2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 2-12-2009 

# D a vid W om a ck v . J o seph S mith P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 08-2229

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" D a vid W om a ck v . J os e p h S mith " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1868. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1868T he H onor abl e J os eph E. I r enas , Seni orU ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctJ udge fort he D i s t r i ct * of N ew J er s ey , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NO T PRECEDEN TI AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT
N o. 08- 2229 DAVI D L E E WOM AC K, A p p e llan t,
v. J O S E P H V . S M IT H , e t a l., A pp el l ees.

A p p e a l f ro m th e Ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt f

o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D i s t r i ctC our t C i vi l A ct i on N o. 06- 2348)

A r gued February3, 2009 B e f o re : M c K E E , S T A P L E T O N , C i r cui tJudges , a nd I RE N A S , Seni orD is t r i ct Judge. * Fi l ed : Febr uar y12, 2009 J ohn H . Shenefi el d, E s q. M axi ne M . W oel fl i ng, E s q. A ar on B . H ew i t t , E s q. ( A r gued) M o r g a n Le wi s & Br o c k i u s LLP 1 1 1 P e n n s y l v a n i a Av e n u e , NW W as hi ngt on, D C 20004Bivens v . Six Unknown Named A gents of Federal Bure au of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 1 (1971). Acc ordingto the Bureau of Prisons (“B OP”), ambulatory restraints are “ approve d soft and 2 hard restraint equipment whic h allow the inmate to eat, drink, and takecare of ba sic human 2 D ebor ah M . G ol den, E s q. W ash ing ton L aw y ers’ C o m m it tee f o r C ivil R igh ts an d U rba n A ff airs 1 1 Du p o n tCi r c l e , NW Sui t e 400 W as hi ngt on, D C 20036 C ouns el f orAppel l ant M ar t i n C . C ar l s on, E s q. M i chae l J . B ut l er , E s q. ( A r gued) O f f ice o f th e U n ited S tate s A tto rn e y , M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia 228 W al nutSt r eet , Sui t e 220 H ar r i s bur g, Penns y l vani a 17108 C ouns el f orAppel l ees

OP I NI ON
IR E N A S , Seni orU

ni t ed St at es D is t r i ct

Judge. In t his B i vens a c tio n , A p p e llan t D a v id L e e W o m a c k , a f e d e ra l p riso n e r, ap p e a ls 1 t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s or dergr ant i ng s um m ar yj udgm entt o A ppel l ees , var i ous pr i s on offi ci al s . For t he r eas ons s t at ed her ei n, w e w i l l r ever s e and r emand.

I. 

### F ro m D ecem b er 8 , 2 0 0 4 , th ro u g hJanu ary 3 , 2 0 0 5 , Wo m ackw as co n tinu o u sly r e s tr a i ne d i n am

bul at ory r e s tr a i nt s whi l e c onfi ne d i n the Spe c i a lHous i ng Uni t of the 2needs w ithout st aff intervention.” ( J A0429) Ambulatory restraints are the f

irst level of re straint in the BO P’s “progressive restraint” system. (I d.) Womack’s ambulatory

restraints consisted of “stee l fee t shackles, stee l hand shac kles, a steel belly

chain, a nd a blac k box through which the be lly chain a nd hand shac kles wer e bound.” (JA0384) Be causeit is notg erma

ne to the disposition of the prese nt appea l, we nee d not discuss the 3 events that immediately

led up to Womack’s re straint, nor Womack’s e x tensive and undisputed history of beha vior manag ement proble ms while incarc erated. Se eW om ack v . S mi th , No. 06- 2348, 2008 WL822114 at *1-2 (M.D . Pa. Marc h 26, 2008). In apparent contra diction to his contention that he could not properly clea n himself afte r 4 us ingthetoi le t, Wo ma c k a dmi ts that whil e in t heambu lator

