MILTON, CLIFFORD v. the State of Texas

BLD-186 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 25-1387 ___________ JAMES JONES, Appellant v. DR. HARRY, COMMISSIONER, SECRETARY, PA DOC; J. TERRA, SUPERINTENDENT; KERI MOORE, CHIEF GRIEVANCE OFFICER; C.E.R.T., CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-05692) District Judge: Honorable Mia R. Perez ____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 July 24, 2025 Before: SHWARTZ, MATEY, and CHUNG, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: August 7, 2025) _________ OPINION* _________ PER CURIAM * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.  Inmate James Jones appeals pro se the District Court’s order dismissing his complaint. We will summarily affirm. I. On the morning of August 14, 2024, at the State Correctional Institution in Phoenix, Pennsylvania, Correctional Emergency Response Team (“CERT”) officers visited Jones in his housing cell, subjected him to a strip search, and ordered him to carry his mattress to the lower level for screening. While he transported his mattress, the officers searched his living quarters. Shortly after returning to his cell, Jones discovered that the CERT officers had removed two cases of his legal documents and discarded them in the housing unit’s trash bin, which he could see from his cell door. Jones called out to officers on the unit floor and asked them to retrieve his legal materials from the garbage, but they refused. Jones requested assistance from his Unit Manager, numerous corrections officers, and members of the cleaning crew—all refused to retrieve his documents from the bin. Jones initiated this action against Department of Corrections’ Commissioner Dr. Harry, Superintendent Terra, CERT officers, Chief Grievance Officer Kerri Moore, and anyone else that may have been involved, referring to them as “Defendants et al.” Jones sued the defendants in their official and individual capacities, alleged violations of his First, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and brought a claim of negligence against Terra. The District Court screened Jones’ complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), dismissed it with prejudice in part and without prejudice in part, and granted Jones leave 2 to amend his complaint within thirty days. In its subsequent order denying Jones’ motion for reconsideration, the District Court reiterated that he could file an amended complaint within thirty days or proceed with his original filing, but that if Jones opted to stand on his original complaint, it would “issue a final order dismissing the case.” Jones filed a notice of intent to stand on his original complaint. The District Court therefore dismissed all of Jones’ federal claims with prejudice and dismissed his state law claim without prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Jones appealed.1 II. We agree with the District Court’s analysis. As an initial matter, the District Court properly concluded that the Eleventh Amendment barred Jones’ official capacity claims against all defendants, who are all state officials, for monetary damages. See Downey v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 968 F.3d 299, 309–10 (3d Cir. 2020). The District Court’s dismissal of Jones’ individual capacity claims against Moore was also proper, as a prisoner does not have a free-standing right to an effective grievance process, and an officer’s 1 We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise plenary review over the District Court’s order dismissing Jones’ complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Dooley v. Wetzel, 957 F.3d 366, 373 (3d Cir. 2020). Dismissals for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B) are governed by the same standard applicable to moti

<div data-spec-version="0.0.3dev" data-generated-on="2025-06-22"> <div class="generated-from-iceberg vlex-toc"> <link href="https://doc-stylesheets.vlex.com/ldml-xml.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"></link> <div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-header header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-refglobal="case:delgado-cruzvpeopleofthestateofcoloradono25sc181june16,2025" data-content-heading-label="Header"><p class="ldml-metadata"> 1 </p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Roberto Carlo Delgado-Cruz</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Petitioner</span></span> </b><b class="ldml-bold"> v. </b><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">The People of the State of Colorado</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></span> </b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-cite"><b class="ldml-bold">No. 25SC181</b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-court">Supreme Court of Colorado</span>, En Banc</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-date"><b class="ldml-bold">June 16, 2025</b></span></p></div> <div class="ldml-casehistory"><p data-paragraph-id="165" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="165" data-sentence-id="182" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Court of Appeals</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-reftype="reporter" data-prop-ids="sentence_182"><span class="ldml-cite">Case No. 22CA977</span></a></span></span> </p></div><div class="ldml-opinion content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="222" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="222" data-sentence-id="238" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Petition for Writ</span> of Certiorari DENIED.</span> </p></div></div></div> </div> </div>