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 12-8-2009 

# W i lli am D a vi s, III v . R aph a el W

i lli ams 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 . 09-2602

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_2009

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 2009 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
" W i ll i am D a vi s, I I I v . R ap h a e l W

i ll i am s " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 128. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/128BL D- 0 1 5 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. 09- 2602

___________ W IL L IA M F . D A V IS , II I, A ppel l ant

v. R A P H A E L W IL L IA M S , W a rd e n ; F IR S T C O R R E C T IO N A L M E D IC A L ; D R . B O S T O N ; B R IA N C A S E Y ; C O R R E C T IO N A L O F F IC E R D A V IE S ; CA PTA I N EM M I T; CO RR EC TI O N A L O FFI CE R R EG I N A LD M A Y ES; DE BR A M US CA RE L L A; NUR S E J E RE M E Y; OF F I CE R F RE D WAY

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fo r th e D istri ct of

D elaw are ( D . C . C i v. N o. 05- cv- 00067) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Sue L. R obi ns on

____________________________________ S u b m itt e d f

o r P o ss ib le D ism iss a l P u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )(2 )(B ) o r P o ss ib le S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 O ct ober16, 2009 B efor e: M C K E E , R E N D E L L A N D C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: D ece m ber8, 2009)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C U R I A M. W i l l i am F . D avi s , I I I , a D el aw ar e i nm at e, appea l s fr om the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fi nal j u d g me n ti n t h i s p r o s e a c t i o n u n d e r4 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, we2

w ill s u m m a ri ly af

f ir m . I. D av is fil ed this suitin the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e D istri ct of D elaw are as s er t i ng vi ol at i ons of hi s E i ght h A m endmentr i ght s w hi l e i ncar cer at ed on the ment al h ea lth ti er, or “1 D P o d , ” a t th e H o w ard R . Y o u n g C o rrecti o n al Insti tuti o n (“H R Y C I”). In M ay2004, an i nm at e on the s ame uni t , B r i an C as ey , pus hed ors hoved D avi s i n t he fa ce on t w o occa s i ons dur i ng bas ketbal l games pl ay ed w i t h num er ous ot heri nm at es i n t he y a rd . D a v is a ss e rts th a t tw o C o rre c tio n s O f f ice rs w itn e ss e d th e se in c id e n ts b u t f a iled to r epor tt hem and t ook no act i on agai ns tC as ey . D avi s al l eges thathe had on s ever al occa s i ons t ol d defe ndantD ebor ah M us car el l a, hi s couns el oron t he ment al heal t h t i er , t hat Ca s e yh a d b e e n f

a l s e l yc a l l i n g Da v i s a “ c h i l d mo l e s t e r . ” On M a y3 1 , 2 0 0 4 , a b o u ttwo w e e k s a f ter th e b a sk e tb a ll sh o v in g in c id e n ts, C a se ya n d D a v is w e re in th e d in in g h a ll w ai t i ng i n t he br eakf

as tl i ne fors econd s ervi ngs . C as eytr i ed t o getahea d of D avi s i n l i ne and once agai n cal l ed D avi s a chi l d m ol es t er . A ft erthe tw o ar gued, D avi s turned aw ay , at wh i c h t i me Ca s e yp u n c h e d Da v i s i n th e f a c e , f r a c tu r i n g h i s j a w. I n th i s s u i t , Da v i s c l a i ms t hatcert ai n of the named defe ndant s fai l ed t o pr ot ecthi m fr om C as ey ’ s as s aul t , and that c e rta in d e f

e n d a n ts w e re in d if

f e re n t to h is m e d ica l n e e d s b yd e layi n g tre a tm e n t f o r h is b r o k e n j a w. T he D i stri ctC ou rtgrant ed a m oti on t o d i sm i ss fi l ed b ydefe nd ant Fi rs t C o rre c tio n a l M e d ica l (“ F C M ” ), ex p lain in g th a t D a v is n e v e r m e n tio n s F C M in h is

### Th e nam es of defend ants Em ig and M ays aremis spel le d in the ca seca ption as 1 

### “Emmit” and“Mayes .” Nurs e J er em

y ’s nam e i s mis spel le d in the ca seca ption as “ Je re m ey .”Th e docket 2 

### al so re flec ts that

the Unite d S tate s Mar shal ’s se rvic e of p roce ss onJe re my was r et urned un ex ecutedb ecau se Jeremy n o lo n g er w o rk edat H RY C I.

