2010 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 7-19-2010 

# Frank R i ve ra v . P A D ept C orr 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 . 10-1453

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_2010

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 2010 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
" F r ank R ive r a v . P A D ept C orr " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 938. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/9381

AL D- 2 3 4 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. 10- 1453

___________ F RA NK R I VE RA , A ppel l ant
v . P E N N S Y L V A N IA D E P A R T M E N T O F C O R R E C T IO N S ; J E F F R E Y B E A R D , S e c re ta ry o f

C o rr e c tio n s ; L O U IS S . F O L IN O , S u p e ri n te n d e n t; D A N D A V IS , Gr i e v a n c e Co o r d i n a t o r ; DOR E NA VARNE R, Ch i e f Gr i e v a n c e Of

f i c e r ; DI ANE T H O M A S , S u p e ri n te n d e n t A s s is ta n t; M A J O R G R A IN E Y ; C A P T A IN W A L K E R , R H U C ap tai n ; R O B E R T L . K E N N E D Y , R H U L ieuten an t; M S
. B A L E S T R IE R I, Co u n s e l o r ; M S
. NI CK OL AS , Co u n s e l o r ; DR . KHAN, P s y c h i a tr i s t ; DR . E UGE NE P O L M U L L E R , P sy chiatri stS up ervi sor; JO H N M C A N A N Y , R egis t ered N urse

Sup e r vi s or ; J O H N / J A N E D O ES

____________________________________ 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. 09- cv- 01009) M agi s tr at e J udge: H onor abl e C athyB i s s oon

____________________________________ 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 ul y1, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , A M B R O A N D SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( fi l ed: J ul y19, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________2

P E R C UR I AM A ppel l antFr ank R i ver a, pr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s fr om the j udgm entof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct C our t for the W es t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a ent er ed on J anuary22, 2010, g ra n tin g th e a p p e llee s’ m o tio n s to d ism iss
. F o r th e re a so n s sta ted h e re in , w e w ill su m m a rily
a f f ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt . I n A ugus t2009, R i ver a fi led a com pl ai ntagai ns tthe Penns y l vani a D epart m entof C orr ect i ons , s ever al pr i s on offi ci al s , and t he pri s on’ s ps y chi atr i s t s , r ai s i ng cl ai m s under42 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 f

o r F irst, E ig h th , an d F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t v io latio n s. R iv e ra is a n in m a te
co n fin ed in the R estri cted H o u sing U n it ( R H U ) a t th e S C I-G ree n e p ri so n . R ivera
co m p lai n ed that as a d ir ec t resu lt o f the ex ce ssive an d ince ssan t n o ise cre ated b y the o ff icers
s l amm i ng door s everyt i m e theyexi tthe hous i ng pod aft ers ecur i tyr ounds , he i s aw akene d fr om s l eep every thi r ty m i nut es . H e al l eged t hats uch “i nhum ane” condi t i ons have de pr i ved h im o f a d e q u a te sle e p a n d , th a t a s a c o n se q u e n c e , h e h a s s u f f e re d f ro m a d v e rse e f

f e c ts o n h is h e a lth s u c h a s s tr e s s , a n x ie ty, f a tig u e a n d d e p re s s io n . In an at t em pt t o res olve the problem , R i vera verbal l y com plai ned t o the pri son g uards, hi s couns el or , and hi s ps y chi atr i s t on s ever al occa s i ons . H e al s o fi l ed s ever al w ri t t en
com plai nts t o v ari ou s pri son o ffi ci al s. W hen his com plai nts fai l ed to p ro d u c e anyres ult s, he t i m el yfi l ed G r i evanc e #206769 on N ovemb er 2 , 2007. H ow ever , the gr i evanc e w as
re jec ted b yth e F a c il it y G r iev a n c e C o o rd in a to r b e c a u se it ex c e e d e d th e tw o -p a g e lim it. Ra th e r th a n a me n d th e g r i e v a n c e t o c o mp l ywi th th e p r o c e d u r a l r e q u i r e me n t s o u t l i n e d i n DC-3

A D M 804, R i ver a fi l ed an appeal
. R i ver a r ece i ved a r es pons e fr om the Secr et ary ’ s O ffi ce of I nm at e G r i evanc es and A ppeal s , not i fy i ng hi m thathi s appea l w as fi l ed w i thoutact i on beca us e hi s i ni t i al gr i evanc e fai l ed t o compl y w i th the tw o- page l i m i t . I n r es pons e to the deni al of hi s appea l , R ivera fi l ed the i ns t antact i on s eeki ng a dec l ar at oryj udgm ent : 1) enj oi ni ng the def

endant s fr om cr eat i ng exce s s i ve noi s e; and 2) enj oi ni ng defe ndant s B ear d, Fo li no, and the D epart m entof C orr ect i ons fr om enfor ci ng cert ai n pol i ci es out l i ned i n t he D e p a rt m e n t o f

