NOT PRECE DENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR T HE THIR D CIRCUIT

___________

No. 2 1

- 2 0 6 3

______ ____

TRACY MARROW, a/k/a Reginald Hawkins a/k/a Jeffre y Boyd,

Appellant

v.

SUPERINTENDENT LAWLER, SCI

- Huntingdon; GRANLUND, Unit Manager; MRS.

GRAN LUND; ROSE A. MCKINNEY, Records Room Employee; MS. M ARHELKO;

MRS. SUSAN WOLFE, Records Room E mployee

- SCI

- Frackville;

SUPERINTENDENT BRITTAIN; KIMB ERLY A. BARKLEY

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States Dis trict Court

for th e M i d d l e District of P e n n s y l v a n i a

(D.C. Civil Action No. 1

- 1 9

- c v

- 0 1 6 9 0 )

District Judge: Ho no rable S y l v i a H

. R a m b o

_________________________________ ___

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

February 9, 2022

Before: G R E E N A W A Y

, J R

. , P O R T E R a n d N Y G A A R D

, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : March 15, 2022 )

__________ _

OPINION *

___________

PER CURIAM

* This disposition i s not an opinion of the full C ourt and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not

constitute bi nd ing precedent.2

Pro se appellan t T r a c y M a r r o w , a Pennsylvania state prisoner , appeals the District

Court’s e n t r y o f summary jud gment i n f a v o r o f D e f

e n d a n t s

. F o r t h e f

o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s

,

w e will a f f i r m

.

I n 1 9 9 0

, M a r r o w b e g a n s e r v i n g a 2

- t o

- 1 2

- y e a r s e n t e n c e i n P e n n s y l v a n i a

, u n d e r t h e

D e p a r t m e n t o f C o r r e c t i o n s ( D O C ) I n m a t e N o

. B G 4 0 7 6

, f o l l o w i n g h i s c o n v i c t i o n s f o r

r o b b e r y a n d t h e f

t

. H e w a s p a r o l e d i n 1 9 9 3 b u t w a s r e t u r n e d t o c u s t o d y a n d f o u n d t o b e a

t e c h n i c a l p a r o l e v i o l a t o r i n 1 9 9 4

. S i n c e t h e n

, M a r r o w h a s s e r v e d t i m e o n v a r i o u s

s e n t e n c e s

, i n c l u d i n g i n N e w J e r s e y

, f o r p a r o l e v i o l a t i o n s a n d o t h e r o f f e n s e s

. A s o f M a y

1

, 2 0 0 7

, M a r r o w w a s f

o u n d to hav e s e r v e d “

j u s t o v e r s i x y e a r s i n Pennsylvania c u s t o d y

o n h i s 1 9 9 0 s e n t e n c e

. ” H a w k i n s v

. P a

. B d

. o f P r o b

. & P a r o l e

, N o

. 0 7

- 0 5 5 2

, 2 0 0 7 W L

1 8 5 2 8 2 2

, a t * 2 ( E

. D

. P a

. J u n e 2 6

, 2 0 0 7 )

. T h e 1 9 9 0 ( “ B G 4 0 7 6 ” ) s e n t e n c e w a s d e e m e d

c o m p l e t e d o n J a n u a r y 2 7

, 2 0 1 7

, a t w h i c h p o i n t M a r r o w b e g a n s e r v i n g h i s c u r r e n t

s e n t e n c e o f 8 1 / 2 t o 2 0 y e a r s ’ i m p r i s o n m e n t u n d e r D O C I n m a t e N o

. M V 5 6 2 4 f o r

r o b b e r i e s a n d r e l a t e d o f

f e n s e s ; h i s m a x i m u m d a t e o f r e l e a s e i s M a r c h 1 1

, 2 0 3 5

.

