CL D- 2 7 0 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- 1447

___________ M AR K GR E E N, A ppel l ant v. D EPA RT M EN T O F CO RR EC TI O N S; JE F F R E Y B E A R D , S ecret aryof the D epartm ent of C orr ect i on s; S H A R O N B U R K E , S ec retary ' s O ff ice, G ri ev an ce C o o rdin ator; PR C C O M M I T T E E A T D A L L A S SC I ; J A M E S T . W Y N D E R , J R . , SC I - D al l as W ar den;

D E P U T Y K N E IS S ; R O B E R T B IT N E R , C h ief H ea ri n g O ff icer; E D L A N Y O N , U n i tM a n a g e r ; R O G E R L U C A S , S e c r e t a ry; A PR I L G R O M E L , L i br ar i an; PA T R I C I A H A R A D E M , L i br ar i an; OF F I CE R R OXB Y; OF F I CE R P UR CE L L ; KE VIN NAHI L L ; RO BE RT KR AH; OF F I CE R F I L I P AK; OF F I CE R T RU S Z KOWS KI ; OF F I CE R G UZ M AN; OFFI CER EV AN S; OFFI CER M AD L; OFFI CER ZELI NSK I ; OFFI CER D OLE; OFF I CERTE M P LE TON; OFF I CERP YZI A; OFF I CERF I S HER; L OUI S E CI CE RC HI A, Co u n s e l o r ; M AJ OR VINC E M OONE Y;

CA PTAI N SCH OO NO VER

____________________________________ 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. 05- cv- 02446) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Sy l vi a H . R ambo

____________________________________ S u b mi tt e df

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 dC ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n dI.O .P . 1 0 .6 A ugus t19, 2010 B efore: B A R R Y , F ISH E R and G R E E N A W A Y , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: Sept ember8, 2010)2 _________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM M arkG ree n , a p ri so n er p roc ee d ing p ro se , ap p ea ls ord ers o f th e D istri ct C o u rt den y i ng his m oti on for l eave to fi l e an am end ed co m plai nt, grant i ng the d efen dan t s’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m , and gr ant i ng the def endant s ’ m ot i on for s um m aryj udgm entbas ed on fa i l ur e t o exhaus tadmi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es . Forthe r eas ons that fol l ow , w e w i l l affirm i n p art , vacate i n p art , and rem and for further proceedings. I. G r een i ni t i at ed a c i vi l r i ght s act i on i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC ourtforthe M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, al l egi ng thatthe Penns y l vani a D epartm entof C o rre c tio n s (“ D O C ” ), v a rio u s D O C c o m p o n e n ts, an dD O C e m p lo y e e s v io late dh is rig h ts underthe Fi r s t , E i ghth, and Fourt eenth A m endment s . I n s epar at e or der s thatadopt ed a M agi s tr at e Judge’ s R eport s and R ecomm endat i ons , the D i s tr i ctC ourt : ( 1) di s m i s s ed the DOC a n di t s c o mp o n e n t s b e c a u s e th e ywe r e n o t“ p e r s o n s ” f o rp u rp o s e s o f

4 2 U. S . C. § 1983; ( 2) di s m i s s ed thos e i ndi vi dual defe ndant s agai ns tw hom no s peci fi c al l egat i ons of w r ongdoi ng w er e made i n G r een’ s amended compl ai nt ; ( 3) di s m i s s ed s ever al cl ai m s that did not i m pli cat e C on st i tuti on al prot ect i on s; and (4) grant ed the r em ai ning def end ants ’ m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm entbecaus e G r een ha d fai l ed t o exhaus thi s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es . G r een appeal ed.3 II. W e have j ur i s di ct i on overthi s appea l pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. T he D i s tr i ct C ourt ’ s deni al of a mot i on forl eave t o amend a compl ai nti s r evi ew ed forabus e of d is c re tio n . S e e K ra n tz v . P ru d e n tia l I n v . F u n dM g m t., 3 0 5 F .3 d1 4 0 , 1 4 4 (3 dC ir .2 0 0 2 ). W e e x e rc ise p len a ryre v iew o v e r th e D istric t C o u rt’s g ra n t o f th e D e f e n d a n ts’ m o tio n s to d is m is s . S e e P h illip s v . C o u n ty o f A lle g h e n y , 5 1 5 F .3 d2 2 4 , 2 3 0 (3 dC ir . 2 0 0 8 ). W e a c c e p t as tru e a ll o f

th e a lleg a tio n s c o n tain e din th e c o m p lain t an dd ra w re a so n ab le i nfer ence s i n favorof the pl ai nt i ff. See Eri cks on v. Par dus , 551 U . S. 89, 93- 94 ( 2007) (pe r cu ri am ). T o su rviv e d ism issal, a c o m p lai n t m u st co n tai n su ff ici en t fac tual m att er, a c c e p ted a s tru e , to “ sta te a c laim to re lief th a t is p lau sib le o n its f a c e .” A sh c ro f