y re stra int s, he“ urinate d o n th e c e ll and spre ad fe ces on thewalls so that staff w ould have to cle an the c ell and bringa video r ecorder [which would] document [the] s taff’ s inappropriate use of restraints.” ( J A0385) Ac c ordin gto t

heAp pe lle e priso n o ff

ic ia ls, there stra int s c a

us e d “ min or

ir ri tatio n”to 5 Womack’s ankles a

nd wrists. (J A0114) 3 

### Un it ed Stat es Penite ntiary at Lewisburg, Penn sylvania (“ US P L ewis burg”) . Wom ac k 3


### a s s e rt s that

r e s tr a i ni ng hi m

i n thi s m anne r

am ount e d t o c r

ue land unus ua lpuni s hm e nt proh ibit ed by

the Eighth A m endm ent bec ause the r es tr ai nts did no t a ll ow him to li e flat o nh is b ed , b ath e, o r p ro p erly cleanh im self

af ter u sin g th e to ilet. Wo m ackalso asserts 4 

### th at th e restrain ts du g in to h is sk in , cau sin g sev ere p ainf ro m raw , d eep , f

leshw o un d s. 5 

### Af te r his re le as e from

the am bu latory re stra ints , W om ac k w as plac ed in soli tary c onfi ne m e nt

for the fol l owi ng 30 day s , a ft e r whi c h t i m e he wa s pl a c e d i n ac e l lwi th a cellm ate, am o n g th e g en eral p riso np o p u latio n . O nM arch1 3 , 2 0 0 5 , Wo m ackin itiatedth e f o rm al g riev an ce p ro cedure f o r h is E ig h thA m en dm en t claim . T h at claim w as f o un dto b e un tim ely

an dw as altern ativ ely denied onthe m erit s “ fo r i nf orm at ional purpo se s only ,” by US P L ewis burg Warden4



### J os e ph Sm i th on Apr i l1, 2005. ( JA0227. 003) W om a c k t i m e l y a ppe a l e d the de ni a lt o the prop er authority , which denied the appealonthe groun d that the init ia l gri evance was un ti m el y . W om ac k tim el y appeal ed that

deci si onto the finaladm inis tr at ive body , which af f irm edo nJu ly

2 0 , 2 0 0 5 . Wo m ack ’s in itial g riev an ce an dsub sequ en t ap p eals w ere all drafte d b y

Wom ac k’s c el lm at e bec ause Wom ac k canno t r ea d o r wri te . Th er ea fter , W om ac k f

il ed the c om

plai nt in this ca se , a ss erti ng on e c ount of cr uel an dunu su al p un ish m en t ag ain st Ward enS m ith , U S P L ew isb urg O f f icer K enn eth G ab rielso n , an dB O P o f

f icials H arley

L ap p in , D . S co tt D o drill, an dH arrell Watts. A ll de fe ndant s m ove d t o di s m i s s , and a l t e rnat i ve l y m ove d for

s umm ary judgm e nt , a s s e rt i ng am ong othe r

ar gum e nt s , that

W om a c k fa i l e d t o pr ope r l y e xhaus t hi s a dm i ni s tr at i ve rem ed ies an dth at n o E ig h thA m en dm en t v io latio no ccurred . T h e d ef en d an ts also s ought , and we r e gr ant e d, apr ot e c t i ve or de r whi c h a l l owe d onl y

wr i tt e n di s c ove ry

and e xpr e s s l y pr ohi bi t e d the not i c i ng of de pos i t i ons unt i la ft e r the m ot i on wa s de c i de d. The d istrict co urt d eterm in edth at th e p ro tectiv e o rd er w as ap p ro p riate b ecau se th e d ef en d an ts h adraisedth e d ef

en ses o f qu alif iedimm un ity an dWo m ack ’s alleg edf ailure to p ro p erly ex h au st h is adm in istrativ e rem ed ies. Th e dis tric t c ourt

grante d summ ar

y ju dg m ent t o the defend ants , holding that W om a c k’ s pr oc e dur a lde faul t (by fa i l i ng t o t i m e l y

fi l e hi s i ni t i a lgr i e vanc e ) wa s not ex cu sed . W

omack , 2008 WL822114 at *8. 