O n O c t o b e r 1

, 2 0 1 9

, M a r r o w f i l e d a civil rights a c t i o n pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1 9 8 3 a g a i n s t v a r i o u s e m p l o y e e s o f t h e P e n n s y l v a n i a D e p a r t m e n t o f C o r r e c t i o n s a n d a

f o r m e r m e m b e r o f t h e P e n n s y l v a n i a B o a r d o f P r o b a t i o n a n d P a r o l e ( P B P P )

. I n h i s

c o m p l a i n t

, M a r r o w a l l e g e s t h a t h i s m a x i m u m r e l e a s e d a t e o n h i s B G 4 0 7 6 s e nte n c e w a s

i l l e g a l l y e x t e n d e d b y 1 7 y e a r s

, f r o m M a y 2

, 2 0 0 0

, t o J a n u a r y 2 8

, 2 0 1 7

. H e f i r s t

ma in t a i n s th at D e f

e n d a n t s M c K i n n e y a n d M r s

. G r a n l u n d

, R e c o r d ’ s R o o m e m p l o y e e s a t3

S C I

- H u n t i n g d o n

, m i s c a l c u l a t e d h i s s e n t e n c e b y c h a n g i n g a 4

- y e a r s u s p e n d e d p r o b a t i o n

sentence i m p os e d in 1 9 9 4

, t o a 1

- 4 y e a r s ’ i m p r i s o n m e n t se nt e n c e

. H e c l a i m s t h a t h e

s e r v e d t h a t s e n t e n c e u n d er D O C I n m a t e N o

. D A 5 4 3 9 f r o m J u n e 2 5

, 1 9 9 6

, u n t i l he was

p a r o l e d o n A p r i l 7

, 1 9 9 9

. H e a l s o c l a i m s t h a t D e f e n da n t L a w l e r

, S u p e r i n t e n d e n t a t S C I

H u n t i n g d o n

, l a c k e d a s e nt e n c i ng or d e r t o h o l d h i m f o r t h a t s en te n c e

. M a r r o w n e x t c l a i m s

t h a t h e w a s erroneously r e q u i r e d t o s e r v e a n 1 8

- m o nt h p a r o le v i o lation s e n t e n c e t w i c e

,

f i r s t f r o m 2 0 0 2 t o 2 0 0 4

, a n d t h e n f r o m 2 0 0 6 t o 2 0 0 8

. I n b e t w e e n

, h e s e r v e d p r i s o n t i m e

i n N e w J e r s e y ; h e a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t he D O C f ai l e d t o c r e d i t h i s B G 4 0 7 6 s e n t e n c e f o r t h e

t i m e s e r v e d i n N e w J e r s e y

. M a r r o w a l l e g e s t h a t

, i n r e s p o n s e t o h i s c o m p l a i n t t h a t h e w a s

b e i n g h e l d b e y o n d t h e s t a t u t o r y m a x i m u m f o r h i s B G 4 0 7 6 s e n t e n c e

, c e r t a i n d e f e n d a n t s

l i e d o r m i s r e p r e s e n t e d t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t h i s s e n t e n c i ng s t a t u s s h e e t s w a s

unav a ilable

, a n d a l l o f the d e f e n d a n t s w e r e deliberately i n d i f f e r e n t

. H e s e e k s i n

j u n c t i v e

r e li ef

, i n c l u d i n g 1 7 y e a r s ’ cr e d i t t o w a r d s h i s c u r r e n t se ntence u n d e r M V

- 5 6 2 4

, a s w e l l a s

m o n e t a r y d a m a g e s

.

The D efendants filed motions to dism iss th e complaint

, wh i ch t he D i s trict Court

g r a nt e d in part, 1 a llowing M a r r o w t o p r o c e e d w i t h h i s E i g h t h A m e n d m e n t c l a i m a g a i n s t

a l l o f t h e d e f

e n d a n t s f o r deliberate i n d i f

f e r e n c e t o h i s o v e r i n c a r c e r a t i o n

. S e e E C F N o

.

4 2

. After the clo se of discovery

, M a r r o w a n d the defendants c r o s s

- moved for summary

1 We will not review this decision bec a use Ma rrow does not challenge it in any

mean ingful way on appeal. See In re Wettach , 811 F.3d 99, 115 (3d Cir. 2016) (holding

that argume nts no t develope d in an appellant’s opening brief are forfeite d)

.4

judgment. D e f

e n d a n t s a r g u e d

, i n t e r a l i a

, t h a t M a r r o w failed b o t h t o a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l y

e x h a u s t h i s c l a i m s 2 a n d t o e s t a b l i s h a n E i g h t h A m e n d m e n t v i o l a t i o n

. T he Di strict Court

n o tifi e d t h e pa r t i e s t h a t i t w o uld c o n s id e r e x h a u s ti on i n i t s r o l e a s f a c t

- f i n d e r

. S e e

P a l a d i n o v

. N e w s o m e

, 8 8 5 F

. 3 d 2 0 3

, 2 1 1 ( 3 d C i r

. 2 0 1 8 )

. A f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g t h e p a r t i e s ’

r e sp o n se s

, t h e D i s t r i c t C ou r t d e n i e d M a r r o w ’ s m o t i o n a n d granted jud gment i n f a v o r o f

d e f e n d a n t s

. M a r r o w a p p e al e d

.

