Robert Saunders v. STANLEY TAYLOR, Commissioner

UNREPORTED- NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 03-1201
________________
ROBERT SAUNDERS,
Appellant
v.
STANLEY TAYLOR, Commissioner; PAUL HOWARD;
RICK KEARNEY, Warden; MIKE DELOY, Deputy Warden;
PAT DITTO; LARRY LILLY, Chaplain; RANDY PARKER;
DIANE PLUMMER
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of Delaware
(D.C. Civ. No. 01-CV-00195)
District Judge: Honorable Kent Jordan
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 5, 2004
Before: ALITO, M cKEE and COWEN, Circuit Judges
(Filed January 16, 2004)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Robert Saunders, a prisoner at Sussex Correctional Institution in Delaware, appeals

-- 1 of 7 --

2
from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, which
granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Saunders also challenges the
District Court’s decision denying his motion for appointment of counsel. We will affirm.
Saunders’ complaint alleged that his removal from his position as inmate law clerk
at the SCI law library violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Saunders
was removed from his position when another inmate clerk “exhibited inappropriate
behavior toward defendant Diane Plummer,” SCI’s Paralegal II. Saunders alleged that his
own removal, when he was not accused of any wrongdoing, constituted cruel and unusual
punishment, and that prison officials discriminated against him on the basis of race and
religion. Saunders also alleged that prison officials discriminated against him when they
failed to give him a position as Muslim inmate chapel clerk, and when they failed to allow
Muslim inmates to celebrate the Feast of Abraham on March 16, 2000. Defendants filed
a motion for summary judgment, which the District Court granted. This timely appeal
followed.
This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary
review over an order granting summary judgment, and apply the same standard that the
trial court should have applied. Showalter v. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center,
190 F.3d 231, 234 (3d Cir. 1999). A federal court should grant summary judgment “if the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with
the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that

-- 2 of 7 --

3
the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). In
making this determination, “a court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party and draw all inferences in that party’s favor.” Showalter, 190 F.3d at
234.
The District Court properly found that depriving Saunders of his prison
employment did not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment.” The Eighth Amendment
imposes duties on prison officials, “who must provide humane conditions of confinement;
prison officials must ensure that inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, and
medical care, and must take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates.”
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
Saunders’ complaint does not implicate any of these duties. Further, his due process
claim could not succeed as he has no protected liberty interest in prison employment.
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995).
Saunders bases his equal protection claim on the fact that he was denied
employment in the prison chapel after he was removed from the library position.
Saunders alleged that he was denied the job because he was a Muslim. We have
recognized that “there is no general right of prison officials to discriminate against
prisoners on grounds of race, sex, religion, and so forth.” Yeskey v. Com. of Pa. Dept. of
Corrections,118 F.3d 168, 174 (3d Cir. 1997) (quoting Crawford v. Indiana Department
of Corrections, 115 F.3d 481, 486 (7th Cir.1997)). However, to prevail on an equal

-- 3 of 7 --

4
protection claim, an inmate must show that he has been treated differently from other
similarly situated inmates. Williams v. Morton, 343 F.3d 212, 221 (3d Cir. 2003).
Furthermore, he must show that the defendant acted with discriminatory intent or
purpose. City of Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio v. Buckeye Community Hope Foundation, 538
U.S. 188, __; 123 S. Ct. 1389, 1394 (2003). Here, defendants presented evidence in the
District Court to show that Saunders was considered for the inmate chapel clerk position,
but was not hired because of his poor clerical skills. As Saunders was not qualified for
the position, he cannot show that defendants acted with discriminatory intent.
Saunders’ claim that inmates were not allowed to celebrate the Feast of Abraham
also fails, as the prison gave Muslim inmates approval to celebrate, conditioned upon
submission of a list of attendees. The inmates failed to submit the list, and the celebration
was cancelled. An alleged restriction of an inmate’s right to free exercise of religion will
be upheld “if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests,” O’Lone v.
Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 349 (1987). In making this determination, a court must weigh
four factors; namely: (1) whether the regulation is rationally related to a valid penological
interest; (2) whether the inmate has an alternative means by which to exercise his asserted
rights; (3) what impact accommodation of the asserted rights will have on prison guards,
other inmates, and the allocation of prison resources; and (4) whether an alternative to the
regulation exists. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91 (1987). Defendants’ statement
that the list of attendees was required for safety and security reasons indicates that the

-- 4 of 7 --

1 We also hold that the District Court properly denied Saunders’ motion for
appointment of counsel. Even if the Court were to find that the complaint met the
threshold of having arguable merit in fact and law, the legal issues involved were not
particularly difficult, and Saunders is experienced in litigation. Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d
147, 155-56 (3d Cir. 1993).
5
requirement was “reasonably related to valid penological interests.” The inmates had the
means to celebrate the religious festival; the prison required only that they submit a list of
attendees. The impact of having to submit one’s name in a prison setting is de minimus.
We agree with the District Court that the prison’s decision comported with constitutional
requirements.
For the foregoing reasons, and those discussed by the District Court, we will
affirm.1

-- 5 of 7 --

6
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing opinion.

-- 6 of 7 --

-- 7 of 7 --