t v . Iqb a l, 129 S. C t . 1937, 1949 ( 2009) ( ci t i ng B el l A t l ant i c C orp. v. T w om bl y , 550 U . S. 544, 570 ( 2007) ) . Pl enaryr evi ew al s o appl i es t o the or dergr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm ent . D eH artv. H orn, 390 F. 3d 262, 267 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . Sum m aryj udgm enti s pr operw her e, vi ew i ng the e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o st f a v o ra b le to th e n o n m o v in g p a rtya n dd ra w in g a ll i n f e re n c e s in f a v o r o f th a t p a rty , the re is n o g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial f

a c t an dth e m o v in g p a rtyis e n tit led to ju d g m e n t as a m a tter o f law . S e e F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (c )(2 ); K a u c h e r v . C o u n ty o f B u ck s, 4 5 5 F . 3 d4 1 8 , 4 2 2 -23 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). III . T h e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rlyd ism iss e dth e c laim s b ro u g h t ag a in st th e D O C a n dits component s . U nderthe El eventh A m endment , s t at es and s t at e age nci es ar e i m m une fr om4

s ui ti n fede r al court . See, e. g. , Puert o R i co A queductand Sew erA uth. v. M et cal f & E ddy , I nc. , 506 U . S. 139, 144 ( 1993) . B ecaus e the Penns y l vani a D O C i s a partof the exec ut i ve departm entof the C om m onw eal th of Penns y l vani a, i ts har es i n the C om m onw eal th’ s E l eventh A m endmenti m m uni ty . See Lavi a v. Penns y l vani a, 224 F. 3d 190, 195 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . T he El eventh A m endmental s o pr ovi ded i m m uni tyt o the i ndi vi dual defe ndant s t o the ext entthattheyw er e s ued i n thei roffi ci al capa ci t i es . See W illv . M ich ig a n D e p ’t o f S tate P o lice , 4 9 1 U .S . 5 8 , 7 1 (1 9 8 9 ). W e h a v e p re v io u sly not ed thatthe C om m onw eal th of Penns y l vani a has notw ai ved i t s r i ght s underthe E leve n th A m en d m en t. S ee L av ia, 2 2 4 F . 3 dat 19 5 ; 42 P a. C o n st. S tat . A n n . § 8 5 2 1 (b). I V. T o the ext entthe D O C empl oy ees w er e s ued i n thei ri ndi vi dual capa ci t i es , the D i stri ctC ou rtado pted the M agis trat e Judg e’s recom m end at i on t o d i sm i ss tho se d ef en d an ts ag ains t w h o m n o claim s w ere asse rt ed in G ree n ’s am en d ed co m p lai n t. In part i cular , the M agis trat e Judg e con cl ud ed that“w i tho ut fact s t o sho w ho w [these defe nd ants ] al l eged l yviol at ed [G reen’ s] ci vilri gh t s, there i s no v i able cl ai m against them . ” T h e F ed era l Ru les o f C ivilP roc ed u re req u ir e tha t a co m p lai n t con tai n “a sh o rt a n dp l a i n s t a t e me n to f

th e c l a i m s h o wi n g th a tth e p l e a d e ri s e n t i t l e dt o r e l i e f , ” F e d . R. C iv . P . 8 (a )( 2 ), a n dth a t e a c h a v e rm e n t b e “ c o n c is e , a n dd ir e c t,” F e d . R . C iv . P . 8 (d )( 1 ). G ener al l y , how ever , w her e the compl ai nti s defi ci ent , a di s tr i cts houl d pr ovi de a pl ai nt i ff5

w ith leav e to a m en db ef o re d ism issal. S ee S h an e v . F au v er, 21 3 F . 3 d1 1 3 , 1 1 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). I n G r een’ s compl ai nt , w hi ch w as l at ercons ol i dat ed w i th a compl ai ntthathe had f iled in a se p a ra te a c tio n (th e “ o rig in a l co m p lain ts” ), h e n a m e da s d e f e n d a n ts in d iv idu a ls w ho w orked atSC I - G r at er for d, SC I - C amp H i l l , and SC I - D al l as . G r een then fi l ed a m o tio n to a m e n dh is c o m p la in t to a d da d d itio n a l c la im s a g a in s t S C I- D a lla s e m p lo y e e s . B yor derent er ed M ay16, 2006, the M agi s tr at e Judge gr ant ed G r een’ s m ot i on, buts t at ed: A l though the pl ai nt i ff a ccompani ed hi s m ot i on t o amend w i th a pr opos ed “ A m e n d e dC o m p lain t,” th a t d o c u m e n t is in c o m p lete in itse lf , as it o n ly in c lu d e s th e p la in tif

