Case Information
*1 Before: AMBRO, JORDAN and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: November 3, 2011) _________________
OPINION
_________________
PER CURIAM
Thurmаn Mearin, proceeding pro se, appeals from the an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania grаnting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. For the following reasons, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.
I.
Mearin is currently in the custody of the Pennsylvania Deрartment of Corrections (“DOC”) at the State Correctional Institution at Greene (“SCI-Greene”). Prior to his transfer to SCI-Greene in July 2005, Mearin was housеd at the State Correctional Institution at Graterford (“SCI-Graterford”). Mearin alleges that he suffered retaliation at SCI-Greene after рrison officials became aware that he was pursuing a lawsuit against SCI-Graterford Security Captain Thomas Dohman. Mearin claims that sоme of his personal items were stolen and destroyed, and that documents were falsified so that he could be placed in the Restriсted Housing Unit (“RHU”) for a period of 256 days, beginning in February 2006. After his release, Mearin was again placed in the RHU for a period 343 days, beginning in November 2006, after it was determined that he was a danger to himself or others. Mearin believes that his second placement in administrative custody wаs also in retaliation for his having filed a lawsuit against Thomas Dohman.
In November 2008, Mearin filed a second amended complaint pursuant to *3 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Named as defendants were the following DOC employees: SCI-Greene Superintendent Louis Fоlino; Deputy Brian Coleman; Deputy Chief Timothy Mark; Major Mark Capozza; unit managers Pete Vidonish, Laurel Harry, Robert McCombie, and Carla Swartz; grievance officers Dorena Varner and Cindy G. Watson; coordinator Marlene Stewart; and David Sacks.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). On December 29, 2009, the District Court entered an ordеr granting in part, and denying in part, the motion to dismiss. Adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, the District Court determined that Mearin failed to stаte a claim upon which relief could be granted with respect to his Fourteenth Amendment due process claim, but had adequately аlleged a First Amendment retaliation claim against the defendants. At the close of discovery, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the District Court granted. Mearin filed a timely notice of appeal.
II.
We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S. C. § 1291, and may summarily
affirm the District Court’s judgment if the appeal presents no substantial question. See
3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6. “We review district court decisions regarding
*4
both summary judgment and dismissal for failure to state a claim under the same de novo
standard of review.” Barefoot Architect, Inc. v. Bunge,
III.
Mearin first alleged that his due process rights were violated by twо separate periods of administrative detention in the RHU. The District Court concluded that Mearin failed to state a claim for relief because he did not identify a cognizable liberty interest.
A prisoner’s procedural due process rights are violated when he is deрrived of a legally cognizable liberty interest, which occurs when the prison “imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” The first period of detention was approximately eight months, and the second was aрproximately eleven months.
Sandin v. Conner,
486).
We agree with the District Court that neither of Mearin’s placemеnts in
administrative custody triggered a constitutionally protected liberty interest. See, e.g.,
Griffin v. Vaughn,
2002) (citing Rauser v. Horn,
Indeed, the filing of grievances and lаwsuits against prison officials constitutes
constitutionally protected activity. Milhouse v. Carlson,
1981). However, the District Court correctly detеrmined that Mearin failed to set forth any evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that his constitutionally proteсted activity was a motivating factor in any of defendants’ decisions. The defendants, on the other hand, submitted affidavits stating that they had no knowlеdge of Mearin’s preparation or filing of his lawsuit during the time that he suffered the alleged adverse actions. Without any evidence to suрport a finding of a causal connection, we conclude that Mearin failed to establish a prima facie case of rеtaliation. [4] Summary judgment was therefore appropriate. [5]
As this appeal does not raise a substantial question, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. See Third Cir. LAR 27.4; I.O.P. 10.
Notes
[1] We note that Mearin did not aсtually file his lawsuit until October 30, 2006.
[2] Mearin filed a supplement to that amended complaint in December 2008, which the District Court also considered.
[4] To the extent that Mearin additionally alleged that he was retaliated against for having filed grievances, we agree with the District Court thе defendants were also entitled to summary judgment on this claim because Mearin failed to adequately identify the grievances at issue, оr which actions were allegedly taken in retaliation for his having filed them.
[5] Having concluded that Mearin was unable to demonstrate causation, we need not determine whether certain of Mearin’s retaliation claims were also time-barred.