James Dickson v. J. Washabaugh

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Decided: November 14, 2025
• Docket: 25-1540
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

CLD-217 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 25-1540 ___________

JAMES E. DICKSON, Appellant

v.

J. WASHABUGH, RHU Captain SCI-Somerset; LT. FOSTER, RHU Lt. from 2–10 PM SCI-Somerset; C/O SMITH, RHU C.O. 2–10 PM SCI-Somerset; MAIL ROOM SUPERVISOR NAME UNKNOWN, Mail Room Supervisor SCI- Somerset; CAPTAIN, of SCI-Somerset ____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 3:24-cv-00012) Magistrate Judge: Honorable Keith A. Pesto ____________________________________

Submitted for Determination Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), or for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 September 18, 2025

Before: KRAUSE, PHIPPS, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed November 14, 2025) _________ OPINION* _________

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. PER CURIAM

Pennsylvania inmate James E. Dickson is currently housed at SCI-Houtzdale.

Dickson filed a pro se civil rights action primarily claiming that prison officials

unlawfully confiscated his mail and legal materials during the time Dickson was locked

in a restricted housing unit at SCI-Somerset. The prison officials’ conduct allegedly

prevented Dickson from securing the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s discretionary review

of his numerous criminal convictions.

Presiding by the parties’ consent, the Magistrate Judge issued a memorandum

order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6), and denying Dickson’s competing motion for summary judgment. The

Magistrate Judge observed that most of the requested relief—including an order

permitting Dickson to file an allocatur petition with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court—

“is beyond the jurisdiction of this court.” DC ECF No. 37 at 2. The Magistrate Judge then

determined that, among other pleading deficiencies, Dickson largely failed to allege the

defendants’ involvement in any claimed denial of court access. The Magistrate Judge also

determined that Dickson failed to plausibly plead actual injury, see id. at 4 (“In Dickson’s

entire brief he never rises above conclusory allegations to identify one nonfrivolous claim

that he lost [because of the defendants’ actions].”), or injury causation, see id. (“[S]ince

Dickson never actually sought allowance of appeal nunc pro tunc Dickson’s complaint is

only speculating about any impairment of his right to do so.”).

2 Dickson timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review de novo the order granting the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion. See United

States ex rel. Bookwalter v. UPMC, 946 F.3d 162, 168 (3d Cir. 2019). “In order to defeat

a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, plaintiffs’ ‘[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to

relief above the speculative level[.]’” Eid v. Thompson, 740 F.3d 118, 122 (3d Cir. 2014)

(citation omitted). “Thus, ‘only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief

survives a motion to dismiss.’” Id. (citation omitted).

We agree with the Magistrate Judge’s decision, for substantially the reasons given

in his memorandum order. In particular, we agree with the Magistrate Judge that Dickson

failed to adequately plead actual injury and thus did not state a First Amendment access-

to-courts claim. Insofar as Dickson claimed that the defendants thwarted his ability to

present one or more legal claims to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, he had to plausibly

allege that at least one of those claims was arguable or nonfrivolous. Monroe v. Beard,

536 F.3d 198, 205 (3d Cir. 2008) (per curiam); see also id. at 205–06 (internal quotation

marks omitted) (“The complaint must describe the underlying arguable claim well

enough to show that it is more than mere hope, and it must describe the lost remedy.”).

Dickson plainly did not do so in his complaint, and his summary judgment motion, while

clarifying in some minor respects, was similarly deficient.1

1 The Magistrate Judge dismissed Dickson’s complaint, with prejudice, without explicitly considering whether it would be appropriate to offer him leave to amend. Cf. Fletcher- Harlee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors, Inc., 482 F.3d 247, 252 (3d Cir. 2007) (“Our 3 Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the judgment below. See 3d Cir. L.A.R.

27.4 (2011); 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6 (2018).2

precedent supports the notion that in civil rights cases district courts must offer amendment—irrespective of whether it is requested—when dismissing a case for failure to state a claim unless doing so would be inequitable or futile.”). There is no error, however. Dickson’s arguments on appeal about state-law waiver rules and future DNA testing all miss the mark by a wide margin, and they amply demonstrate that allowing Dickson to amend his complaint would have been an exercise in futility. Cf. Great W. Mining & Min. Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159, 175 (3d Cir. 2010) (citation omitted) (“The standard for assessing futility is the ‘same standard of legal sufficiency as applies under [Federal] Rule [of Civil Procedure] 12(b)(6).’”). 2 To the extent that Dickson has moved for summary reversal, see Doc. 12, the motion is denied. 4