f’s c la im s w ith re s p e c t to th e S C I- D a lla s d e f e n d a n ts . A s it n o w sta n d s, a n ya ttem p t to d e c ip h e r th e p lain tiff’s c laim s, w o u ld r equi r e the courtand/ orthe def endant s t o l ook t o the pl ai nt i ff’ s or i gi nal compl ai nt ; the compl ai ntand mat er i al s fi l ed [i n] C i vi l A ct i on N o. 3: 05: 2562, w hi ch w as cons ol i dat ed i nt o the i ns t antact i on; and the p lain tiff’s n o w p ro p o se da m e n d e dc o m p lain t. T h e re f o re , in o rd e r to s i m pl i fythe r ecor d, the pl ai nt i ff w i l l be r equi r ed t o fi l e one, al l - i ncl us i ve a m e n d e dc o m p la in t.” G r een f i l ed a s econd a m ended c om pl ai nt , buti tt oo fai l ed t o r eas s ertcl ai m s agai ns tthe SC I - G r at er for d and SC I - C amp H i l l defe ndant s . C ons equent l y , thos e def endant s fi l ed m ot i ons t o di s m i s s . G r een then fi l ed anotherm ot i on t o amend hi s compl ai nt , as s ert i ng th a t h e m isu n d e rsto o dth e M a g istra te J u d g e ’s o rd e r a n d“ d idn o t kn o w th a t h e h a dto r es t at e hi s cl ai m s agai ns teverybodys t art i ng w i th the def endant s atG r at er for d pr i s on. ” T h e M ag istrate Ju d g e d en ied th e m o ti o n , n o ti n g that the M arc h 1 6 , 2 0 0 6 o rde r w as “ v ery cl earand s peci fi c. ” I n di s m i s s i ng the cl ai m s w hi ch had be en i ncl uded i n the or i gi nal compl ai nt s butom i tt ed fr om the amended compl ai nt , the M agi s tr at e Judge emphas i zedT he def endant s oppos ed G r een’ s m ot i on forl eave t o fi l e a s econd a m ended 1 c o m p la in t, b u t th e yd id n o t a rg u e th a t g ra n tin g le a v e to a m e n dw o u ld p re ju d ic e th e m . Inst ead, theyargued that G reen “cho se t o ignore [the M agis trat e Judg e’s ] i nstruct i on s” an dasse rt ed that G ree n ’s “a tt em p ts t o k ee p ad d ing claim s fo r diff ere n t i n sti tuti o n s are p ri m a ri ly d e s ig n e dto c ir c u m v e n t th e P ri s o n L itig a tio n R e f o rm A c t.” 6 thatG r een ha d al r eadybeen a l l ow ed t o amend hi s compl ai ntonce, thathe had be en “s tr ongl ydi r ect ed” t o m ake the compl ai ntcompl et e i n i t s el f, thatthe ca s e had be en p e n d in g f

o r o v e r o n e y e a r w ith o u t an yre sp o n siv e p lea d in g s b e in g f iled , an dth a t itw o u ld be inequ i t able t o the defen dan t s t o all ow the “co nti nu ed langu i shm ent of the case ag ai nst th e m .” F e d e ra l R u le o f

C iv il P ro c e d u re R u le 1 5 (a ) f a v o rs a llo w in g a m e n d m e n ts to compl ai nt s “w hen j us t i ce s o r equi r es , ” i n the abs ence of anyappar entordecl ar ed r eas on, s uch as undue del ay , bad fa i th, orundue pr ej udi ce. See Fom an v. D avi s , 371 U . S. 178, 182 ( 1962) . A l though the M agi s tr at e Judge’ s i ns truct i on t o fi l e an a m ended c om pl ai nt thatw as “compl et e i n and of i t s el f” w as cl ear , ther e i s no i ndi cat i on thatgr ant i ng a s econd mot i on t o amend w oul d nothave pr ej udi ced the def endant s . Farfr om