### The di s tr i c t c ourt a l t e rnat i ve l y

he l d that no E ig h thA m en dm en t v io latio no ccurred . Id
. at *9 n. 10.The district cour t had subject matter

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. W e have 6 jurisdiction over the instant appe al pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We apply a plena ry standard of revie w. W

illiam s v . B e ar

d, 482 F.3d 637, 639 ( 3d Cir. 2007). I ndeed, t he handbook w as a l at e addi t i on t o t he r ecor d befor e t hi s panel
- - added 7 o n ly d a y s b e f

o re o ra l a rg u m e n t w a s h e a rd . 5 

### Be c aus e di s put e d i s s ue s of m at e r i a lfa c t pr e c l ude s umm ary

judgm e nt

on both the e xhaus t i on i s s ue and the Ei ghth Am e ndm e nt c l a i m , we wi l lr e ve r s e and r e m and. 6



### II . A. T he Pr i s on L i t i gat i on R efor m A ct( PL R A ) , r equi r es ful l and pr ocedur al l ypr oper e x h a u stio n o f

a ll av a ilab le a d m in istra tiv e re m e d ies a s a p re re q u isite to p riso n e r su its
c h a llen g in g p riso n c o n d iti o n s u n d e r f e d e ra l law . 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 9 7 e (a ); W oodf or d v. N go , 5 4 8 U .S . 8 1 (2 0 0 6 ); S p ru ill v . G ill is , 372 F. 3d 218 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . “[P] r i s on gr i evanc e pr ocedur es s uppl yt he y ar ds t i ck form eas ur i ng pr ocedur al defa ul t . ” S p ru ill , 372 F. 3d at231. T hus , w e mustexami ne U SP L ew i s bur g’ s pr i s onerhandbook, w hi ch s et s out t he appl i cabl e gr i evanc e pr ocedur e. T h e h a n d b o o k p ro v id e s th a t th e in iti a l g rie v a n c e f o rm “ m u st b e f

iled w ith in tw e n ty ( 20) cal endarday s fr om t he dat e on w hi ch t he bas i s fort he i nci dentor compl ai nt
o c c u rr e d , u n l e s s i twa s n o tf e a s i b l e t o f

i l e wi t h i n t h a tp e r i o d

o f t i me .” (J A 0 4 8 8 )(e m p h a sis ad d ed ). Im p o rt an tl y , the h an d b o o k w as n o t part of the s u m m aryjud g m en t r ec o rd b ef o re t he di s t r i ctcour t . W hen t he mot i on w as br i efe d and dec i ded, t he par t i es and t he di s t r i ct 7B ut s ee als o 28 C . F. R . § 542. 14( b) ( “W her e t he i nm at e demonst r at es a val i d r eas on 8 fordel ay , an ext ens i on i n fi l i ng t i m e maybe al l ow ed. I n gener al , val i d r eas on fordel ay m eans a s i t uat i on w hi ch pr event ed t he i nm at e fr om s ubm i t t i ng t he r eques t w i t hi n t he es t abl i s hed t i m e fr ame. V al i d r eas ons fordel ayi ncl ude t he fol l ow i ng: . . . an ext ended per i od of t i m e dur i ng w hi ch t he i nm at e w as phy s i cal l yi ncapa bl e of pr epar i ng a R eq u est. ”). 6 co u rtap p are n tl yassu m ed that U S P L ew isbu rg’s h an d b o o k w as id en ti ca l t o the B O P ’s gr i evanc e pr ocedur es s etouti n t he C ode of Fede r al R egul at i ons , w hi ch cont ai n no

