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 

# K e nneth S p eight v

. H. S ims 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 . 08-2038

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 " Ke nne th S pei ght v

. H. S im s " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 951. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/9511

A L D - 234 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- 2038

___________ KEN NETH EUG ENE SPEI GH T, A ppel l ant

v. H. S I M S ; A. F OUR A; J . DOE ; D. S AL AM Y; M . P I CE RN O; a n d GI L BE RT S ON

____________________________________ 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 M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 07- 0064) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e R i char d P. C onaboy

____________________________________ S u b mi t t e d f

o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l P u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) o r 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

( O pi ni on fi l ed J une 30, 2008 )

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM K enneth E . Spei ght , a pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s or der s of the U ni t ed S tate s D istric t 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 ism iss in g h is c o m p lain t in2

partand gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entt o the def endant s . Spei ght , curr ent l yi ncar cer at ed at F C I M cK ean, fi l ed a B i ven s com plai nt agai nstB ureau o f P ri sons (“B O P ”) offi ci al s, al l egi ng thatdefe ndant s fal s i fi ed i nform at i on i n hi s fi l e i n or dert o i nfl uence hi s cus t ody cl as s i fi cat i on, for ced hi m t o s har e ce l l s w i th i nm at es havi ng a know n hi s t oryof vi ol ence , w hi ch l ed t o m ul t i pl e as s aul t s , r et al i at ed aga i ns thi m bytr ans ferr i ng hi m t o a hi gher se c u rityp e n iten tiary, a n d in ter f e re d w ith th e g rie v a n c e p ro c e ss . W e w ill su m m a rily a f f ir m . S p e ig h t w a s in c a rc e ra ted a t F C I R a yB ro o k in N e w Y o rk f o r se v e ra l y e a rs, u n til hi s tr ans feri n 2002. D ur i ng thatt i m e, Spei ghtal l eges , defe ndant s D . Sal amyand M . P ice rn o , ca se m a n a g e rs, a n d G ilb e rtso n , a p sy c h o lo g ist, fa lsif ied in f o rm a tio n in h is f

ile r egar di ng hi s di s ci pl i naryhi s t ory . T hi s fal s e i nform at i on l ed t o an i nfl at ed cl as s i fi cat i on s cor e and Spei ght ’ s pl ace m enti n hi ghers ecur i tyuni t s . T hi s ul t i m at el yl ed hi m t o be h o u s e d w ith , a n d v ic tim iz e d b y , p ri s o n e rs w ith k n o w n h is to ri e s o f v io le n c e . In 2 0 0 2 , p ri so n o ff

ici als tran sfe rred S p eigh t t o F C I A ll en w o o d in W h it e D ee r, P e n n sy lv a n ia. S p e ig h t alle g e s th a t, at F C I A llen w o o d , d e f e n d a n ts H . S im s, th e u n it m anag er, and A . F ou ra, a case m anag er, further fal si fi ed S peight ’s fi l e. T hese fal s i fi cat i ons r es ul t ed i n Spei ght ’ s pl ace m enti n a hi gh s ecur i tyuni t , w her e he w as hous ed w i th a vi ol enti nm at e w ho as s aul t ed hi m on February28, 2005. Spei ghtcompl ai ned of the i nacc ur at e i nform at i on i n hi s fi l e, and def endant s as s ur ed hi m thattheyw oul d corr ect a n yin a c c u ra c ie s . S p e ig h t la te r d is c o v e re d th a t d e f e n d a n ts h a d n o t m a d e a n yc o rr e c tio n s .3

O n Sept ember28, 2006, Spei ghtfi l ed a gr i evanc e w i th r es pectt o Si m s ’ and Four a’ s al l eged mi s conduct . T he B O P r eturned the gr i evanc e t o hi m , and i tcont ai ned a handw r i t t en not e, purpor t edl ys i gned bySpei ght , s t at i ng thathe w i s hed t o w i thdr aw t he gr i evanc e. T he B O P’ s C entr al O ffi ce de ni ed the gr i evanc e appe al on the bas i s of S p eigh t’ s d ec isi o n to w ith d raw , stat ing , “If y o u w ish to a p p ea l th is i ssu e, y o u m u st st art the appe al pr oces s atthe i ns t i tut i on l evel . ” Spei ghtthen fi l ed a s epar at e gr i evanc e s t at i ng th a th e n e v e rwi th d r e w h i s p r i o rg r i e v a n c e , a n d th a td e f e n d a n tJ . Do e , a n u n k n o wn gr i evanc e off

