2008 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 8-13-2008 

# W i lli ams v . C omm P A C orrec t ions P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-2829

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and 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 ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " W i ll i am s v . C omm P A C orr e ct ion s " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 661. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/661NOT P RE CE DE NT I 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. 07- 2829

________________ CH A RL ES W I LLI A M S, A ppel l ant

v. CO M M O N W EA LTH O F PEN N SY LV A N I A , D EPA RT M EN T O F CO RR EC TI O N S; NO RRI S B. W EBB; Off i c e rHER BERT; Off

i c e rSTREET; Se r g e a n tSM I TH

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct 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 . C . N o. 01- cv- 02345) D i s tr i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e C hr i s t opherC . C onner

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y16, 2008 B efore: A M B R O , F U E N T E S and F ISH E R , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: A ugus t13, 2008 )

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________2

P E R C UR I AM C h a rl e s W illia m s a p p e a ls , pro se , fr om an or derof the D i s tr i ctC our tent er i ng j u d g me n ta s a ma t t e ro f l a w wi th r e s p e c tt o th e c o mp l a i n th e f i l e d p u r s u a n tt o 4 2 U. S . C. § 1 9 8 3 . ” F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, we wi l l a f

f i r m. I. W i l l i ams fi l ed a § 1983 c om pl ai ntcl ai m i ng vi ol at i ons of the Ei ghth and F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n ts a risin g f ro m th e d e f

e n d a n ts’ d e lib e ra te in d if f e re n c e to h is s er i ous m edi cal needs , and r et al i at i on. W i l l i ams al l eged thatw hi l e he w as i ncar cer at ed at S tate C o rre c tio n a l In stitu tio n -R o c k v iew a s a p a rticip a n t in th e p riso n ’s “ T h e ra p e u tic C o m m u n ityU n it” (“ T C U ” ), h e w a s f o rc e d b yin m a te “ su p e rv iso rs” to e n g a g e in s tr enuous phy s i cal act i vi tycontr aryt o doct or s ’ or der s , caus i ng hi m t o devel op an i ngui nal herni a. W i l l i ams al l eged thatthe D i r ect orof the TC U , N orr i s W ebb, knew w hatthe i nm at e “s upervi s or s ” w er e doi ng and w as aw ar e of W i l l i ams’ s m edi cal r es tr i ct i on p ro h ib itin g s tr e n u o u s a c tiv ity o r l if tin g m o re th a n 1 0 p o u n d s , b u t f a ile d to in te rv e n e . W i l l i ams al l eges thatW ebb har as s ed hi m , thr eat eni ng thatW i l l i ams w oul d be t erm i nat ed f ro m th e p ro g ra m if

h e d id n o t p a rticip a te in th e p h y sic a l ac tiv ityth a t w a s p a rt o f h is

“ m is f it c o o rd in a tio n .” W ill iam s f

iled tw o a d m in istra tiv e g rie v a n c e s. D e f e n d a n ts W e b b , H e rb e rt, S tre e t, S m ith , an d the D ep artm en t of C o rrecti o n s (“D O C ”), fil ed a m o ti o n fo r sum m ary jud g m en t w h ich th e D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted. O n ap p ea led w e a ff irm ed the D istri ct C o u rt ’s3

d e c isio n a s to th e D O C , H e rb e rt, S tre e t, an d S m ith , an d re v e rse d a n d re m a n d e d a s to A ppel l ee W ebb. See W i l l i ams v. C om m . of Pa. , 146 Fed. A ppx. 554 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( per cur i am). W e hel d t hatW i l l i ams’ s cl ai m ar i s i ng fr om hi s fi r s tgr i evanc e aga i ns tW ebb w as pr oper l yexhaus t ed and ther efor e r i pe forr evi ew . I d. at557- 558. O n r emand, the D i s tr i ctC our thel d a j urytr i al on W i l l i ams’ E i ghth A m endment claim ag ains t W eb b . W il li am s p rese n ted a ca se c o n sist ing o f th e testi m o n yo f W eb b , D r. J ohn Sy m ons , a doct orw ho tr eat ed W i l l i ams atthe pr i s on, and var i ous exhi bi t s . A tthe c lo se o f W ill iam s’s c a se , W e b b m o v e d o ra llyf o r ju d g m e n t as a m a tter o f law p u rsu a n t to Fed. R . C i v. P. 50( a) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tor al l ygr ant ed W ebb’ s m ot i on, fi ndi ng that W ill iam s f