“ f e a s ib ility” e x c e p tio n to th e 2 0 d a yd e a d lin e . See 28 C . F. R . § 542. 14( a) ( “The deadl i ne forcompl et i on of . . . a for m al w r i t t en A dm i ni s t r at i ve R emedyR eques t . . . i s 20 cal endar d a y s f o l l o wi n g t h e d a t e o n wh i c h t h e b a s i s f o rt h e Re q u e s t o c c u r r e d . ” ) . Us i n g t h e BO P 8
r egul at i ons , t he di s t r i ctcour tfound no di s put e t hatW om ack f ai l ed t o fi l e hi s gr i evanc e w ith in 2 0 d a y s o f

th e in c id e n t, an d th e re f o re h e ld th a t n o re a so n a b le f a c tf in d e r c o u ld
c o n c l u d e t h a tWo ma c k h a d c o mp l i e d wi t h t h e p r o c e d u r a l r e q u i r e me n t s o f t h e P L RA . A ppl y i ng t he corr ects t andar d, how ever , i s s ues of m at er i al fac t exi s t as t o w het her W om ack c oul d f

eas i bl y fi l e hi s for m al gr i evanc e w i t hi n 20 day s of t he compl ai ned- of i nci dent . A ft erW om ack’ s r el eas e fr om t he ambul at or yr es t r ai nt s on J anuary3, 2005, he
s pentt he fol l ow i ng 30 day s i n s ol i t ar yconfi nement . M or eover , upon r etur ni ng t o t he g e n e r a l p r i s o n p o p u l a t i o n , W o ma c k a s s e r t s t h a t “ t h e n e x t t i me a c a s e ma n a g e r c a me t hr ough [hi s ] t i er ” he a s ked herfor“t he nec es s ar ym at er i al s t o fi l e a gr i evanc e. ” ( J A 0387) A ccor di ng t o W om ack, t he ca s e managerdi d not del i vert he gr i evanc e m at er i al s unt i l t he w eek of Febr uar y19, 2005. T hus , a r eas onabl e fa ct fi nderm i ghtW o m a c k a rg u e s th a t if h e f a iled to tim e lyf

ile h is g rie v a n c e , h is p ro c e d u ra l d e f a u lt 9 s houl d be exc us ed bec aus e he w as i l l i t er at e and ther efor e di d not and coul d not know of t he gr i evanc e dea dl i ne, w hi ch w as w r i t t en i n t he pr i s onerhandbook. W e expr es s no opi ni on on t hatar gum ent . W e al s o do notdeci de w hats i gni fi canc e, i f any , t he fa ctof W om ack’ s i l l i t er acyhas i n det er m i ni ng t he fe as i bi l i t yof fi l i ng hi s gr i evanc e w i t hi n 20 day s. 7 concl ude t hati tw as notfea s i bl e forW om ack t o fi l e hi s i ni t i al gr i evanc e w i t hi n 20 day s of hi s r el eas e fr om t he ambul at or yr es t r ai nt s , and t her efor e mi ghtdet er m i ne t hathi s i ni t i al gr i evanc e w as t i m el y . A ccor di ngl y , t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s exhaus t i on deci s i on m us t be 9
r ever s ed. B. W e a lso c o n clud e tha t th e d istri ct co u rterred in alterna ti v elyg ran ti n g su m m ary j u d g me n to n t h e me r i t s o f t h e Ei g h t h Ame n d me n t c l a i m. Pr i s on offi ci al s vi ol at e t he Ei ght h A m endment ’ s pr ohi bi t i on of cruel and unus ual puni s hm entw hen t hey“ac t [] orfai l [] t o actw i t h del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence t o a s ubs t ant i al
r i s k of s er i ous har m t o a pr i s oner ; ” or , i n ot herw or ds , “r eckl es s l ydi s r egar d” a s ubs t ant i al ri s k o f s e ri o u s h a rm . Far m erv. B r ennan , 511 U . S. 825, 836 ( 1994) . I n Far m er , t he Supr eme C our tdecl i ned “t o adoptan obj ect i ve t es t fordel i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence , ” hol di ng, a pr i s on offi cial c an n otbe found l i abl e . . . unl es s t he off i ci al know s of and d isre g a rd s a n e x c e ss iv e risk to in m a te h e a lth a n d sa f e ty ; th e o f