W e have jurisdiction p u rsuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291

. We review the District

Court’s ord er granting summary judgment de novo and review the facts in the light most

favo rable to the nonmoving party. Burns v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr. , 642 F.3d 163, 170 (3d

Cir. 2011)

. A g rant of summar y judg ment will be affirmed if our revi ew reveals that

“there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgme nt

as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)

.

F i r s t

, M a r r o w ’ s argument t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e h i m a n

o p p o r t u n i t y t o f

i l e a stateme nt o f m a t e r i a l f a c t s a n d a n a f

f i d a v i t t o s u p p o r t h i s m o t i on f o r

s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t i s m er i t l e s s

. M a r r o w w a s r e q u i r e d t o s u p p o r t h i s m o t i o n a t t h e t i m e i t

w a s f i l e d w i t h c i t a t i o n s t o m a t e r i a l s i n t h e r e c o r d

. S e e F e d

. R

. C i v

. P

. 5 6 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A )

.

M o r e o v e r

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i r e c t e d h i m t o r e s p o n d t o t h e D e f e n d a n t s ’ m o t i on f

o r

2 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requires an inmate to exhaust “ such

admini strative remedies as are available ” before bringing suit under § 1983 to challenge

prison conditions. Ro ss v. Blake

, 578 U.S. 632, 635 (2016) (quoting 42 U.S.C. §

199 7e (a) ).5

s u m m a r y j u d g m e nt

, b r i e f i n s u p p o r t

, a nd s t a te m e n t o f m a t e r i a l f a c t s

. M a r r o w ’ s r e s p o n s e

,

l i k e h i s s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t m o t i o n

, w a s l a r g e l y f i l l e d w i t h u n s u p p o r t e d a l l e g a t i o n s a n d

l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n s

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t h e r e f o r e d i d n o t e r r i n a c c e p t i n g t h e m a j o ri t y o f

t h e D e f e n d a n t s ’ f a c t s a s u n d i s p u t e d

. S e e E C F N o

. 6 8 a t 8 n

. 1 ; F e d

. R

. C i v

. P

. 5 6 ( e )

. 3

M a r r o w a r g u e s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t b a s e d

i n p a r t o n h i s f

a i l u r e t o exhaust h i s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e m e d i e s

. In Pennsylvania, inmate

grievances are handled accor ding to the D OC ’ s Inmate Grievance Syste m Policy DC

ADM 804. See Dkt. N o

. 6 3

- 8

. As relevant here

, th e p o licy requires grievances to

“identify individ uals direc tly involved in the event(s) ” and “request the spec ific relief

sought

. ” I d

. a t 5

. I t i s b e y o n d g e n u i n e d i s p u t e t h a t M a r r o w f a i l e d t o n a m e D e f

e n d a n t s

B a r k l e y

, ( M r s

. ) G r a n l u n d

, U M G r a n l u n d

, L a w l e r

, M a r h e l k o

, a n d M c K i n n e y i n h i s

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e g r i e v a n c e s

, a n d t h e r e i s n o e v i d e n c e t h a t the p r i s o n e x c u s e d t h a t

p r o c e d u r a l d e f

e c t

. S e e Spruill v. Gillis

, 372 F.3d 218, 234 (3d Cir. 2004)

. T h e r e c o r d

a l s o m a k e s c l e a r t h a t M a r r o w f a i l e d t o r e q u e s t m o n e t a r y d a m a g e s d u r i n g t h e g r i e v a n c e

p r o c e e d i n g s

. I n d e e d

, M a r r o w a d m i t t e d i n h i s s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t r e s p o n s e t h a t h e d i d n o t

3 Marrow also argues that he sent a “ Producti o n of Complete Discovery ” b y certified mail

to the District Court in January 2021, b ut it was not received because “ the def endants ”

tampered with his mail

. H e cl aims that this “ government interference” p re vented him

from establis hing his claims at summary judgment. The parties were directed to

complete discovery by Feb ruary 5, 2021, but Marrow was not requir ed to file any

discove ry motion with th e Cour t. Moreover , the “ Production of Documents ” Mar row

s ought to present were in fa ct filed with the District Court on February 9, 2021 ( ECF No.

