2005 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 8-2-2005 

# Hi ll v . T rue 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 . 04-4742

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_2005

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 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 " Hi ll v . T r ue " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 749. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/749T h e p r o p e rs p e l l i n g o f t h i s p a r ty’ s n a m e a p p e a r s t o b e E m o r y. 1 C PS-250 NOT 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 . 04- 4742

________________ ERI C CH RI STOPHER H I LL

v. W AR DEN W I LLI AM TRU E; M R. BL ANC HAR D; L I E UT E NANT J OHNS ON; J. F IS H E R , O ff

icer; J. C A N D A L O R A , O ff

icer; W . M I LL ER; DON E M ONY 1 E ric H ill , A ppel l ant

____________________________________ 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 . C i v. N o. 98- cv- 00747) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le A . R ich a rd C a p u to

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed ForPoss i bl e D i s m i s s al U nder28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) orSum m aryA ct i on

U n d e r T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

M ay26, 2005 Be f o r e : ALI TO, M CK EE AN D A M BRO , CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed A ugus t2, 2005)T h is f a c tu a l b a c k g ro u n d is b a se d o n A p p e llee s’ s tate m e n t o f f a c ts. B e c a u se H ill 2 fai l ed t o s ubm i ta contr arys t at ementof fa ct s , forpurpos es of s um m aryj udgm ent , he has admi t t ed thes e. See M . D . Pa. L . R . 56. 1. 2 _______________________ OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM E r i c H i l l , pr o s e, appea l s fr om an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he M id d le D is tr ic t o f

P e n n s y lv a n ia g ra n tin g A p p e lle e s ’ m o tio n f o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. H ill a rriv e d a t th e U n ited S tate s P e n iten tiary at L e w isb u rg , P e n n sy lv a n ia in D ece m ber1997. U pon arr i val , H i l l s t at ed thathe di d nothave a nyi s s ue w i t h bei ng as s i gned t o gener al popul at i on. Shor t l yther eaf t er , how ever , he i nform ed the w ar den by lette r th a t h e f

e a re d f o r h is lif e b e c a u se th e re w e re o th e r in m a tes a t L e w isb u rg th a t w o u ld k ill h im . H ill , the re f

o re , req u e ste d p ro tec tiv e c u sto d y . W h e n th e S p e c ial H o u sin g U n it 2 (“ S H U ” ) in ter v iew e d H ill , h o w e v e r, h e sta ted th a t h e h a d a lre a d yd isc u ss e d th e iss u e w ith pr i s on per s onnel and w oul d notr epea tthe i nform at i on. A r evi ew of H i l l ’ s i nt ake i nt ervi ew r evea l ed thatH i l l cl ai m ed t o have ha d a kni fe f i ghtw i t h an i nm at e at L ew i s bur g, butH i l l w oul d noti dent i fythe i nm at e. Pr i s on offi ci al s w er e, ther efor e, u n a b le to v e rif

yH ill ’s c laim o r a sc e rta in w h e th e r th e o th e r in m a te( s) in q u e stio n w e re still hous ed atL ew i s bur g. A ft eraddi t i onal frui t l es s i nt ervi ew i ng, the SH U offi ci al s cl as s i fi ed H ill a s a n u n v e ri f

ie d p ro te c tio n c a s e a n d o rd e re d h im to g o in to th e g e n e ra l p o p u la tio n .H i l l ’ s compl ai ntw as nots erved on A ppel l ees unt i l O ct ober22, 2003. 3 I n C . A . N o. 98- 7593, w e s um m ar i l yr ever s ed the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derdi s m i s s i ng 4 Hi l l ’ s c o mp l a i n tf