i cer , for ged hi s s i gnatur e i n or dert o thw artthe gr i evanc e pr oces s . T he pr i s on deni ed thatgr i evanc e af t erthe B O P anal y zed Spei ght ’ s s i gnatur e and de t erm i ned that the s ign ature w as a u then ti c, no t fo rge d . S p eigh t al so all eg es th at S im s an d F o u ra r et al i at ed aga i ns thi m forfi l i ng s ui ti n J une 2004 bytr ans ferr i ng hi m fr om a fe der al c o rr e c tio n a l in s titu tio n to a h ig h e r s e c u ri ty p e n ite n tia ry, U S P A lle n w o o d . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed Spei ght ’ s cl ai m s agai ns tdefe ndant s Sal amy , Pi cerno and G i l bert s on atFC I R ayB r ook on the bas i s of the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons , and di s m i s s ed S peight ’s cl ai m againstdefe nd ant D oe o n the groun d thatS peighthad no l i bertyi nter est in an ef fe cti v e g ri ev an ce p roc ess. S ee M asse yv . H elm an , 2 5 9 F . 3 d 6 4 1 , 6 4 7 (7th C ir . 2001) ( “[T] he exi s t ence of a pr i s on gr i evanc e pr ocedur e conf er s no l i bertyi nt er es ton a pr i s oner . ”) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tr emanded the r emai nderof the ca s e forfur ther pr ocee di ngs , and def

endant s Si m s and Four a moved fors um m aryj udgm ent . T he D i s tr i ct C o u rt g ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t o n th e g ro u n d th a t S p e ig h t h a d f a iled to e x h a u st h isSpei ghtw as tr ans ferr ed fr om R ayB r ook i n 2002, s o anyact s of fa l s i fi cat i on atR ay 1 B ro o k n e c e s s a ri ly o c c u rr e d b e f o re th a t tim e . In h is objecti o n s to the M ag istrate Ju d g e’s rep o rtrec o m m en d ing d ism issal un d er § 2 1915( e) , Spei ghtas s ert s thatthe fa l s e i nform at i on pl ace d i n hi s fi l e i n the l at e 1990s r emai ns i n hi s fi l e and c ons t i tut es a cont i nui ng vi ol at i on, s uch thatthe “s t atut e of lim itatio n s h a s n o t y e t b e g u n to ru n . . . . ” S p e ig h t d o e s n o t alle g e th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts h a v e c o n sis ten tlyf

a lsif ied h is f ile o v e r tim e ; in ste a d , h e c o m p lain s o f a f e w sp o ra d ic event s attw o di ffe r entfac i l i t i es . T her efor e, the cont i nui ng vi ol at i on theorydoes not a p p ly. S e e M c A le e s e v . B re n n a n , 4 8 3 F .3 d 2 0 6 , 2 1 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). F o r th e sa m e re aso n , S p eigh t’ s claim that u n sp ec ifi ed o ff ici als at F C I R ayB roo k w ere 3 del i ber at el yi ndi ffe r entt o hi s s afe tyw hen theyhous ed hi m i n a ce l l w i th an i nm at e w i th a know n pr opens i tyforvi ol ence i s al s o t i m e- barr ed. A ft erthe D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed Spei ght ’ s cl ai m s agai ns tSal amy , Pi cerno and G i l bert s on, Spei ghtfi l ed a mot i on forl eave t o fi l e an a m ended c om pl ai nt . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng 4 admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es , and Spei ghtappea l ed. W e a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt’s d ism iss a l o f th e c laim s a g a in st d e f

e n d a n ts Sal amy , Pi cerno and G i l bert s on. A l though the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons i s an af fi r m at i ve d e f e n s e , th e D i s tr i c tC o u r tm a y s ua s pont e d ism iss a c laim o n th a t b a sis if th e d e f e n se is ev iden t from the f

ac e o f th e c o m p lai n t. S ee R ayv . K ertes, 28 5 F . 3 d 2 8 7 , 2 9 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( su a sp o n te di s m i s s al i nappr opr i at e “unl es s the bas i s i s appar entfr om the fa ce of th e c o m p lain t.”). T h e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s f