55

- 1 ) , and , again, he failed to support his claims at summary judg ment

. See Informal Br.

, Ex

. 9(d)

- (e)

.6

p r o p e r l y e x h a u s t h i s c l a i m s

. 4 S e e E C F N o

. 6 6 4

, ¶ 1 8

. R a t h e r

, h e c l a i m e d t h a t

D e f e n d a n t s h a d w a i v e d t h e r i g h t t o a s s e r t t h e l a c k o f e x h a u s t i o n a s a n a f f i r m a t i v e d e f

e n s e

b y f a i l i n g t o r a i s e i t i n t h e i r m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s

, a n a r g u m e n t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o r r e c t l y

r e j e c t e d

. S e e i d

. ; s e e a l s o B rown v. Croak , 312 F.3d 109, 111

- 1 2 (3d Cir. 2002)

.

A c c o r d i n g l y

, s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t w a s w a r r a n t e d o n t h e s e p r o c e d u r a l l y d e f a u l t e d c l a i m s

.

See Ross

, 5 78 U.S. a t 6 3 9 ( n o t i n g t h a t c o ur t s may not excuse a failure to exhaust )

.

A s t o t h e r e m a i n i n g d e f

e n d a n t s

, W o l f

e a n d B r i t t a i n

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y

c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e E i g h t h A m e n d m e n t c l a i m l a c k s m e r i t

. T h e detention of an inmate

“ beyond the termin ation of his sentence . . . violate[s] the [E]ighth [A]mendment’s

proscription agains t cruel and unusual punishment” if the “incarceration [is ] w ithout

penological justification.” Moore v. Tartler , 986 F

. 2d 682, 686 (3d Cir. 1993)

. To

recover for overdet ention in violation of the Eighth Amendment , a plaintiff must show:

“ (1) a prison official had knowledge of the prisoner’s problem and thus of t he risk that

unwarranted punishment was being, or would be, i nflicted; (2) the official either failed to

act or took only ineffectual actio n under the circ umstances, indicating that his response to

4 M arrow clai med in his amended complaint that he grieved the matter in 2019 ; t hose

griev ance s were part of the re c ord be fore the District Court. On appeal, he argu es for the

f irst time that he filed griev ances in 2006 naming a ll of the defendants and also a sking for

mone tary damages. He fai ls to present evidence to suppor t this claim , and, m oreover, we

will not con s ider argumen ts that were not presented to the District Court

. See Tri

- M

Grp., LLC v. Sharp , 638 F.3d 406, 416 (3d Cir. 2011) (noting that argum ents not r aised

in the district court generally will not b e considered for the f irst time on appeal)

.7

the problem was a product of deliberate indifference to th e prisoner’s plight; and (3) a

causal connection between the official’s response to the problem and the unjusti fied

detention. ” Montanez v. Thompson , 603 F .3d 243, 252 (3d Cir. 2010)

. W e h a v e

r e c o g n i z e d t h a t d e l i b e r a t e i n d i f f e r e n c e m a y b e s h o w n w h e r e “ p r i s o n o f f i c i a l s w e r e p u t o n

n o t i c e a n d s i m p l y r e f

u s e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e a p r i s o n e r ’ s c l a i m o f s e n t e n c e m i s c a l c u l a t i o n

. ”

M o o r e

, 9 8 6 F

. 2 d a t 6 8 6

. W e a g r e e w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t h a t s u c h i s n ot t h e c a s e h er e

.

