Daniel Oriakhi v. MICHAEL W. CARROLL, Unit Manager

DLD-138 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-4375
___________
DANIEL ORIAKHI,
Appellant
v.
MICHAEL W. CARROLL, Unit Manager; WILLIAM LANGEHENNIG, Case Manager;
MS. BROSSAD, Case Manager Coordinator (CMC); MR. ODOM, Captain; MR. PENA,
Captain; MS. ALEXANDRA, Associate Warden; CHARLES E. SAMUELS, JR.,
Warden; et al.; CLAUDE MAYE, Associate Warden; LAUREANO REYES, Prisoner
#63855-053
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 09-cv-01444)
District Judge: Honorable Renée M. Bumb
____________________________________
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
March 4, 2010
Before: FUENTES, JORDAN and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: March 8, 2010)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Daniel Oriahki appeals the District Court’s order dismissing his civil rights

-- 1 of 3 --

2
complaint. For the reasons below, we will dismiss the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B).
The procedural history of this case and the details of Oriahki’s claims are well
known to the parties, set forth in the District Court’s thorough opinion, and need not be
discussed at length. Briefly, Oriahki alleged that prison officials kept him in segregation
from April 2007 until October 2007 after he had a fight with a cellmate whom he believed
had stolen his legal books. Oriahki alleged that appellee Langehennig did not inventory
his personal effects and handcuffed him too tightly. He complained that while in
segregation he did not receive legal mail related to a habeas case.
Because Oriahki is proceeding in forma pauperis on this appeal, we must analyze
his appeal for possible dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Under
§1915(e)(2)(B), we must dismiss an appeal if the action (i) is frivolous or malicious, (ii)
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (iii) seeks monetary damages
from a defendant with immunity. An action or appeal can be frivolous for either legal or
factual reasons. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
We first address Oriahki’s claim that his prolonged detention violated his rights to
due process. In order to demonstrate a violation of the right to procedural due process, a
litigant must show (1) that the state deprived him of a protected interest in life, liberty, or
property; and (2) that the deprivation occurred without due process of law. Burns v. PA
Dept. of Correction, 544 F.3d 279 (3d Cir. 2008). In Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472,

-- 2 of 3 --

3
484 (1995), the Supreme Court held that in a prison setting, protected liberty interests are
generally limited to freedom from restraint that “impose[] atypical and significant
hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” We have held
that exposure to the conditions of administrative custody, even for periods as long as 15
months, “falls within the expected parameters of the sentence imposed [on a prisoner] by
a court of law.” Griffin v. Vaughn, 112 F.3d 703, 707 (3d Cir. 1997). Here, Oriahki was
only in segregation for seven months. Thus, his allegations fail to state a claim for the
denial of due process.
As for his claim that he was denied access to the courts, Oriahki has not alleged
any actual injury related to appellees’ alleged failure to deliver his legal mail. See Lewis
v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996). We agree with the District Court that his claim of
retaliation is without merit and that appellees are immune from Oriahki’s claim for the
failure to inventory his property. See Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 552 U.S. 214
(2008). The District Court correctly declined jurisdiction over Oriahki’s state law claims.
For the above reasons, as well as those set forth by the District Court, we will
dismiss the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

-- 3 of 3 --