Jasper Frazier v. Victoria Kuhn

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Decided: July 9, 2025
• Docket: 24-1620
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 24-1620 __________

JASPER FRAZIER, Appellant

v.

VICTORIA L. KUHN, Esq. Acting Commissioner; PATRICK NOGAN, Administrator; ANTHONY GONGI, Association Administrator, MARIO VERA, Ex Association; LT. BERRYMAN, Mailroom Supervisor, SGT. SAQUAY, Mailroom Supervisor, REGINA KING, Special Intelligent Division, GARY RIVERA, Senior Investigator, BRIAN BOSTICK, Senior Investigator; SGT. BYRD, Mailroom Supervisor; SGT. CISROW, Mailroom Supervisor; RONALD TOLOBONSKI, S.W.S.P. S.I.D.; JOHN JANE DOE, JPAY/GTL Liaison; JOHN/JANE DOE, Administrator; ROBERT E. CARTER, Commissioner, CHRISTOPHER HOLMES, Asst. Commissioner; AL SOLANIK, S.W.S.P. Administrator; ANTHONY DEGNER, S.W.S.P.; SGT. CURLY, S.W.S.P.; SGT. TANLIN, S.W.S.P.; OFFICER SHEPPARD; P. MCGILLIS, N.S.P. Asst. Administrator; SZUBA, N.S.P. S.I.D.; LT. S. HASSAN, N.S.P.; WESTRY N.S.P. Mailroom; R. FERGUSON, N.S.P. Mailroom; ; BURTON, Senior Correctional Police; ACOSTA, Senior Correctional Police; GAIL GILLISPE, Law Library Supervisor, PATRICK, N.S.P. G.T.L., Phone Service; RUSSO, E.J.S.P. Administrator; C. SWEENEY, E.J.S.P. Asst. Administrator; SANTIAGO, E.J.S.P. S.I.D.; SGT. MOUNTCASTLE-THOMAS, E.J.S.P. Mailroom; JOHN/JANE DOES E.J.S.P. JPAY; JOHN/JANE , E.J.S.P. G.T.L. Phone Service; BRIGS, N.S.P., Senior Correctional Police; SCPO NAROB; SCPO RODGURIEZ; SCPO SOBMAN; SGT. KIABART;SERGEANT 1741;SCPO PONTE, individually and in their official capacities; CHAPLAIN PHILLIP HARDEN; CHAPLAIN BRANTLEY, Northern State Prison; CHAPLAIN W. PIDEGON, East Jersey State Prison; DONNA SWEENEY, Interstate Compact ____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-16842) District Judge: Honorable Brian R. Martinotti ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) July 7, 2025 Before: BIBAS, FREEMAN, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: July 9, 2025) ___________

OPINION * ___________

PER CURIAM

Jasper Frazier appeals the denial of a motion for preliminary injunction. We will

affirm.

I

Frazier is a prisoner incarcerated at East Jersey State Prison. Frazier brought suit

alleging numerous claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He is proceeding against several

individuals, mostly from the New Jersey Department of Corrections (NJDOC). In June

2022, the District Court permitted certain claims in Frazier’s amended complaint to

proceed and consolidated some of Frazier’s other cases with this case. His case remains

pending and is ongoing in the discovery phase in District Court.

Frazier observes the Moorish Scientific Temple of America religion. He claims

that his rights under the First Amendment’s free exercise clause were violated because he

could not order certain religious items related to his faith. These religious items included

a fez and Moorish flag with metal clasps as well as a necklace medallion with a 29-inch

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 2 chain. The prison rejected the specific items ordered by Frazier for different reasons.

With respect to the fez and the flag, the prison had safety concerns regarding the metal

fasteners accompanying those items but permitted Frazier to obtain them with plastic

fasteners. As to the medallion, the prison took issue with the 29-inch length of chain, but

permitted Frazier to obtain such a medallion provided the chain was no longer than 24

inches, also due to safety concerns.

In addition to his religious claims, Frazier also claims that his legal mail was

opened and confiscated. Frazier further asserts that certain Defendants failed to protect

him when they labeled him a snitch to other inmates. These claims were permitted to

proceed. The District Court dismissed without prejudice Frazier’s claim that NJDOC

officials permitted inmates to use his JPAY password to access his emails and that they

used that information to obtain fabricated images of him.