I n h i s g r i e v a n c e s

, M a r r o w d i d n o t speci f i c a l l y c h a l l e n g e h i s s e n t e n c e u n d e r

D A 5 4 3 9 o r a n y p a r t i c u l a r p a r o l e v i o l a t i o n s e n t e n c e

. R a t h e r

, h e a l l e g e d g e n e r a l l y t h a t

t h e r e w e r e “ m i s c a l c u l a t i o n s ” w i t h h is B F 4 0 7 6 s e n t e n c e a n d t h a t h i s m a x i m u m d a t e o f

r e l e a s e w a s e r r o n e o u s l y e x t e n d e d f r o m 2 0 0 0 t o 2 0 1 7

. H e c l a i m e d t o ha v e “ p r o o f a g a i n s t

t h e P B P P ” a n d p r o o f th a t t h e r e c o r d s department a t S C I

- H u n t i n g d o n a c t e d fraudulentl y

,

b u t h e f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e a n y e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t h i s claim

. E C F N o

. 6 3

- 9 a t 5

. I n t h e

i n i t i a l r e s p o n s e

, a n i n q u i r y w a s m a d e o f D e f e n d a n t W o l f

e

, t h e R e c o r d s S u p e r v i s o r a t

S C I

- F r a c k v i l l e

, w h o i n d i c a t e d t h a t M a r r o w ’ s m a x i m u m r e l e a s e d a t e w a s e x t e n d e d

b e c a u s e o f “ s e v e r a l n e w c o n v i c t i o n s p l u s e s c a p e t i m e

. ” E C F N o

. 6 3

- 9 a t 6

. T h e

response a l s o a d v i s e d M a r r o w t h a t t h e P B P P w a s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r calc ulat i n g “ t h e [ p a r o l e

v i o l a t o r ] m a x d a t e s o n r e c o m m i t s

, n o t t h e D O C

. ” I d

. O n a p p e a l

, D e f e n d a n t

S u p er i n t e n d e n t B r i t t a i n

, t h e F a c i l i t y M a n a g e r

, i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e C o r r e c t i o n s

C l a s s i f i c a t i o n a n d P r o g r a m M a n a g e r h a d i n v e s t i g a t e d M a r r o w ’ s c l a i m a n d t h a t t h e r e w a s

n o b a s i s t o d i s p u t e t h e d e n i a l o f t h e g r i e v a n c e

. A n d o n f in a l a p p e a l

, t h e C h i e f G r i e v a n c e8

O f f i c e r ( C G O ) i n d i c a t e d t h a t f u r t h e r r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d s o f t h e C e n t r a l i z e d S e n t e n c e

C e r t i f i c a t i o n U n i t a f

f i r m e d t h a t M a r r o w “ v i o l a t e d [ h i s ] p a r o l e s e v e r a l t i m e s u n d e r

B G 4 0 7 6 b y c o m m i t t i n g n e w c r i m e s

, ” a n d t h a t h e “ e s c a p e d a t o n e p o i n t ” a f t e r b e i n g

“ r e c o m m i t t e d ” a s a t e c h n i c a l p a r o l e v i o l a t o r

, r e s u l t i n g i n “ a n e w s t a t e s e n t e n c e r u n n i n g

c o n c u r r e n t w i t h y o u r b a c k t i m e

. ” 5 E C F N o

. 6 3

- 9 a t 1

. T h e C G O i n d i c a t e d t h a t

M a r r o w ’ s a c t i o n s c a u s e d h i s “ p a r o l e v i o l a t i o n m a x i m u m d a t e t o b e e x t e n d e d ” a n d t h a t

,

a f t er h i s l a t e s t o f

f e n s e

, t h e P B P P established h i s m a x i m u m p a r o l e d a t e o f J a n u a r y 2 8

,

2 0 1 7

. I d

. O n t h i s r e c o r d

, t h e r e i s n o g e n u i n e d i s p u t e t h a t d e f e n d a n t s i n v e s t i g a t e d a n d

w e r e n o t d e l i b e r a t e l y i n d i f f e r e n t t o M a r r o w ’ s o v e r i n c a r c e r a t i o n c l a i m

. 6

B a s e d o n t h e f

o r e g o i n g

, w e w i l l a f

f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s j u d g m e n t

.

5 In Pen nsy l vania

, parole violators are to be recommitted fo r the remainder of their

original sentence , and a technical parole vi olator may be “reent ered to serve the

remainder of the original sentence or senten ces

. ” 61 Pa. C .S.A. § 6138(c). Furthermor e

, a defen da nt m ust serve back time for an original sentence consecutively to any n ew

sentence as a convicted parole violat or

. See Commonwealth v. Do rian

, 468 A.2d 1091

, 1092 ( Pa. 1983) (per curiam)

.

6 Marrow ’ s motion to st a y th is appeal while he seeks state ha beas review is d enied.