Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-13-04358/USCOURTS-ca3-13-04358-0/pdf.json

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

---

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 13-4358

___________

CARLOS MUHAMMAD,

Appellant

v.

SECRETARY PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; 

SUPERINTENDENT SOMERSET SCI; DAVID L. ONSTEAD, Unit Manager; SGT. L. 

MYERS-SMITH, C.O.; KEYSER, CO.; I. LICHTENFELS

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(W.D. Pa. Civil Action No. 13-cv-00085)

District Judge: Honorable Kim R. Gibson

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

March 12, 2015

Before: FUENTES, SHWARTZ and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: August 6, 2015)

___________

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.

Case: 13-4358 Document: 003112037872 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/06/2015
2

Carlos Muhammad, a Pennsylvania prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals an order 

of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granting a 

motion to dismiss his civil rights action. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.

Muhammad filed a complaint against prison officials and staff alleging that his 

cellmate, Gordon Davis, repeatedly violated the prison’s non-smoking policy and 

threatened him with bodily harm. He averred that Officer Keyser heard the threats and 

did nothing. Muhammad filed grievances complaining about Davis’ smoking and threats, 

but stated that he “received no positive response.” On September 20, 2011, Davis 

allegedly spoke with Sergeant Myers-Smith. Davis then asked Muhammad why he told 

Sergeant Myers-Smith that he was smoking in the cell. Davis then assaulted Muhammad. 

Muhammad alleged that Sergeant Myers-Smith and Officer Lichtenfels heard his 

conversation with Davis, and that Officers Lichtenfels and Keyser intervened. 

Muhammad needed three stitches. He alleged that a hearing officer found him guilty of 

fighting back based on the false testimony of prison staff and sanctioned him to 60 days 

of confinement in the Restricted Housing Unit (“RHU”). Muhammad alleged that he was 

later exonerated and that Davis was found solely responsible for the assault. 

Muhammad claimed that the assault was caused by the negligence of Sergeant 

Myers-Smith and the other defendants, who also violated his Eighth Amendment and due 

process rights. Muhammad asserted that Sergeant Myers-Smith disregarded his 

complaints about Davis, told Davis that he had complained about his smoking, and 

thereby exposed him to a substantial risk of harm. He asserted that Sergeant MyersCase: 13-4358 Document: 003112037872 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/06/2015
3

Smith and Officer Lichtenfels knew an altercation would transpire because they were 

listening to his conversation with Davis.

Sergeant Myers-Smith and Officers Keyser and Lichtenfels moved to dismiss the 

complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.1 The defendants submitted 

copies of Muhammad’s grievance related to the September 20, 2011 assault, the 

grievance coordinator’s denial of the grievance as untimely and without merit, 

Muhammad’s appeal to the Superintendent, and the Superintendent’s response upholding 

the response of the grievance coordinator. The defendants also submitted a grievance 

officer’s affidavit attesting that Muhammad did not appeal the Superintendent’s response 

to the Secretary’s Office, the final level of administrative review. 

The District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation to 

grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. Based on the documents 

submitted, the District Court concluded that Muhammad had procedurally defaulted his 

claims by failing to properly exhaust his administrative remedies. The District Court 

found, among other things, that Muhammad’s first level grievance was untimely and that 

he did not submit a final level appeal. Thereafter, the District Court received 

Muhammad’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report and/or response to the motion 

 

1Muhammad also named Gerald Wetzel, John Rozum, and David Onstead as defendants. 

The District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to dismiss

Muhammad’s claims against these defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) 

because they were sued solely in their supervisory capacities. Muhammad does not 

challenge this ruling in his brief on appeal. 

Case: 13-4358 Document: 003112037872 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/06/2015
4

to dismiss. The District Court reached the same decision after review of Muhammad’s 

filing. Muhammad now appeals.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our standard of review is 

plenary. Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 206 (3d Cir. 2009).

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires a prisoner to exhaust available 

administrative remedies before bringing an action regarding prison conditions. 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1997e(a); Small v. Camden County, 728 F.3d 265, 268 (3d Cir. 2013). Failure to 

exhaust is an affirmative defense that the defendant must plead and prove. Small, 728 

F.3d at 268. Under § 1997e(a), a prisoner must properly exhaust such remedies by 

complying with the prison grievance system’s procedural rules. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 

U.S. 81, 93-95 (2006); Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 222 (3d Cir. 2004). The record 

reflects that Muhammad’s grievance was found untimely and without merit, and that 

Muhammad did not file a final level appeal. 

Muhammad argues on appeal that the PLRA’s exhaustion requirements were 

satisfied because he contacted the police regarding the assault and, as a result, his claim 

became a “Commonwealth matter.” Appellant’s Br. at 3. This argument lacks merit. 

Muhammad does not otherwise challenge the District Court’s ruling that he did not 

properly exhaust his administrative remedies.2

 

2Muhammad does not challenge the District Court’s conclusion that it was unnecessary to 

convert the motion to dismiss to a summary judgment motion to decide the question of 

exhaustion and we thus do not consider this issue.

Case: 13-4358 Document: 003112037872 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/06/2015
5

Muhammad also contends that the District Court erred in finding his objections to 

the Magistrate Judge’s report untimely. The record reflects, however, that the District 

Court considered Muhammad’s objections. After the District Court adopted the 

Magistrate Judge’s report, the District Court issued another Memorandum Order stating 

that the objections did not change its decision.

Finally, Muhammad asserts in his brief that the defendants violated his due 

process rights by housing him in the RHU when he was not guilty of fighting.3 To the 

extent Muhammad’s complaint can be construed as raising such a claim, Muhammad 

does not state a claim for violation of his due process rights based on his confinement in 

the RHU. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 485 (1995) (discipline in segregated 

confinement did not present type of atypical, significant deprivation creating a liberty 

interest).

Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.4 

 

3Muhammad initially alleged in his complaint that he was sanctioned to 60 days in the 

RHU, but he states in his brief that he was confined there for 30 days.

4Muhammad’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied. See Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 

147, 155 (3d Cir. 1993).

Case: 13-4358 Document: 003112037872 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/06/2015