3 compl ai ntoramended compl ai nt , and thatther e i s no al l egat i on even s ugges t i ng that FC M vi ol at ed D avi s ’ s r i ght s . T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o di s m i s s ed def endant s D r . B os t on and B r i an C as ey( t he al l eged i nm at e as s ai l ant ) beca us e D avi s fai l ed t o r es pond t o an or der t o s how caus e as t o w hyt hes e def endant s s houl d notbe di s m i s s ed forfai l ur e t o pr ovi de i nfo rm at i on t o all ow t i m el yservice of process. D ef en d an ts W il li am s, D av ies, E m ig, and M ay s fil ed a m o ti o n fo r sum m ary 1 j udgm ent , i n w hi ch def endantW ayj oi ned. T he D i s t r i ctC our tent er ed s um m aryj udgm ent in f a v o r o f th e se d e f

e n d a n ts, h o ld in g a s f

o llo w s: (i) c laim s a g a in st th e se p riso n o f f icia ls i n t hei roffi ci al capa ci t i es ar e barr ed byE l eventh A m endmenti m m uni t y ; ( i i ) W ar den W ill iam s w a s n o t p e rso n a llyin v o lv e d in th e a lleg e d w ro n g s a n d c a n n o t b e h e ld liab le under§ 1983 on a theoryof r es pondeats uper i or ; ( i i i ) D avi es and M ay s , the C orr ect i ons O ffi cer s w ho al l egedl yw i t nes s ed the bas ketbal l s hovi ng i nci dent s i n t he y ar d, cannotbe sa id to h a v e k n o w n o f

o r d isre g a rd e d a n e x c e ss iv e risk to D a v is’s sa f e ty ; (iv ) D a v is f

a ils t o s how t hatanydefe ndant , i ncl udi ng N ur s e J er emy and C orr ect i ons O ffi cerW ay , act ed 2
w i t h del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence bas ed on the el even- daygap betw een the dat e of i nj uryand th e d a te s u rg e ry w a s p e rf o rm e d to re p a irh is b ro k e n ja w ; a n d (v ) t h e c la im a g a in s t E m ig , a C apt ai n/ Faci l i t yI nves t i gat orchar ged w i t h i nves t i gat i ng s er i ous i nci dent s atH R Y C I , for

### We h av e f u lly co n sid eredD av is’s “In f

o rm al B rief

” inreach in g th is d isp o sitio n . 3 4 al l egedl yfai l i ng t o as k t he A t t or neyG ener al t o pr os ecut e C as eyfai l s gi ven the abs ence of a d u tyto se ek p rose cu ti o n o f a n inm ate w h o injures a fe ll o w inm ate. T h e D istri ct C o u rt gr ant ed D avi s ’ s m ot i on forl eave t o fi l e an a m ended c om pl ai ntagai ns tthe l one r emai ni ng defe ndant , M us car el l a. R athert han amend, D avi s m oved fors um m aryj udgm enton hi s fai l ur e t o pr ot ect cl ai m . M us car el l a al s o m oved fors um m aryj udgm ent . T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed M us car el l a’ s m ot i on, concl udi ng t hatheral l eged f ai l ur e t o pr ot ectD avi s amount s , at m o s t, to n e g lig e n c e , n o t a d e lib e ra te in d if f e re n c e to a s e ri o u s ri s k to D a v is ’s s a f e ty. D a v is tim e lyf

iled th is a p p e a l. II. W e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. O urr evi ew i s pl enaryof t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or der s ent er i ng s um m aryj udgm ent . See Fed. H om e Loan M or t gage C orp. v. Scot t s dal e I ns . C o. , 316 F. 3d 431, 443 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . W e vi ew the under l y i ng fac t s , and al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s t her efr om , i n a l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he non- m ovant . Fas ol d v. J us t i ce, 409 F. 3d 178, 180 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . A ft era ca r eful r evi ew o f th e re c o rd , w e w ill su m m a rilya f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t in a c c o rd a n c e w ith T hi r d C i r cui tI nt ernal O per at i ng Pr ocedur e C hapt er10. 6. 3 III . a . F a ilu re -to -p ro tec t cla im5

