Randolph Crocker, Jr v. Reginald Wright

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6068
RANDOLPH CROCKER, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
REGINALD WRIGHT; DARLENE A. VELTRI; ROBERT
LUCERRO; M. D. BROWN; MARLONE HOUSTON,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
District Judge. (CA-04-323-5)
Submitted: June 30, 2005 Decided: July 29, 2005
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Randolph Crocker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Randolph Crocker, Jr., appeals the district court’s order
dismissing as frivolous his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v.
Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
(1971). Because we conclude one of Crocker’s claims is not
frivolous, we affirm in part and vacate in part the judgment of
the district court and remand for further proceedings.
A pro se litigant’s pleadings should be liberally construed,
and his complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears beyond
doubt that the litigant can prove no set of facts in support of his
claims that would entitle him to relief. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d
1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). Crocker claimed Defendants confiscated
letters he intended to send to members of Congress to inform them
of alleged prison corruption. Crocker alleged this act infringed
on his First Amendment right to communicate with the Government for
redress of grievances. The district court rejected this
contention, relying in part on Mahler v. Slattery, 489 F. Supp. 798
(E.D. Va. 1980), for the proposition that congressional mail was
not subject to the same protections as legal mail. While we
express no opinion as to the ultimate merit of Crocker’s claim, we
note that the regulations governing the Bureau of Prisons provide
that prisoner correspondence with Congress is considered “special
mail,” and it is subject to specific protections, including the
requirement that it be reviewed only in the presence of the inmate.

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
28 C.F.R. §§ 540.2, .12 (2005). We have found nothing that would
authorize the indefinite confiscation of such correspondence merely
because it contains allegations that are embarrassing to
Defendants. Finally, we disagree with the district court’s
assertion that Crocker had failed to allege an actual injury; the
chilling of his First Amendment rights amounts to a cognizable
injury sufficient to survive the court’s review for frivolousness.
Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the district court and
remand for further proceedings as to his claim regarding seizure of
his letters to Congress. As to his remaining claims, we affirm on
the reasoning of the district court. We deny as moot Crocker’s
motion to supplement the record. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED

-- 3 of 3 --