o rf a i l u r e t o e x h a u s ta d mi n i s t r a t i v e r e me d i e s . I n th a to r d e r , we in stru c ted A p p e llee s th a t th e yc o u ld n o t av a il th e m se lv e s o f th e d e f e n se o f f a ilu re to exh aust . W e did not l i m i tt he av ai l abil i t yof o t her defen ses. 3 H ill re f u se d a n d w a s g iv e n a m isc o n d u c t f o r “ re f u sin g to p ro g ra m .” A t th e h e a rin g f o r h is m i scond uct, H i l l decli ned t o call w i t nesses on h i s behalf. H e w as sanct i on ed w i t h the l oss o f f i v e d a ys g o o d c o n d u c tt i m e a n d n i n e t y d a ys p r i v i l e g e s a tth e c o m m i s s a r y. B as ed on the above , i n M ay1998, H i l l fi l ed the i ns t antci vi l r i ght s compl ai nt pu rs uan tt o B i ven s v. S i x U nk no w n N am ed A gen t s of t he F ederal B ureau o f N arcot i cs, 4 0 3 U. S . 3 8 8 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , a g a i n s tv a r i o u s i n d i v i d u a l s e mp l o y e d a tLe wi s b u r g . Hi l l c l a i ms 3 thatA ppel l ees cons pi r ed t o fi l e fa l s e mi s conduct s agai ns thi m i n r et al i at i on forhi s fi l i ng a l aw s ui tagai ns tt hem aboutt w o m onths ear l i er . H e s oughtm onet arydamages butdi d not re q u e s t e x p u n g e m e n t o f th e m is c o n d u c ts o r r e in s ta te m e n t o f h is lo s t g o o d c o n d u c t tim e . A p p e lle e s f

ile d a m o tio n to d is m is s o r, i n th e a lte rn a tiv e , f o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. T h e D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted th e m o ti o n fo r sev era l r ea so n s. F ir st, the D istri ct C o u rt con cl ud ed thatH i l l ’s res po nse t o A pp el l ees’ sum m aryj ud gm ent m oti on fai l ed to add res s the s ubs t ance of the mot i on. H i l l m er el yar gued thatthe s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on w as unt i m el yand thatA ppel l ees had w ai ved al l defe ns es w hen theyj oi nt l ym oved for s um m aryr ever s al on H i l l ’ s appea l fr om the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s ear l i eror derdi s m i s s i ng for fai l ur e t o exhaus tadmi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es . T he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded thatboth of 4 these proced ural chall eng es w ere m eri t l ess.4

I n addi t i on, t he D i s t r i ctC our tr eas oned thatH i l l ’ s cl ai m w as barr ed underH eck v. H u m p h re y , 5 1 2 U .S . 4 7 7 (1 9 9 4 ). B e c a u se th e f a v o ra b le te rm in a tio n o f th is a c tio n w o u ld n ec essa ri lyim p lythe in v ali d ityo f H il l’ s loss o f g o o d co n d u ct t im e, th e D istri ct C o u rt found thats uch a r emedycoul d onl yar i s e thr ough habea s corpus pr ocee di ngs . See H eck, 512 U . S. at487. W i th r es pectt o H i l l ’ s al l egat i on of a c ons pi r acyamong A ppel l ees , the D i s t r i ct C our tconcl uded thatH i l l fai l ed t o s how thatthe A ppel l ees act ed i n conce r tw i t h one another . T he courtfur t hernot ed that , atm os t , the fa ct s s us t ai ned thatther e w as a s er i es of eve nt s l eadi ng t o H i l l ’ s m i s conductchar ge. F in a lly , reg a rd in g H ill ’s c laim o f re talia tio n , the D istric t C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t H ill fai l ed t o s how t hatt he A ppel l ees ’ act i ons det err ed hi m i n anyw ayfr om engagi ng i n t he p ro tec ted a c tiv ityo f

lit ig a tio n . M o re o v e r, th e D istric t C o u rt f o u n d th a t ev e n if

H ill c o u ld s how thathe had be en det err ed fr om pur s ui ng l i t i gat i on, he coul d nots how the exi s t ence o f a c a u sa l n e x u s b e tw e e n h is a lleg e d d e ter re n c e f ro m c o n stitu tio n a llyp ro tec ted a c tiv ity a n d th e m is c o n d u c t c h a rg e . H ill a p p e a led . W e h a v e ju risd ictio n p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . O u r re v iew is p lena ry . S ee G u ard ian L ife In s. C o . o f A m . v . G o d u ti -M o o re, 22 9 F . 3 d 2 1 2 , 2 1 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). W e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof A ppel l ees fort he r eas ons di s cus s ed i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s m emora ndum and s um m ar i zed5

a b o v e . Sum m aryact i on i s appr opr i at e i f ther e i s no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on on appea l . See T h i r d Ci r c u i tL AR 2 7 . 4 . F o re s s e n t i a l l yth e r e a s o n s s e tf o r t h b yth e Di s t r i c tCo u r t , we w i l l s um m ar i l yaff

i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or dergr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof A ppel l ees . See Thi r d C i r cui tI . O . P. 10. 6.