A s t he D i s t r i ctC our tful l yexpl ai ned, “[a ] pr i s on offi ci al ’ s 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 harm t o an i nm at e vi ol at es the Ei ghth A m endment . ” F a r me rv . Br e n n a n , 5 1 1 U. S . 8 2 5 , 8 2 8 ( 1 9 9 4 ) . “ De l i b e r a t e i n d i f f e r e n c e c a n b e s h o wn w hen a pr i s on offi ci al know s of and di s r egar ds an exc es s i ve r i s k t o i nm at e hea l t h or s a f e ty.” H a m ilto n v . L e a v y , 1 1 7 F .3 d 7 4 2 , 7 4 7 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ( q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). “[T] o s ur vi ve s um m aryj udgm enton an Ei ghth A m endmentcl ai m as s ert ed under42 U . S. C . § 1983, a pl ai nt i ff i s r equi r ed t o pr oduce s uffi ci entevi dence of ( 1) a s ubs t ant i al r i s k of s er i ous harm ; ( 2) t he def endant s ’ del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence t o t hatr i s k; and ( 3) c a u s a tio n .” Id . a t 7 4 6 . D a v is f a iled to p ro d u c e su f

f icie n t ev id e n c e to su rv iv e su m m a ryju d g m e n t o n h is c la im s th a t M a y s , D a v ie s , a n d M u s c a re lla a c te d w ith d e lib e ra te in d if f e re n c e to h is s a f

e ty. D avi s al l eges t hatM ay s s upervi s ed the fi r s tbas ketbal l game i n w hi ch C as eys hoved D avis ’s face, and t hat D avies supervi sed t he seco nd gam e. D avis ’s cl ai m s agai nstthese tw o d e f e n d a n ts a re b a se d o n th e ir h a v in g w itn e ss e d th e a lleg e d sh o v in g in c id e n ts. D a v is c o n c e d e s th a t b o th b a sk e tb a ll g a m e s w e re a g g re ss iv e lyp layed b ya ll i n v o lv e d , an d D a v is h im se lf c o n sid e re d th e p u sh in g in c id e n t in th e f irst g a m e to b e in c o n se q u e n tial. D a v is s uffe r ed no i nj ur yi n ei t heri nci dent , and, cl ear l y , anyal l eged f earof harm fr om C as ey w as nots uch thati tpr event ed D avi s fr om vol unt ar i l ypart i ci pat i ng i n bas ketbal l games w i t h C as ey . T her e i s no evi dence t hatC as eycal l ed D avi s a chi l d m ol es t erdur i ng ei t her game, and no evi dence t hatM ay s orD avi es knew pr i ort o t he bas ketbal l games thatC as ey

### Althou ghDavis a ss erte d at deposition that Mays was awar e that Cas ey had b ee n 4 

### c a l l i ng Davi s ac hi l d m ol e s t e r , Davi s c oul d not r e c a l lwhe n he t ol d May s , and the r e i s no ev id en ce o f

reco rdth at h e to ldM ay s p rio r to th e f irst b ask etb all sh o v in g in cid ent. Davis c on te nd s that he s uf fers from le ar ning disa bili ti es , depre ss ion, and b ipolar 5 

