Case ID: f-appx_252/html/0434-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Derrick RANKINE, Appellant v. Superintendent FOLINO; Jeffrey Beard; Deputy Jackson; Deputy Barone; Grievance Sharon Delelto, Coordinator; Business Mgr. Jean Scott; Dr. Sacks; Court of Common Pleas, Phila PA; David A. Szewczak, Superior Court Prothonotary; Captain Hall; Lt. A.E. Gumbarevio; Lt. Meighen, and all RHU that worked in RHU between 2/22/04 to 3/04; Sgts. Conner; Sgt. Tanner; Sgt. Santogo, and all RHU SGT that worked in the RHU between 2/22/04 to 3/04; C.O. Stickles; C.O. Stephen; C.O. Rausenwinder; C.O. Manberry; C.O. Angelo; C.O. Henry; C.O. Jordan; Delford Stump; Mr. Ivan, Counselor SCI-Greene; C.O. Engelhardt; Thompson; C.O. Coy; Mr. Geehring, Mailroom Supervisor; The Medical Administrator, and all Medical Staff at SCI-Greene who worked on F.B. and F.A. between 2/22/03 to 3/04; C.O. Blake, Rhu; C.O. Anderson, Rhu; Mrs. Barr, Hearing Examiner SCI-Greene; Mr. Thomas James, SCI Camphill Hearing Officer; Mr. Ohara.
    No. 07-1843.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) Oct. 18, 2007.
    Filed: Nov. 1, 2007.
    Derrick Rankine, Labelle, PA, pro se.
    Kemal A. Mericli, Office of Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, PA, for Superintendent Folino; Jeffrey Beard; Deputy Jackson; Deputy Barone; Grievance Sharon Deleito, Coordinator; Business Mgr. Jean Scott; Dr. Sacks; Court of Common Pleas, Phila PA; David A. Szewczak, Superior Court Prothonotary; Captain Hall; Lt. A.E. Gumbarevio; Lt. Meighen, and all RHU that worked in RHU between 2/22/04 to 3/04; Sgts. Conner; Sgt. Tanner; Sgt. Santogo, and all RHU SGT that worked in the RHU between 2/22/04 to 3/04; C.O. Stickles; C.O. Stephen; C.O. Rausenwinder; C.O. Man-berry; C.O. Angelo; C.O. Henry; C.O. Jordan; Delford Stump; Mr. Ivan, Counselor SCI-Greene; C.O. Engelhardt; Thompson; C.O. Coy; Mr. Geehring, Mail-room Supervisor; The Medical Administrator, and all Medical Staff at SCI-Greene who worked on F.B. and F.A. between 2/22/03 to 3/04; C.O. Blake, Rhu; C.O. Anderson, Rhu; Mrs. Barr, Hearing Examiner SCI-Greene; Mr. Thomas James, SCI Camphill Hearing Officer; Mr. Ohara.
    Before: BARRY, CHAGARES and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Derrick Rankine, an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Greene in Waynesburg, Pennsylvania (“SCI-Greene”), filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against numerous defendants. He alleged violations of his constitutional rights in connection with his access to the courts; his right to be free from retaliation for exercising his constitutional right to petition the courts; and certain prison conditions he was subjected to, including an unheated cell, verbal harassment of a sexual nature by the guards, and improper withholding of medical care and clean and unspoiled food, all as thoroughly set forth in the first Report and Recommendation filed in this case by the Magistrate Judge. Rankine sought money damages.

Several claims were dismissed early in the litigation pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For example, Rankine’s access to the courts claims were dismissed for failure to show actual injury, Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349, 116 S.Ct. 2174,135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996), and his verbal harassment claims were determined to be not actionable, see, e.g., MacLean v. Seeor, 876 F.Supp. 695, 698-99 (E.D.Pa. 1995). Several defendants with no connection to the wrongs alleged also were dismissed. Rankine’s retaliation claim and most of his Eighth Amendment claims were allowed to proceed. The remaining defendants answered the complaint and amended complaint and raised the exhaustion of administrative remedies defense, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). They then moved for summary judgment. The Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation, addressing that motion, and Rankine filed Objections to it. In an order entered on February 15, 2007, 2007 WL 539649, the District Court overruled Rankine’s Objections and granted summary judgment to the remaining defendants. Rankine appeals. His motion to appeal in forma pauperis was granted by our Clerk and he was notified that his appeal would be considered under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

We will dismiss the appeal as frivolous. An appeal is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). Our review of the District Court’s grant of summary judgment is plenary and we must affirm summary judgment if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). We conclude that there is no arguable basis in fact or law for disagreeing with the District Court’s summary judgment determination. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827; Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548.

The defendants sought summary judgment on the basis that Rankine failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. A prisoner must exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) pri- or to bringing suit. See Booth v. Chwmer, 532 U.S. 731, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001). This “exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or some other wrong.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532, 122 S.Ct. 983, 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002). The three steps in the Pennsylvania grievance process are (1) Initial Review pursuant to DC-ADM-804 Part VLB of the inmate’s filed grievance; (2) the first appeal from the Initial Review, or Appeal to Facility Manager pursuant to DC-ADM-804 Part VI.C; and (3) a final appeal, the Appeal to the Secretary’s Office of Inmate Grievances and Appeals pursuant to DC-ADM-804 Part VI.D. See Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 232 (3d Cir.2004).

In support of them summary judgment motion, the defendants submitted a 367-page appendix containing the complete record of Rankine’s 143 grievances filed at SCI-Greene from January 20, 2004 through August 25, 2004. As explained by the Magistrate Judge in a Report and Recommendation adopted by the District Court, Rankine is barred from relief because of the procedural defaults he committed during the grievance process, id. at 230 (Prison Litigation Reform Act contains a procedural default component). Specifically, he did not properly file for final appeal concerning any pertinent grievance. Although many of his grievances were rejected prior to the final appeal stage on the ground that he would not use the exact spelling of his name as it appears on his judgment of commitment, we agree with the Magistrate Judge that the grievance process was not thereby rendered unavailable to him. Cf. Camp v. Brennan, 219 F.3d 279, 281 (3d Cir.2000) (exhaustion requirement met where Office of Professional Responsibility fully examined merits of excessive force claim and correctional officers may have impeded filing of grievance). On the contrary, the summary judgment record establishes that the grievance process remained open to Rankine notwithstanding that many of his grievances were frivolous.

We will dismiss the appeal as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)®. 
      
      . These rulings are plainly not in error and we will not address them further.
     
      
      . Certain grievances were appealed to the final level but were rejected because Rankine bypassed the intermediate appeal to the Superintendent or failed to prosecute them (by explaining the reasons for the appeal), or because his intermediate appeal had been rejected as untimely, among other reasons.