In August 2023, Frazier filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. He sought an

order directing Defendants to provide the religious items he asked for, to stop

confiscating his mail, and to stop inmates from distributing fabricated images of him.

Appellees opposed Frazier’s motion. The District Court denied Frazier’s motion.

On the religious items claim, it determined that Frazier had not shown a likelihood of

success on the merits. The District Court also determined that unresolved material factual

issues prevented issuance of a preliminary injunction with regard to the remaining issues.

II

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We “[r]eview the denial of a

preliminary injunction for an abuse of discretion, an error of law, or a clear mistake in the

3 consideration of proof.” Kos Pharm., Inc. v. Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700, 708 (3d Cir.

2014) (internal quotations omitted).

III

The primary purpose of a preliminary injunction is not to take whatever steps are

necessary to prevent irreparable harm, but to maintain the status quo until the Court is

able to determine the parties’ rights. See Del. State Sportsman’s Ass’n, Inc. v. Del. Dep’t

of Safety & Homeland Sec., 108 F.4th 194, 200 (3d Cir. 2024). A preliminary injunction

is extraordinary relief. To obtain a preliminary injunction, Frazier must show: (1) a

likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a probability that he will suffer irreparable harm

without injunctive relief; (3) that the balance of equities is in his favor; and (4) that the

public interest is in his favor. See Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7, 33 (2008). The first two

factors are critical and must be satisfied before a Court can then balance all four factors.

See Del. State Sportsman’s Ass’n, Inc., 108 F.4th at 202 (citations omitted).

With regard to the religious items Frazier requested, in the prison context a central

First Amendment inquiry is “whether the inmate has alternative means of practicing his

or her religion generally, not whether the inmate has alternative means of engaging in any

particular practice.” Fraise v. Terhune, 283 F.3d 506, 518 (3d Cir. 2002) (quoting Dehart

v. Horn, 227 F.3d 47, 52 (3d Cir. 2000) (quotations omitted)). Frazier does not explain

why a shorter chain and plastic rather than metal clips impair his ability to freely practice

his religion. He can thus show neither that he is likely to succeed on the merits nor that he

will suffer irreparable harm without the granting of a preliminary injunction.

4 Next, Frazier argued that prison officials have opened/confiscated his legal mail.

A plaintiff may state a First Amendment claim against a defendant interfering with his

legal mail if he shows there was a pattern or practice of interference. See Jones v. Brown,

461 F.3d 353, 359 (3d Cir. 2006). But, to obtain the extraordinary relief of a preliminary

injunction, Frazier must show, first that he is likely to success on the merits, and second,

that he will be irreparably harmed without injunctive relief. He has not made such a

showing. Rather, the record indicates that Frazier regularly signed for receipt of mail. So,

we cannot say that the District Court erred in denying him a preliminary injunction on

this claim.

With respect to denial of access to courts, Frazier must show that the denial caused

actual injury. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350 (1996). An actual injury occurs if

Frazier demonstrates that a “non-frivolous” and “arguable” claim was lost because of the

denial of access to the courts. See Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002).

Here, Frazier noted that he settled suits he had filed in Indiana. Furthermore, Frazier’s

suit in the District of New Jersey is ongoing and active. Indeed, Frazier has aggressively

pursued that litigation in the District Court as well as in this Court. He has neither shown

that he is likely to succeed on the merits of this claim and/or that he will be irreparably

harmed without a preliminary injunction.

The District Court aptly examined Frazier’s allegations regarding email and

fabricated images under the lens of a failure to protect claim under the Eighth

Amendment. To establish such a claim, Frazier needed to show (1) he was incarcerated

under conditions posing a substantial risk of harm; (2) the officials were deliberately

5 indifferent to that substantial risk to Frazier’s health and safety; and (3) the officials’

deliberate indifference caused him harm. See Bistrian v. Levi, 696 F.3d 352, 367 (3d Cir.

2012).

On the specific allegations related to this particular failure to protect, Frazier has

not shown that he is likely to succeed on the merits of this claim, which the District Court

dismissed without prejudice. Cf. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Granholm,

473 F.3d 237, 247 (6th Cir. 2006) (noting that where a claim has been dismissed, there is

no longer a basis to obtain a preliminary injunction). Further, regardless of whether

Frazier can show a likelihood of success on this claim, he has not shown that he would be

irreparably harmed without preliminary injunctive relief.

IV

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm. Frazier’s pending motions before this

Court are denied.