### di s or de r , but

he t e s t i fi e d that

he wa s t aki ng m e di c at i on for hi s m e nt a lhe ath i s s ue s at the tim e o f th e in cid ents at issu e inth is case. 6 had cal l ed D avis a chil d m oles t er. O n thi s r ecord, view i ng the ev i den ce i n a li gh tm ost 4 favor abl e t o D avi s , a r eas onabl e j urycoul d notconcl ude thatM ay s orD avi es knew of, or c o n s c i o u s l y d i s r e g a r d e d , a n e x c e s s i v e r i s k t o D a v i s ’ s s a f e t y. A s t o defe ndantM us car el l a, a ment al heal t h couns el oratH R Y C I , D avi s cont ends t hathe t ol d M us car el l a on s ever al occa s i ons pr i ort o t he bas ketbal l s hovi ng i nci dent s t hat C a se yh a d a c c u se d h im o f b e in g a c h ild m o les ter . A c c o rd in g to D a v is, M u sc a re lla adv i sed t hat “s he w as basi cal l ygo i ng t o take care of i t. . . do n’tw orryabo ut i t . ” T here i s, how ever , no evi dence t hatD avi s evercompl ai ned t o M us car el l a abouta s peci fi c thr eatof h arm , an d itis un d ispu ted th at D av is ne v er req u ested p rotec ti o n . F u rth er, de sp it e C ase y ’s pr es ence , D avi s chos e t o r emai n hous ed i n t he 1D Pod form ent al heal t h t r eatm entw hen he coul d have s oughta tr ans ferfr om the uni tatanyt i m e. I n addi t i on, D avi s does not 5 d isp u te th a t h e h a d a h isto ryo f h o rse p lay an d a lterc a tio n s w ith o th e r in m a tes , an d th a t in th e p a s t h e h a d d is p la y e d a n a b ility to d e f e n d h im s e lf

, n o t a v u ln e ra b ility to a tta c k . M u s c a re lla h a d c o u n s e le d D a v is o n w a y s to a v o id c o n f ro n ta tio n . W e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tthat , atm os t , M us car el l a’ s act i ons m i ghtr efl ect n e g lig e n c e in f

a ili n g to p ro tec t D a v is f ro m a n e n v iro n m e n t in w h ich h e h a d b e e n f a lse ly7

l abel ed a c hi l d m ol es t erand had e ncount er ed an i nm at e ( C as ey ) w ho had di s pl ay ed hos t i l i t yt ow ar d D avi s . B utt hi s evi dence does notr efl ectthatM us car el l a knew of and di s r e ga r de d a s ub s t a nt i a l r i s k o f s e r i ou s ha r m t o Davi s . Se e W hi t l e yv. A l be r s , 47 5 U. S. 312, 319 ( 1986) ( “I ti s obdur acyand w ant onnes s , noti nadvert ence orerr ori n good fai th, th a t ch a ra c ter ize th e c o n d u c t p ro h ib ited b yth e C ru e l an d U n u su a l P u n ish m e n ts C lau se [ .]”) . M u sc a re lla f latlyd e n ies e v e r b e in g a w a re o f a su b sta n tial risk o f

h a rm to D avi s , orof bei ng i ndi ffe r entt o hi s need f orpr ot ect i on, and the evi dence of r ecor d does nots uppor ta r eas onabl e i nfer ence t o t he contr ary . A ccor di ngl y , s um m aryj udgm entw as appr opr i at el yent er ed. b. C l ai m bas ed on medi cal needs A f ter th e a lterc a tio n w ith C a se yin th e d in in g h a ll, d e f e n d a n t W a yto o k D a v is to th e in f irm a ry , w h e re h e w a s e x a m in e d b yN u rse Je re m y . D a v is w a s g iv e n g a u z e f o r h is bl eedi ng, as w el l as M ot r i n and i ce, and r eturned t o hi s uni t . D avi s w as agai n exami ned bya nur s e l at ert he s ame day . A tt he t i m e, D avi s r emai ned abl e t o open hi s m out h and talk . T h e n e x t d a y , w h e n D a v is w a s a g a in e x a m in e d , h e w a s u n a b le to o p e n h is m o u th and hi s j aw w as s w ol l en. D avi s w as t aken thatdayt o a hos pi t al foran x- r ay , w hi ch re v e a le d a “ b ila te ra l m a n d ib u la r f ra c tu re .” D av is w as re turn ed to H R Y C I an d h o u sed in the inf irm aryfo r th ree d ay s b ef o re r etur ni ng t o hi s cel l . A ft erfi ve day s i n hi s cel l , D avi s r eturned t o t he i nfi r m ary , and, aft er a total of elev en d ay s fo ll o w ing the a ssau lt , h e w as tak en to an o u tsi d e h o sp it al w h ere

