John Butler v. Kanjorski

NOT PRECEDENTIAL CLD-072 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 25-1195 ___________ JOHN BUTLER, Appellant v. MAJOR KANJORSKI, SCI-Mahanoy; KELLY, SCI-Mahanoy Mailroom Employee; SHUETTLER, SCI-Mahanoy Librarian; JANE DOE, works in inmate accounts at SCI-Mahanoy ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 3:24-cv-01905) District Judge: Honorable Joseph F. Saporito, Jr. ____________________________________ Submitted on Appellant’s Motions to Reopen and Proceed In Forma Pauperis, and 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 on January 22, 2026 Before: BIBAS, PHIPPS, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: February 11, 2026) ____________________________________ ___________ OPINION* ___________ PER CURIAM John Butler, a prisoner at SCI-Mahoney, sought to file a complaint in forma pau- peris (“IFP”) in the District Court. He alleged that, while he was in the Restricted Hous- ing Unit (“RHU”), he needed to file a response to meet a deadline in Butler v. Pierson, W.D. Pa. No. 1:22-cv-00091. Accordingly, he wished to visit the law library and to ob- tain his legal materials from his property held elsewhere in the prison. He learned then that the RHU library did not have any law books; he was told that he had to use the com- puter there instead. Butler told a corrections officer that he did not know how to use the computer. The officer communicated Butler’s concern to the librarian and told Butler the librarian’s response: “He better learn!” ECF No. 1 at 2. Butler’s subsequent request for training was denied. Butler had to argue his case orally in the District Court without hav- ing consulted his own documents or any other legal materials, and the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Additionally, Butler alleged that, at the time he filed his complaint, he wanted to respond to a motion to dismiss filed in Butler v. Harry, W.D. Pa. No. 1:24-cv-00079, but he was still not able to access his legal property or law books. Butler sought preliminary and other injunctive relief.

The District Court granted Butler’s IFP application and screened his complaint un- der 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and § 1915(e). After screening, the District Court dismissed But- ler’s complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and denied Butler’s requests for injunctive relief. The District Court also pro- vided Butler leave to amend within 30 days of the order of dismissal. In doing so, the District Court notified him that if he did not file an amended complaint within that time frame, the case would be dismissed. Butler did not file an amended complaint. Because the complaint had not stated a claim for relief and Butler had not amended his original fil- ing, the District Court entered another order dismissing the action under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and closing the case. Butler filed a timely notice of appeal, noting therein that he chose not to amend his complaint because he is standing on his original al- legations.

Because Butler did not pay the filing and docketing fees or file an IFP application, the Clerk entered an order dismissing his appeal for failure to prosecute. Butler subse- quently filed a motion for leave to file a motion to reopen this appeal and a motion to reo- pen this appeal. He explained why the Court had not received the IFP documents previ- ously. He also submitted an IFP application. We deny his motion for leave to file a mo- tion to reopen as unnecessary, and we grant his motion to reopen, see 3d Cir. L.A.R. Misc. 107.2(a), and his IFP application, Sinwell v. Shapp, 536 F.2d 15, 19 (3d Cir. 1976).

We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.1 We exercise ple- nary review over the District Court’s dismissal order.2 See Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). Upon review, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment because no substantial issue is presented on appeal. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.

Butler’s complaint implicated the right of access to the courts. See Lewis v. Ca- sey, 518 U.S. 343, 351, 354-55 (1996); Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 818, 828 (1977).

But Butler did not state a claim for a violation of the right of access. An inmate raising an access-to-the-courts claim must allege that he lost a chance to pursue a nonfrivolous or arguable claim challenging his conviction or conditions of confinement. See Monroe v. Beard, 536 F.3d 198, 205-06 (3d Cir. 2008) (per curiam). In pleading an access-to-the- courts claim, an inmate must state, inter alia, the underlying claim in accordance with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “just as if it were being independently pursued.” Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 417 (2002). “The complaint must de- scribe the underlying arguable claim well enough to show that it is ‘more than mere hope,’ and it must describe the ‘lost remedy.’” Monroe, 536 F.3d at 205-06 (quoting Harbury, 536 U.S. at 416-17). Butler failed to include these necessary allegations. And he chose not to amend his complaint after the District Court explained that these allega- tions were required.

For these reasons, after denying Butler’s motion for leave to file a motion to reo- pen as unnecessary, reopening this appeal on his motion to reopen, and granting IFP sta- tus to Butler,3 we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.