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 6-30-2008 

# Arms trong v

. B ro oks 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 . 08-2076

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 " Arm s tr on g v

. B r oo k s " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 950. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/950A L D - 233 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. 08- 2076 NAT HAN A. AR M S T RO NG, A ppel l ant v . S UP E RI NT E NDE NT M AR I L YN B RO OKS ; HE AR I NG E X A M IN E R P A T R IC IA M C K IS S O C K ; C A P T A IN W I LLI AM P. M CCO NN ELL; LT. R. GI LBERT; UNI T CO UNS E L OR BR I AN F L I NC HB AUGH

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 07- cv- 00226) C hi ef M agi s tr at e J udge: H onor abl e Sus an Par adi s e B axt er

____________________________________ S u b m itted f

o r P o ssible D ism issal Pu rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ) or P o s s 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 J une 19, 2008 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , FI SH E R and H A R D I M A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: J une 30, 2008)

OP I NI ON2

P E R C UR I AM A ppel l antN athan A r m s tr ong, an i nm at e atthe St at e C orr ect i onal I ns t i tut i on - A l bi on, fi l ed an i n form a paupe r i s ci vi l r i ght s act i on i n U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfor the W es t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a aga i ns tnum er ous pr i s on offi ci al s , al l egi ng a vi ol at i on of hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s i n connec t i on w i th a gr i evanc e he s ubm i t t ed conce rni ng the col d t emper atur e i n a ce l l . A s a r es ul tof thi s gr i evanc e, he w as interrog ated ab o u t w h ethe r he w rote itfo r an o ther inm ate, th rea tene d w ith so li tary c o n f in e m e n t, a n d h is c e ll w a s ra n s a c k e d d u ri n g a s e a rc h o n o r a b o u t J u ly 2 3 , 2 0 0 7 . A rm strong sou gh tm on eydam ages. A p p a re n tlyin c o n n e c tio n w ith th is g rie v a n c e , A rm stro n g w a s is su e d a m isc o n d u c t, M /C # A 8 3 9 3 2 0 , f

o r l y in g to a n e m p lo y e e a b o u t w h e th e r h e h a d a s s is te d a n o th e r i n m a te . A r m s tr ong w as found gui l tybya H ear i ng E xami ner . H i s defe ns e w as thatthe cha r ge w as fal s e, butthe H ear i ng E xami nerdi d notcr edi thi s t es t i m ony . T he s anct i on i m pos ed w as 30 day s cel l r es tr i ct i on. A r m s tr ong appea l ed t o the Pr ogr am R evi ew C om m i t t ee ( “PR C ”) on the gr ound thathe w as deni ed the r i ghtt o couns el and t o confr ontw i tnes s es , butthe PR C s us t ai ned the mi s conductand the s anct i ons i m pos ed. T w o m onths l at er , A r m s tr ong fi l ed an am end ed co m plai nt, add i ng the D epart m ent of C orr ect i on s ( “D O C ”) as a defe ndantand es s ent i al l yr es t at i ng hi s or i gi nal cl ai m s . T he amended compl ai nti ndi cat ed thatSuper i nt endentM ar i l yn S. B r ooks had s us t ai ned the dec i s i ons of the H ear i ng E xami nerand the PR C , and furtheri ndi cat ed thatA r m s tr ong’ s fi nal appea l of3