### We n o te th at d ef en d ants also arg u edb ef

o re th e D istrict C o urt th at D av is f ailedto 6 

### e xhaus t hi s a dmi ni s tr at i ve r e m e di e s , a s r e qui r e d by 42 U. S. C. § 1997e ( a) . Al though the Di s tri c t Court e xpr e s s ly

de c l i ne d t o a ddr e s s thi s i s s ue , we fi nd the de fe ndant s ’ argum e nt we l l - t ake n. The r e c or d i s undi s put e d that Davi s fi l e d as i ngl e gri e vanc e r e gar di ng the alte rc ations with Case y , ind ic ating that he “ wo uld like s om eone to lookinto this m atte r t o s e e why

Offi c e r Dave s [s i c ] and Maz e [s i c ] di dn’ t do any thi ng t o Mr . Ca s e y

and why this Inci dent wasn’t

do cum ente d.” Davis al so st at ed that he “wou ld like to pres s c harges 8 s ur geryw as per form ed t o r epai rhi s j aw . D avi s s pentthe ni ghtatthe hos pi t al , and then anothert hr ee w eeks i n t he pr i s on i nfi r m aryupon hi s r eturn. A t bo tt o m , D av is co m p lai n s ab o u t th e len g th o f ti m e b etw ee n the d ate o f in jury and the dat e of the s ur geryon hi s j aw . “To actw i t h del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence t o s er i ous m edi cal needs i s t o r eckl es s l ydi s r egar d a s ubs t ant i al r i s k of s er i ous harm . ” G i l es v. K earney , 571 F. 3d 318, 330 ( 3d C i r . 2009) . “D el i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence m aybe s how n by i nt ent i onal l ydeny i ng ordel ay i ng m edi cal car e. ” I d. ( quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . “W her e a pr i s onerhas r ece i ved s om e medi cal at t ent i on and the di s put e i s overthe ade quacyof the tre a tm e n t, fe d e ra l co u rts a re g e n e ra llyre lu c tan t to se c o n d g u e ss m e d ica l ju d g m e n ts a n d to cons t i tut i onal i ze c l ai m s w hi ch s ound i n s t at e t or tl aw . ” U ni t ed St at es ex r el . W al kerv. F a y e t t e C o u n t y , 5 9 9 F . 2 d 5 7 3 , 5 7 5 n . 2 ( 3 d C i r . 1 9 7 9 ) ( q u o t a t i o n m a r k s o m i t t e d ) . We agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tt hat , as a mat t erof l aw , D avi s fai l ed t o r ai s e a c l ai m that d e f e n d a n ts in ten tio n a llyd e layed a p p ro p ria te c a re , o r th a t a r e a so n a b le ju ryc o u ld concl ude thatdefe ndant s ’ act i ons amount ed t o del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence t o D avi s ’ s m edi cal n e e d s. C o n se q u e n tly , the D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rlye n ter e d su m m a ryju d g m e n t o n th is c l a i m. 6

### onCase y .”Davis rai se d n o cla im that the m edic altreatment for his broken j aw was inadequate . His grie vance was denie d at the firs t l evelof re view by

the Insti tuti on al Gri e vanc e Ch a i r , wh o a dv i s e d that Davi s c ou l d n ot

s e e k d i s c ipl i nary

a c t i ona gai ns t

s t a ff an dsh o u ldd irect h is co m p laint to th e staf

f m em b er’s sup erv iso r. D av is w as also to ld that the a ction h e r equest ed was inapp ropriateor no t c om plet e, and that he m

ust make an a c t ua lr e que s t . Davi s di d not fi l e ane w gri e vanc e or

a ppe a lthe r

ul i ng gi ve n be c aus e , he t e s t i fi e d, he wa s “ s at i s fi e d wi th the ans we r the y gave m e . ” Be c aus e Davi s c l e arly di d not ex h au st admin istrativ e rev iewo nth e claim s raisedinth is su it, h is su it w as sub j ect to d ismissal f

o r th at reaso n , as w ell. 9 I V. D avi s ’ s r emai ni ng cl ai m s w er e pr oper l ydi s m i s s ed forthe r eas ons ful l yexpl ai ned byt he D i s t r i ctC our t . B eca us e w e conc l ude thatthi s appea l pr es ent s “no s ubs t ant i al q u e s tio n ,” 3 d C ir . IO P C h . 1 0 .6 , th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t w ill b e a f f ir m e d .