievances) | Brant: filed grievances; Williams threatened and later admitted to destroying files; inventory showed destruction not consistent with mice | Williams: denies destroying files; prison offered alternate explanations (mice) | Court: Reversed summary judgment for Williams — protected grievance activity, temporal proximity and admission support prima facie case; defendant hasn’t shown legitimate penological justification |
| Summary judgment for Varano, Deremer, Metzinger, Kimbrel | Brant: these officials are liable for their roles in loss/handling or for denying remedies | Defendants: lacked personal involvement; mere presence or administrative denials insufficient | Court: Affirmed summary judgment for these defendants — no personal involvement or adverse action shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Giles v. Kearney, 571 F.3d 318 (3d Cir. 2009) (summary judgment standard on appeal)
- Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403 (U.S. 2002) (access-to-courts requires showing actual injury to nonfrivolous claim)
- Rauser v. Horn, 241 F.3d 330 (3d Cir. 2001) (retaliation burden-shifting framework and legitimate penological justification)
- Watson v. Rozum, 834 F.3d 417 (3d Cir. 2016) (informing officials of intent to file grievances/suits is protected activity)
- Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 2000) (adverse action standard—’deterrence of a person of ordinary firmness’)
- Jalil v. Avdel Corp., 873 F.2d 701 (3d Cir. 1989) (temporal proximity can suggest causation)
- Lichtenstein v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 691 F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 2012) (short temporal gaps can establish prima facie causation)
- Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523 (3d Cir. 2003) (use of grievance system is protected activity)