M /C # A 8 3 9 3 2 0 to th e D O C O f f ic e o f th e C h ie f

H e a ri n g E x a m in e r w a s d e n ie d . A l s o att ache d t o t he fi r s tamended compl ai ntw as a copyof gr i evanc e no. 200475, in w h ich A rm stro n g c o m p lain e d o f se x u a l h a ra ss m e n t, ha ra ss m e n t, an d re talia tio n in connec t i on w i th hi s havi ng gi ven a ur i ne s ampl e. A r m s tr ong al l eged thatthe off i cer admi ni s t er i ng the t es ts t ar ed athi s peni s . T he gr i evanc e off i cerr es ponded bydeny i ng t he gr i evanc e on the gr ound t hatr andom drug t es t i ng dat es ar e contr ol l ed bythe C entr al O ffi ce, and the met hod empl oy ed – w her e the off i cerobs erves the i nm at e gi vi ng the s ampl e – w as nece s s aryt o pr eventthe i nm at e fr om cont ami nat i ng the s ampl e orr epl aci ng i tw i th anotheri nm at e’ s ur i ne. A copyof A r m s tr ong’ s appea l t o the Super i nt endentof the d e n ial o f th is g rie v a n c e a lso w a s a ttac h e d to th e f irst a m e n d e d c o m p lain t. T her e fol l ow ed a s econd a m ended c om pl ai nt , i n w hi ch A r m s tr ong al l eged thatt he defe ndant s s ol i ci t ed anotheri nm at e t o s t ab hi m , and, as a r es ul t , he w as m oved t o J - bl ock w h ere h e w as se x u all yh ara ssed “o n a d ail yb asis. ” F inally , A rm str o n g fil ed a third amended compl ai nt , i n w hi ch he na m ed onl ytw o defe ndant s , U ni tC ouns el orB ry an Fl i nchbaugh a nd corr ect i onal offi cerSt ew art , and as ked thatal l otherpr evi ous l ynamed defe ndant s be t erm i nat ed fr om the ca s e. I n thi s thi r d amended compl ai nt , A r m s tr ong cl ai m ed thatF l i nch bau gh had i nterrogat ed h i m i n co nn ect i on w i th the al l eged fal se m i s conductand thathi s E i ghth A m endmentr i ght s w er e vi ol at ed byhar as s m entand di s cr i m i nat i on agai ns thi m on t he bas i s of hi s s exual or i ent at i on. N o s peci fi c al l egat i onsA f

o u rth a m e n d e d c o m p lain t w a s s trick e n f o r f a ilu re to re q u e st le a v e to f ile it. 1 T he part i es cons ent ed t o j ur i s di ct i on bya U . S. M agi s tr at e J udge pur s uantt o 28 2 U . S . C . § 6 3 6 (c)(1). 4 w ere di rect ed at M s. S t ew art . A rm strong ag ai n sou gh tm on eydam ages. 1 F li n ch b au g h an d S tew art fil ed a m o ti o n to d ism iss th e third a m en d ed co m p lai n t or, in th e a ltern a tiv e , a m o tio n f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t, alleg in g th a t A rm stro n g f a iled to e x h a u st h is a d m in istra tiv e re m e d ies w ith re sp e c t to h is c laim s b yf a ili n g to g rie v e h is al l egat i ons thr ough the fi nal l evel of the gr i evanc e pr oces s . St ew artal s o as s ert ed thats he w as notdi r ect l yi m pl i cat ed i n anyof A r m s tr ong’ s al l egat i ons . T he D ecl ar at i on of Tra cy Pol l ack, an A dm i ni s tr at i ve O ffi ceri n the D O C G r i evanc e R evi ew O ffi ce, w as s ubm i t t ed i n s uppor tof the def

endant s ’ m ot i on. Pol l ack de cl ar ed thats he had r evi ew ed A rm s tr o n g ’s re c o rd s , a n d h e h a d n e v e r p ro p e rl ya p p e a le d a n yg ri e v a n c e to f in a l r e v ie w . In a re sp o n se in o p p o sitio n to th e d e f e n d a n ts’ m o tio n , A rm stro n g d id n o t d isp u te P oll ack’s ass ert i on . Inst ead, he con t end ed thathe w as not r equ i red t o ex hau st ad m inistrati v e re m ed ies b ec au se th e d ef en d an ts w ait ed too lon g to raise the d ef en se. In an o rderenter ed o n A pri l 4, 20 08 , the C hief M agis trat e Judg e grant ed the defen dan t s’ m oti on on the b asi s that A rm strong h ad fa i l ed to exh austhis adm i nis trat i ve rem edies . 2 Judg m ent w as aw arded t o the defen dan t s. T he C l erk of thi s C our tgr ant ed A r m s tr ong l eave t o pr ocee d i n form a paupe r i s and advi s ed hi m thathi s appea l w as s ubj ectt o di s m i s s al under28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) , ort hat it m ig h t b e a p p ro p ri a te f o r s u m m a ry a c tio n 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 .5