o r a § 1 9 8 3 c laim b ro u g h t in N e w Y o rk is thr ee y ear s . E agl es t on v. G ui do, 41 F. 3d 865, 871 ( 2d C i r . 1994) . Spei ghtal l eges that Sal amy , Pi cerno and G i l bert s on fal s i fi ed hi s fi l e atFC I R ayB r ook i n N ew Y or k i n 1998, 1999 and 2002. Spei ghtdoes notal l ege thathe l acke d know l edge orthe abi l i tyt o know 1 of the harm s atthe t i m e theyoccurr ed. A ccor di ngl y , he has notal l eged a nybas i s for 2 t ol l i ng the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons , and hi s cl ai m s agai ns tthes e def endant s ar e t i m e- barr ed. 3h im lea v e to a m e n d b e c a u se S p e ig h t ca n n o t o v e rc o m e th e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s b a r a s to Sal amy , Pi cerno and G i l bert s on. W i nerFam i l yT rus tv Q ueen, 503 F. 3d 319, 330- 31 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ); In re N A H C , Inc . S ec . L it ig., 3 0 6 F . 3 d 1 3 1 4 , 1 3 3 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). M o reo v er, the pr opos ed amended compl ai ntatt ache d t o hi s m ot i on does notdi ffe rm at er i al l yfr om th e in itia l c o m p la in t. 5 W e a lso a g ree that su m m aryjud g m en t w as p rop er o n the b asis o f S p eigh t’ s fa il u re t o exhaus t . T he Pr i s on L i t i gat i on R eform A ct( “PL R A ”) r equi r es pr i s oner s t o exhaus tt he admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es avai l abl e i n pr i s on pr i ort o fi l i ng a l aw s ui t . W oodfor d v. N go, 5 4 8 U .S . 8 1 , 8 8 (2 0 0 6 ). T h e P L R A re q u ire s “ p ro p e r” e x h a u stio n , m e a n in g th a t an in m a te m us texhaus thi s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es i n compl i ance w i th the appl i cabl e pr i s on r egul at i ons . Sprui l l v. G i l l i s , 372 F. 3d 218, 222 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . T he B O P r equi r es an i nm at e t o s eek i nform al r es ol ut i on of hi s conce rns , aft erw hi ch he mayfi l e a f or m al g ri e v a n c e if

h is u n it te a m f

a ils to p ro v id e a s a tis f

a c to ry re s p o n s e . 2 8 C .F .R . § 5 4 2 .1 3 -1 4 . T he i nm at e mayappea l t o t he R egi onal D i r ect or , and then t o the C entr al O ffi ce. 28 C .F .R . § 5 4 2 .1 5 . If

th e C e n tra l O f

f ice d e n ies h is a p p e a l, th e in m a te m a yf ile a law su it. Spei ghtal l eges thathe att empt ed t o exhaus thi s cl ai m di s put i ng hi s cus t ody cl as s i fi cat i on, caus ed bySi m s ’ and Four a’ s fal s i fi cat i ons , byfi l i ng a gr i evanc e on S eptem ber 28, 2006 . S peightal l eges t hat defend ant D oe fo rged his si gn ature on a request t o “w i thdr aw ” the gr i evanc e, and thatD oe’ s for gerydeni ed hi m acc es s t o the court s by p rec lud ing h im fro m sati sfy ing the P L R A ’s ex h au sti o n req u ir em en ts. T h e re co rd demonstr at es thatB O P offi ci al s r ej ect ed Spei ght ’ s gr i evanc e appe al , butthattheygave Spei ghtthe opportuni tyt o appea l hi s cus t odycl as s i fi cat i on s t art i ng atthe i ns t i tut i onalI n hi s oppos i t i on t o defe ndant s ’ m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , Spei ghts ubm i t t ed 4 cop i es of n um erous gri evan ces he fil ed regardi ng i naccu raci es i n h i s fi l e, and defe nd ants ’ f a ilu re to c o rre c t th e m . (P l.’s O p p ., E x . M ). T h e B O P re q u ire s a n in m a te to a p p e a l h is gr i evanc e t o the age ncy ’ s C entr al O ffi ce i n or dert o ful l yexhaus thi s admi ni s tr at i ve rem edies . S ee 28 C . F . R . § 5 42 . 15 . S peightcon t end s that he di d n ot appeal because defe ndant s agr eed t o corr ectthe i nacc ur aci es i n hi s fi l e. Spei ghtas s ert s thathe di d not l earn unt i l a l at ert i m e thatthe i ncorr ecti nform at i on had notbeen c orr ect ed. O nce S p e ig h t lea rn e d th a t th e in f o rm a tio n h a d n o t b e e n c o rre c ted , h o w e v e r, h e w a s o b lig a ted to fi l e a gr i evanc e t o att empt t o r es ol ve hi s conce rns . H e bega n the pr oces s bys eeki ng i nform al r es ol ut i on of hi s conce r ns , fol l ow ed byfi l i ng a gr i evanc e dat ed Sept ember28, 2 0 0 6 . T h is g ri e v a n c e w a s th e n p u rp o rt e d ly w ith d ra w n , a n d S p e ig h t f a ile d to a p p e a l. Spei ghtal s o al l eges thatthe def endant s pl ace d hi m i n a ce l l w i th an i nm at e w i th a 5 k n o w n h is to ry o f

