Preston Walters v. Laurel Harry

── Preston Walters v. Laurel Harry ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: May 12, 2026 Category: General CLD-115 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 25-3579 ___________ PRESTON WAYNE WALTERS, Appellant v. LAUREL HARRY, Superintendent; INF. U.M. MS. NEWSOME, Infirmary Unit Manager; MS. CRILEY, Law Librarian Supervisor; MR. SCHINBELLY, Law Librarian ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 1:22-cv-01802) District Judge: Honorable Yvette Kane ____________________________________ 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 April 16, 2026 Before: BIBAS, PHIPPS, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: May 12, 2026) _________ OPINION * _________ PER CURIAM * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.  Appellant Preston Walters, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals from the District Court’s order dismissing his complaint. We will summarily affirm. Walters, a Pennsylvania state prisoner, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights while he was incarcerated at SCI Camp Hill. More specifically, in his second amended complaint, Walters alleged that while he was in SCI Camp Hill’s infirmary, defendants violated his First Amendment right of access to the courts by failing to provide him with access to the law library or legal materials, despite his repeated requests. For relief, he sought “compensation.” Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The District Court granted defendants’ motion but gave Walters 30 days to file a third amended complaint. The court cautioned him that it would be his final opportunity to amend, and that the case could be dismissed if he did not do so. Approximately one year later, the District Court gave Walters an additional 21 days to amend. He did not do so. Consequently, the District Court entered an order dismissing the case with prejudice. Walters timely appealed. He did not file anything in support of his appeal, but filed a motion for appointment of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to consider this appeal. We review the District Court’s order granting the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion de novo, see United States ex rel. Bookwalter v. UPMC, 946 F.3d 162, 168 (3d Cir. 2019), and we “accept all factual allegations as true and construe the complaint in the light most 2 favorable to the plaintiff.” Curry v. Yachera, 835 F.3d 373, 377 (3d Cir. 2016). We may summarily affirm if the appeal fails to present a substantial question. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6. We agree with the District Court that Walters’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. An inmate raising an access-to-courts claim must allege an “actual injury”—that he lost a chance to pursue a nonfrivolous or arguable claim challenging his conviction or conditions of confinement. See Monroe v. Beard, 536 F.3d 198, 205-06 (3d Cir. 2008) (per curiam); Rivera v. Monko, 37 F.4th 909, 915 (3d Cir. 2022). To establish actual injury, “[t]h