H e w as i nvi t ed t o s ubm i ta w r i t t en r es pons e. A r m s tr ong has fi l ed a mot i on fori nj unct i ve r el i ef i n connec t i on w i th a new eventthatoccurr ed af t erthe C hi ef M agi s tr at e J udge e n te re d ju d g m e n t in f

a v o r o f th e d e f e n d a n ts a n d a g a in s t h im . We w i l l d i s m i s s th e a p p e a l a s f r i v o l o u s u n d e r2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( i ) . We have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. A n appel l antm aypr os ecut e hi s appea l w i t hout pr epaym entof the fe es , 28 U . S. C . § 1915( a) ( 1) , butthe i n form a paupe r i s s t atut e pr ovi des th a t th e C o u rt sh a ll d ism iss th e a p p e a l at a n ytim e if th e C o u rt d e ter m in e s th a t itis f riv o lo u s, 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )(2 )(B )(i). A n a p p e a l is f riv o lo u s w h e n it l a c k s a n a rg u a b le bas i s ei theri n l aw orfac t . N ei t zke v. W i l l i ams, 490 U . S. 319, 325 ( 1989) . O urr evi ew of the C h ief M ag istrate Ju d g e’s g ran t of su m m aryjud g m en t i s p lena ryan d w e m u st aff irm su m m a ryju d g m e n t if th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial f

a c t an d th e m o v in g p a rtyis ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . See C el ot ex C orp. v. C atr ett , 477 U . S. 317, 322- 2 3 (1 9 8 6 ). W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e re is n o a rg u a b le b a sis in f a c t o r la w f

o r d isa g re e in g w ith the C hi ef M agi s tr at e J udge’ s s um m aryj udgm entdet erm i nat i on. N ei t zke, 490 U . S. at 3 2 5 ; C e lo te x C o rp ., 4 7 7 U .S . a t 3 2 2 -2 3 . A pr i s onerm us texhaus tadmi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1997e( a) pr i ort o br i ngi ng s ui t . See B ooth v. C hurner , 532 U . S. 731 ( 2001) . T hi s “exha us t i on r equi r ementappl i es t o al l i nm at e s ui t s aboutpr i s on l i fe, w hethertheyi nvol ve gene r al c i r c u ms t a n c e s o rp a r t i c u l a re p i s o d e s , a n d wh e th e rth e ya l l e g e e x c e s s i v e f o r c e o rs o me otherw r ong. ” Por t erv. N us s l e, 534 U . S. 516, 532 ( 2002) . T he thr ee s t eps i n the6

