Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-15-02564/USCOURTS-ca3-15-02564-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

ALD-054 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-2564

___________

DWAYNE L. RIECO,

Appellant

v.

BRIAN COLEMAN; DOCTOR SAVAADRE; 

DOCTOR GALLUCCI; COUNSELOR BUZAS; 

RONDA HOUSE, Grievance Coordinator; 

DORINA VARNER, Secretary of Inmate Grievances and Appeals; 

ROBIN LEWIS, Chief Hearing Examiner; SGT. LARRY LEWIS;

RICHARD MACKEY, Hearing Examiner; KERI CROSS, Hearing Examiner

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 2-14-cv-00351)

District Judge: Honorable Arthur J. Schwab

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

or Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.

November 19, 2015

Before: AMBRO, SHWARTZ and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges 

(Opinion filed: November 27, 2015)

_________

OPINION*

_________

 

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

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 15-2564 Document: 003112140876 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/27/2015
2

PER CURIAM

Dwayne Rieco appeals from the District Court’s order granting summary 

judgment to Appellees for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to bringing 

suit. Because this appeal presents no substantial question, we will summarily affirm.

Rieco, a Pennsylvania state prisoner, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

against various staff at SCI-Fayette and Appellee Dr. Saavedra for, inter alia, placing him 

in the Secure Special Needs Unit (“SSNU”) at SCI-Fayette to undergo a mental health 

program that he avers was neither part of his sentence nor ordered by a court. 

Appellees moved to dismiss on the basis that Rieco failed to exhaust his 

administrative remedies, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). 

After considering Appellees’ motion to dismiss, the Magistrate Judge recommended 

converting it to a motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment to 

Appellees. The District Court adopted the recommendation over Rieco’s objection and 

entered judgment in Appellees’ favor. This appeal followed.

We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because Rieco has 

been granted in forma pauperis status, we review this appeal for possible dismissal under 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Our review of an order granting summary judgment plenary. 

See McGreevy v. Stroup, 413 F.3d 359, 363 (3d Cir. 2005). We may summarily affirm 

the District Court’s order where there is no substantial question presented by the appeal. 

Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.

Case: 15-2564 Document: 003112140876 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/27/2015
3

The District Court correctly concluded that Rieco failed to exhaust his 

administrative remedies. The PLRA prohibits a prisoner from bringing an action 

objecting to his conditions of confinement under § 1983 or under any other federal law 

until that prisoner has exhausted available administrative remedies. 42 U.S.C. § 

1997e(a); Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 83 (2006). The prisoner must complete the 

administrative review process in accordance with the procedural rules of the grievance or 

appeal system at his facility. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218 (“it is the prison’s 

requirements, and not the PLRA, that define the boundaries of proper exhaustion.”) The 

failure to exhaust these remedies precludes action in federal court. Small v. Camden 

Cnty., 728 F.3d 265, 273 (3d Cir. 2013).

In this action, Rieco challenges his placement in the SSNU. According to DCADM 802, Section 2(D)(6), when an inmate is recommended for placement in the SSNU, 

the Program Review Committee (“PRC”) must review that recommendation with him 

and inform him of the reasons for the recommendation. The inmate is then given an 

opportunity to respond to the recommendation, and may object to the placement in the 

SSNU. The inmate may appeal the recommendation to the Facility Manager and then to 

the Office of the Chief Hearing Examiner.

Rieco never appealed his SSNU placement recommendation to the Chief Hearing 

Examiner’s Office. D.C. dkt. 60. Instead, he filed a grievance pursuant to DC-ADM 

804, the process through which inmates may make complaints regarding their conditions 

Case: 15-2564 Document: 003112140876 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/27/2015
4

of confinement, not objections to their placement in administrative custody.1 See D.C. 

dkt 40-4.

The District Court correctly concluded that the undisputed summary judgment 

record reflects that Rieco was informed of his opportunity to appeal his SSNU placement 

and did not take that opportunity. D.C. dkt 40-4. Not only is the procedure for appealing 

a recommendation for placement in the SSNU contained in the inmate handbook, Deputy 

Armel orally informed Rieco of the appeals process. D.C. dkt 42, 40-4. Rieco’s 

argument, that exhaustion should be excused because he was not informed of the proper 

review process, is belied by the record.

Even if we were to consider Rieco’s attempts to use DC-ADM 804 as the proper 

method to challenge his placement at the SSNU, Rieco also failed to exhaust under this 

procedure, because his grievance was dismissed as untimely. D.C. dkt 42-1. 

As this appeal presents no substantial question, we will summarily affirm. 

 

1 The DC-ADM 804, Inmate Grievance System Procedures Manual, states: “A grievance 

directly related to . . . the reasons for placement in administrative custody will not be 

addressed through the Inmate Grievance System and must be addressed through . . . DCADM 802, “Administrative Custody Procedures.” See D.C. dkt. 40-1, at 7.

Case: 15-2564 Document: 003112140876 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/27/2015