a iled to p re se n t su f

f icie n t ev id e n c e to p ro v e th a t W e b b w a s d e lib e ra tely i ndi ffe r entt o W i l l i ams’ s s er i ous m edi cal need orthatW ebb’ s del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence caus ed W i l l i ams s er i ous harm ori nj ury . O n J une 6, 2007 the D i s tr i ctC our ti s s ued a w r i t t en or derconfi r m i ng the j udgm ent . W i l l i ams has fi l ed a t i m el yappea l fr om that ju d g m e n t. II. W e hav e j uri sdi ct i on ov er this app eal pu rs uan tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. W e exerci se pl enaryr evi ew overthe gr antof a mot i on forj udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . See C ur l eyv. K lem , 4 9 9 F . 3 d 1 9 9 , 2 0 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). A m ot i on forj udgm entas a mat t erof l aw s houl d be gr ant ed onl yi f, “vi ew i ng t he evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the nonmovi ng party , ther e i s no ques t i on ofT he exhi bi t s i ncl uded: D efe ndant s ’ ans w er s t o the compl ai nt , the D epart m entof 1 C orr ect i on s’ i nm at e han db oo k, a m edical cl earance fo rm , and W i l l i am s’ m edical recor ds. 4 m at er i al fac tforthe j uryand anyver di ctotherthan the one di r ect ed w oul d be err oneous underthe governi ng l aw . ” M cG r eeve yv. St r oup, 413 F. 3d 359, 364 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . I n or dert o es t abl i s h a vi ol at i on of hi s E i ghth A m endmentr i ghtt o be fr ee f r om cruel and unus ual puni s hm ent , W i l l i ams w as r equi r ed t o pr ove thatW ebb ac t ed w i th d e l i be r a t e i nd i ff

e r e nc e t o h i s s e r i ou s medi c a l ne e d. Se e Es t e l l e v. G a mbl e , 42 9 U. S. 9 7 , 1 0 4 (19 7 6 ). W i l l i ams fai l ed t o pr ove hi s cas e aga i ns tW ebb. D es pi t e r epea t ed ur gi ng fr om t he D istric t C o u rt, W ill iam s a ttem p ted to e n ter h is c o m p lain t in to e v id e n c e a s p ro o f o f h is c laim in ste a d o f

tak in g th e sta n d . S tate m e n ts m a d e in a c o m p lain t, ho w e v e r, ar e m e re ly al l egat i ons and notevi dence . See Fed. D epos i tI ns . C orp. v. D egl au, 207 F. 3d 153, 172 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . N orar e r emar ks W i l l i ams m ade dur i ng hi s openi ng s t at ementor ques t i ons he pos ed t o w i tnes s es . See Shel l enber gerv. Sum m i tB ancorp, I nc. , 318 F. 3d 183, 191 n. 11 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . T her efor e, W i l l i ams ca s e r es t ed on the t es t i m oni es of W ebb and Sym ons and s ever al exhi bi t s he admi t t ed i nt o evi dence . 1 I ti s true, as A ppel l antcl ai m s , thatSy m ons ’ t es t i m onyes t abl i s hed thathe s uffe r ed a herni a. H ow ever , the doct oral s o t es t i fi ed thathe had no pe r s onal know l edge of how A ppel l ants us t ai ned the i nj ury . M or eover , w hi l e W ebb’ s t es t i m onyes t abl i s hed that i nm at es i n t he TC U per form ed s quat s as puni s hm entform i s conduct , ther e i s no evi denceA ppel l ee’ s m ot i on t o s tr i ke W i l l i ams’ s br i ef i s deni ed. A ppel l ant ’ s A pr i l 21, 2 2 0 0 8 m o tio n re q u e stin g a n e x ten sio n o f tim e to f ile a n a ltern a tiv e b rie f

a n d a p p e n d ix is deni ed as unnece s s ary . T he br i efs and appe ndi ces s ubm i t t ed byW i l l i ams have been f i l ed i n the C l erk’ s O ffi ce a nd cons i der ed bythi s panel i n r ender i ng ourdeci s i on. 5 thatA ppel l antw as per s onal l yr equi r ed t o per form s quat s w hi l e he w as i nj ur ed. A s the D is tr ic t C o u rt s ta te d A p p e lla n t e s ta b lis h e d , a t b e s t, th a t h e s u f f e re d a s e ri o u s in

ju ry. W ill iam s, h o w e v e r, f

a iled to d e m o n stra te th a t W e b b k n e w o f a n d w a s d e lib e ra tely in d if f e re n t to h is s e ri o u s in

ju ry. S e e S p ru ill v . G illis 3 7 2 F .3 d 2 1 8 , 2 3 5 -3 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). A ccor di ngl y , the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d noterri n gr ant i ng A ppel l ee’ s m ot i on forj udgm entas a ma t t e ro f

l a w. T o the ext ent that W i l l i am s at t em pts t o resurrectcl ai m s agai nstD efen dan t s w ho se di s m i s s al w e pr evi ous l yaff i r m ed, s uch cl ai m s ar e gene r al l ybarr ed. See I n r e C i tyof Phi l a. L i t i g. , 158 F. 3d 711, 717 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( one pane l of an a ppel l at e courtw i l l not re c o n s id e r q u e s tio n s th a t a n o th e r p a n e l h a s d e c id e d o n a p ri o r a p p e a l in th e s a m e c a s e ). W i l l i ams does notpr es ent“extr aor di naryci r cumst ance s ” thatw oul d w arr ant r econs i der at i on of i s s ues the pr evi ous panel deci ded. See Pub. I nt er es tR es ear ch G r oup o f N . J. , Inc . v . M ag n esiu m E lektron , Inc . , 1 2 3 F . 3 d 1 1 1 , 1 1 6 -17 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt. 2