v io le n c e , w h o a s s a u lte d h im o n F e b ru a ry 2 8 , 2 0 0 5 , a t F C I A lle n w o o d . T he def endant s and the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notcons true the compl ai ntas s t at i ng a fr ees t andi ng E i ghth A m endmentcl ai m ar i s i ng outof the as s aul t . I ns t ead, theycons trued the a lleg a tio n s o f

a ss a u lt as re late d to S im s’ a n d F o u ra ’s a lleg e d a c ts o f f a lsif ica tio n . O n th is v iew , S im s’ a n d F o u ra ’s a c ts o f f a lsif ica tio n led to S p e ig h t’s p lac e m e n t in a h ig h se c u rity fac i l i ty , w her e he w as hous ed w i th and bea t en bya vi ol enti nm at e. T o the ext entthat Spei ght ’ s E i ghth A m endmentcl ai m ar i s es outof hi s cl ai m thatSi m s and Four a fa l s i fi ed 6 l evel . Spei ghtfai l ed t o do s o. T her efor e, the D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l yconcl uded that 4 S p eigh t had n o t exh au sted this clai m ag ains t Sim s an d F o u ra, an d g ran ted s u m m ary ju d g m e n t. W e di s agr ee w i th t he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s cons truct i on of Spei ght ’ s cl ai m agai ns tD oe, as Sp ei gh tal l eges t hat D oe’s cond uct vi olat ed S peight ’s F i rs tA m end m ent r i gh tt o acce ss t o the court s , nothi s r i ghtt o due pr oces s . R egar dl es s , a cl ai m of deni al of ac ces s t o the court s w oul d be mer i t l es s beca us e the r ecor d demonstr at es thatthe B O P gave Spei ghtan o p p o rtu n ityto a p p e a l h is g rie v a n c e re g a rd in g h is c u sto d yc las sif ica tio n , an d h e f

a iled to do s o. T her efor e, Spei ght ’ s ow n i nact i on – and notD oe’ s al l eged f or gery– pr ecl uded h i m f r o m s a t i s f

y i n g th e r e q u i r e me n t s o f th e P L RA . 5h is f

ile , th e D is tr ic t C o u rt c o rr e c tly d e te rm in e d th a t S p e ig h t f a ile d to e x h a u s t th e c la im . T o th e e x t e n tth a tS p e i g h ts o u g h tt o a s s e r ta f r e e - s t a n d i n g E i g h th Am e n d me n tc l a i m, we n o te th a t S p e ig h t co u ld h a v e a ss e rte d , b u t d id n o t as se rt, su c h a c laim e ith e r in h is o p p o sitio n to su m m a ryju d g m e n t, or in h is o b jec tio n s to th e M a g istra te J u d g e ’s r e p o rt re c o m m e n d in g su m m a ryju d g m e n t. S p e ig h t h a s a lso d e m o n stra ted h is f a m ili a rityw ith the pr act i ce of

nami ng “D oe” de fenda nt s , and w e have no bas i s forbel i evi ng thatSpei ght i ntended t o n am e add i t i on al defe nd ants , bu tthat he si m plydid not kno w theiri den t i t i es. 7 Fi nal l y , the undi s put ed evi dence demonstr at es , and Spei ghtconce des , thathe fai l ed t o exhaus thi s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es w i th r es pectt o hi s r et al i at i on cl ai m . T he D is tr ic t C o u rt p ro p e rl yg ra n te d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t a s to th a t c la im . F or the fo regoi ng reas on s, w e w i l l sum m ari l yaffirm the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s orders .