P en n sy lvan ia griev an ce p roc ess a re (1 ) Init ial R ev iew p u rsua n t t o D C -A D M -80 4 P art V I . B of the i nm at e’ s fi l ed gr i evanc e; ( 2) the fi r s tappea l fr om the I ni t i al R evi ew , or A p p e a l to F a c ili tyM a n a g e r p u rsu a n t to D C -A D M -8 0 4 P a rt V I.C ; an d (3 ) a f in a l ap p e a l, th e A p p e a l to th e S e c re tar y ' s O f f ice o f In m a te G rie v a n c e s a n d A p p e a ls p u rsu a n t to D C -A D M -8 0 4 P a rt V I.D . S e e S p ru ill v . G illis , 3 7 2 F .3 d 2 1 8 , 2 3 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). T he def endant s as s ert ed thatA r m s tr ong di d nots eek f i nal r evi ew of anygr i evanc e, ( w hi ch mustnece s s ar i l yi ncl ude gr i evanc e no. 200475 conce rni ng hi s compl ai ntof s exual h a r a s s me n tr e l a t i n g t o th e u r i n e s a mp l e ) , a n d h e d o e s n o td i s p u t e th i s a s s e r t i o n . Th e t i me forcompl et i ng the gr i evanc e pr oces s has l ong s i nce pa s s ed. Pr operexhaus t i on m eans us i ng al l s t eps pr ovi ded bythe D O C and doi ng s o pr oper l ys o thati taddr es s es the i s s ues on the mer i t s . See W oodfor d v. N go, 548 U . S. 81, 90 ( 2006) . I tdemands c om pl i ance w i th the D O C ’ s deadl i nes and othercr i t i cal pr ocedur al rul es beca us e no adj udi cat i ve s y s t em can funct i on w i thouti m pos i ng s tructur e on the cour s e of i t s pr ocee di ng. I d. at90- 9 1 . S u m m aryjud g m en t w as a p p rop ri ate b ec au se A rm str o n g fa il ed to co m e f o rw ard w i th anyevi dence t o r ebutthe r ecor d evi dence thathe comm i t t ed a pr ocedur al defa ul tby fai l i ng t o compl et e the gr i evanc e pr oces s w i th r es pectt o anygr i evanc e. See Fed. R . C i v. P ro. 56 (e) ; see al so S prui l l , 37 2 F . 3d at23 0 (Pri son L i t i gati on R eform A ctcon t ai ns a pr ocedur al defa ul tcomponent ) . Fur therm or e, i n vi ew of the pr ol onged per i od dur i ng w h ich A rm stro n g c h a n g e d a n d re v ise d h is a lleg a tio n s, th e d e f e n d a n ts w e re n o t re q u ire d to7

r ai s e thi s aff

i r m at i ve def

ens e, s ee J ones v. B ock, 549 U . S. 199, — , 127 S. C t . 910, 921 (2007 ), anyearl i er. L ast , even i f w e assum e t hat A rm strong ex hau st ed h i s cl ai m against Fl i nchbaugh r el at i ng t o t he “f al s e” mi s conductand i nt err ogat i on w i thoutcouns el by s eeki ng fi nal r evi ew of the mi s conduct , cf. R ayv. K ert es , 285 F. 3d 287, 297- 98 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( decl i ni ng t o deci de ques t i on w hetherpr i s onerm ays at i s fyexhaus t i on r e q u i r e me n ti n c o u r s e o f p r o c e e d i n g s c h a r g i n g p r i s o n e rwi th mi s c o n d u c tu n d e rDC - ADM 801) , thi s cl ai m thatr es ul t ed i n a s anct i on of thi r tyday s cel l r es tr i ct i on does nottr i gger p ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e s s p ro te c tio n s . S a n d in v . C o n n e r, 5 1 5 U .S . 4 7 2 , 4 8 4 (1 9 9 5 ). C o n sti tuti o n all ym an d ated p roc ed u res a re o n lyn ec essa ryw h ere p rotec ted in terests are i nvol ved, and, underSandi n, pr ot ect ed l i bertyi nt er es t s ar e l i m i t ed t o fr eedom fr om r es tr ai ntthat“i m pos e[] atypi cal and s i gni fi canthar ds hi p on the i nm at e i n r el at i on t o the or di naryi nci dent s of pr i s on l i fe. ” I d. T he s anct i on of thi r tyday s cel l r es tr i ct i on i s i n the r ange of condi t i ons thatdo notvi ol at e a pr ot ect ed i nt er es tunderSandi n. W e w ill d is m is s th e a p p e a l a s f ri v o lo u s p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )( 2 )( B )( i) . A rm stro n g ’s m o tio n f

o r in ju n c tiv e re lief

is d e n ied w ith o u t p re

ju d ice to h is p u rsu in g h is new i ssues throug h the pri son g ri evan ce process.