f icia l m u st b o th be aw ar e of f

act s fr om w hi ch t he i nfer ence coul d be dr aw n t hata s ubs t ant i al r i s k of s er i ous har m exi s t s , and he mustal s o dr aw t he i nfer ence . I d. at837.8

B eca us e t he pr i s on offi ci al s ’ s ubj ect i ve s t at e of mi nd-
- w hatt heyknew and t he
r e a s o n s f o rt h e i r a c t i o n s - - a r e c r i t i c a l i n q u i r i e s i n t h e E i g h t h Am e n d me n t a n a l y s i s , we m us tconcl ude t hatt he di s t r i ctcour t er r ed i n gr ant i ng s um m ar yj udgm enton a r ecor d t hat
w as l i m i t ed t o onl yw r i t t en di s covery . W om ack ne verhad t he oppor t uni t yt o depos e or c ro ss -e x a m in e th e d e f

e n d a n ts to d isc o v e r w h a t th e yk n e w a n d w h yth e ya c ted (o r f a iled to act ) . U ndert hes e ci r cumst ance s , i tw oul d be unfa i r t o faul t hi m forfai l i ng t o r ai s e an i s s ue of di s put ed fa ctas t o t he al l eged Ei ght h A m endment vi ol at i on. M or eover , even on the l i m i t ed r ecor d, di s put ed i s s ues of m at er i al fac t pr ecl ude
su m m aryjud g m en t fo r de fe n d an ts. F o r ex am p le, W o m ac k stat es th at t h e a m b u lat o ry r es t r ai nt s caus ed “bi g, deep” “r aw ” w ounds on hi s w r i s t s and ankl es t hatl ooked l i ke “pi nk and w hi t e meat ” and ha d a “t er r i bl e odor ; ” y etpr i s on s t aff onl ycl eane d hi s w ounds fiv e ti m es o v er the 2 6 -da yrestrai n t period . (JA 0 3 8 5 ) W om ack als o asser t s t hat the rest rai nts w ere t oo t i gh t , causi ng him t o lose ci r cul at i on i n hi s hands and arm s . H e cl ai m s t hata phy s i ci an’ s as s i s t antt ol d D efe ndant G abr i el s on t hatt he r es t r ai nt s w er e cut t i ng off c i r cul at i on but no one adj us t ed t he
re s tr a in ts . L as t l y , di s put ed i s s ues of fa ctexi s t as t o w het herW om ack c oul d l aydow n or m ai nt ai n bas i c per s onal hy gi ene w hi l e r es t r ai ned. I f bel i eved, W om ack’ s evi dence , t aken a s a w hol e, cr eat es a di s put ed i s s ue of f act
a s to w h e th e r p riso n o f

f icia ls w e re d e lib e ra telyin d if f e re n t to a n e x c e ss iv e risk to9

W om ack’ s heal t h. T he i s s ues r ai s ed byW om ack a r e veryfac t s ens i t i ve, and i n t he abs ence of hi s abi l i t yt o depos e def endant s and compl et e di s covery , hi s abi l i t yt o devel op f a c ts in o p p o s itio n to th e m o tio n w a s s ig n if ic a n tly im p a ir e d . See F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (f ). A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill re v e rse th e d istric t co u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t o n th e m e rits
o f th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t c la im .

II I. 

### For the r e a s ons s e t

forth above , the di s tr i c t

c ourt ’ s judgm e nt

wi l lbe r e ve r s e d and the c a s e r e m ande d for

furthe r pr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e nt

wi th thi s opi ni on.