C o rr e c tio n s h a n d b o o k
. T he D epart m entof C orr ect i ons defe ndant s fi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s ar gui ng t hat R i vera fai l ed t o exhau st adm i nis trat i ve r em edies , am on g other second arya rg u m ents . D efe ndant s M ohamm ad K han and Eugene Pol m uel l er , ps y chi atr i s t s empl oy ed byt he De p a r t me n to f

Co r r e c t i o n s , j o i n e d t h e mot i o n t o d i s mi s s , a n d s e p a r a t e l yf i l e d th e i ro wn
m ot i on t o di s m i s s , ar gui ng thatR i ver a fa i l ed t o s t at e a c l ai m agai ns tthem. T he D i s tr i ct C o u rt g r a n te d b o th m o tio n s to d ism iss , h o ld in g th a t R iv e ra h a d f a iled to e x h a u st h is
a d m in istra tiv e re m e d ies . R iv e ra f iled a tim e lyn o tice o f

a p p e a l. W e h a v e ju risd ictio n o v e r t h is a p p e a l p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . B e c a u se th is ap p ea l prese n ts no “su b stan ti al qu esti o n ,” w e w il l sum m aril yaf firm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s
o rd e r. 3 d C ir . L A R 2 7 .4 & I.O .P . 1 0 .6
. A n in m a te m u st e x h a u st h is a d m in is tr a tiv e re m e d ies p rio r to f ili n g a c iv il ac tio n in fede r al court . See B ooth v. C hurner , 532 U . S. 731, 738- 39 ( 2001) ; s ee al s o N yhui s v. R eno, 2 0 4 F . 3 d 6 5 , 7 8 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 0 ) (find ing that ex h au sti o n m u st o cc u r b ef o re filin g s u it ).4

Fur therm or e, court s do notr ecogni ze a “fut i l i ty ” exce pt i on t o the admi ni s tr at i ve exha us t i on
r equi r ement . See N yhui s , 204 F. 3d at 78. M or e i m por t ant l y , “pr operexhaus t i on” r equi r es a pr i s onert o compl yw i th an age ncy ’s deadl i nes and othercr i t i cal pr ocedur al rul es . See W oodfor d v. N go, 548 U
. S. 81, 90- 91 ( 2006)
. W hi l e a pr i s onerm us tcompl yw i th pr i s on p ro c e d u re s, “ c o m p lian c e w ith th e a d m in istra tiv e re m e d y sc h e m e w ill b e sa tisf a c to ry if it i s
s u b s ta n tia l.” S e e N yh u is , 2 0 4 F .3 d a t 7 7 -7 8
. A p p ly in g th e se leg a l h o ld in g s, th e D istric t C o u rt h e ld th a t R iv e ra f a iled to e x h a u st h is
a d m in istra tiv e re m e d ies f o r th e f o llo w in g re a so n s: 1 ) h is f a ilu re to e v e n a ttem p t to c o m p ly
w ith th e tw o -p a g e lim itatio n w a s a s u f f ic ie n t b a sis f

o r d e ter m in in g th a t h e f a iled to

“ su b sta n tiallyc o m p ly ” w ith th e leg iti m a te a d m in istra tiv e a p p e a ls p ro c e ss ; an d 2 ) h is
ar gum entthathi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed bythe enf or cementof the pr o ce dur al requi rem ent i s w i tho ut m eri t . B ecause w e agree t hat he fai l ed to properl yexh aust admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es , w e ca nnotr eac h the m er i t s of hi s exce s s i ve noi s e cl ai m atthi s t i m e. A ddi t i onal l y , R i ver a as s ert ed thatthe tw o- page pr ocedur al r equi r ementi t s el f vi ol at ed hi s Fi r s tA m endm en t ri g ht s and thatexcl udi ng “condi t i ons of conf i nement ” fr om bei ng rep o rt ed as a b u se a lso v iolated h is co n sti tuti o n a l ri g h ts. T h ese co n sti tuti o n al claim s are
w ith o u t m e ri t. S e e W o o d f o rd , 5 4 8 U .S
. a t 9 5 ; Jo n e s v . N .C
. P ri s o n e rs ’ L a b o r U n io n , In c ., 4 3 3 U . S
. 1 1 9 , 1 2 9 -31 (19 7 7 ). A cc o rdin g ly , w e w il l su m m aril y af firm the de cisi o n o f th e D istri ct C o u rt . S ee 3 d C ir
. L A R 27. 4 & I . O
. P. 10. 6.