1 “l angui s h[i ng] , ” the ca s e had be en pr ocee di ng forl es s than t en months w hen G r een f i l ed hi s s econd mot i on t o amend. M or eover , G r een di d notacti n bad fa i th, the s econd amended compl ai ntw oul d nothave c hanged the theoryof the ca s e, and, s i gni fi cant l y , the defe ndant s w er e fa m i l i arw i th the cl ai m s G r een s oughtt o add bec aus e theyhad bee n i ncluded i n the ori ginal com plai nts .T h e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rlya d o p ted th e M a g istra te J u d g e ’s r e c o m m e n d a tio n to 2 d is m is s G re e n ’s a lle g a tio n th a t c e rt a in d e f e n d a n ts v e rb a lly h a ra s s e da n dth re a te n e dh im . See, e. g. , M cB r i de v. D eer , 240 F. 3d 1287, 1291 n. 3 ( 10th C i r . 2001) ( expl ai ni ng that “ac t s orom i s s i ons r es ul t i ng i n an i nm at e bei ng s ubj ect ed t o nothi ng m or e than thr eat s and verbal t aunt s do notvi ol at e the Ei ghth A m endment ”) ; Patt on v. Pr zyby l s ki , 822 F. 2d 697, 700 ( 7th C i r . 1987) ( “D efa m at i on i s nota depr i vat i on of l i bertyw i thi n the meani ng of the due pr oces s cl aus e. ”) . I n addi t i on, w e agr ee thatG r een’ s acc es s t o the court s cl ai m fai l ed t o the ext entthathe fa i l ed t o i dent i fya non- fr i vol ous cl ai m w hi ch he w as pr event ed fr om p r e s e n t i n g . S e e L e w i s v . C a s e y, 5 1 8 U . S . 3 4 3 , 3 5 2 - 5 3 ( 1 9 9 6 ) ; C h r i s t o p h e rv . H a rb u ry, 5 3 6 U .S . 4 0 3 , 4 1 5 -1 7 (2 0 0 2 ). F in a lly , G re e n f a iled to sta te a c laim f

o r d e p riv a tio n o f

h is Fourt eenth A m endmentr i ght s . See Sandi n v. C onnor , 515 U . S. 472, 483- 84 ( 1995) (h o ld in g th a t li b e rtyin ter e sts p ro tec ted b yth e D u e P ro c e ss C lau se a re g e n e ra llylim ited to fre ed o m fro m restrai n t th at i m p o ses a n atyp ical an dsign ifi ca n t hard sh ip o n an inm ate); 7 U nderthes e ci r cumst ance s , and i n l i ghtof G r een’ s pr o s e s t atus , w e conc l ude that th e d e n ia l o f

h is m o tio n to f

ile a s e c o n da m e n d e dc o m p la in t w a s a n ab u s e o f d is c re tio n . C ons equent l y , w e w i l l s um m ar i l yvaca t e the or derdeny i ng G r een’ s m ot i on t o fi l e a se c o n da m e n d e dc o m p lain t, as w e ll as th a t p o rtio n o f th e o rd e r g ra n tin g th e m o tio n to di s m i s s w hi ch r ej ect ed thos e cl ai m s thathad bee n i ncl uded i n the or i gi nal compl ai nt s but om i tt ed fr om the amended compl ai nt . O n r emand, the D i s tr i ctC ourts houl d perm i tG r een t o fil e an am end ed co m plai nt cont ai ning the clai m s r ai sed i n h i s ori ginal com plai nts . V. A ft erthe D i s tr i ctC ourtgr ant ed the mot i ons t o di s m i s s , onl ytw o cl ai m s r emai ned p e n d in g : (1 ) a n a lleg a tio n th a t ce rta in e m p lo y e e s is su e df a lse m isc o n d u c t re p o rts in r et al i at i on forG r een f

i l i ng gr i evanc es ; and ( 2) an al l egat i on thata U ni tM anage r pr event ed G r een f

r om t i m el yfi l i ng an appe al i n thi s C ourtbyconfi s cat i ng hi s l egal paper s . T hos e def

endant s fi l ed a mot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , ar gui ng thatG r een 2M eac hum v. Fano, 427 U . S. 215, 224- 25 ( 1976) ( hol di ng thata pr i s onerdoes nothave a

l i bertyi nt er es ti n a part i cul arhous i ng l ocat i on orcus t odyl evelw hi l e underthe juri sd ict ion o f c o rrecti o n al au tho ri ti es); Jam es v . Q u inlan , 8 6 6 F . 2 d6 2 7 , 6 2 9 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 9 ) (s tatin g th a t th e D u e P ro c e ss C lau se d o e s n o t g ra n t p riso n e rs a c o n stitu tio n a lly p rotec ted libertyo r pro p ertyinterest i n their prison job assig n m en ts) . 8 f a i l e dt o e x h a u s th i s a d mi n i s tr a t i v e r e me d i e s p r i o rt o c o mm e n c i n g th e p r e s e n ta c t i o n . An aff i davi tpr epar ed bya pr i s on offi ci al w ho had r evi ew ed fi l es of i nm at e gr i evanc es i ndi cat ed that , pr i ort o fi l i ng hi s or i gi nal compl ai nt , G r een ha d appea l ed t o fi nal r evi ew nine gri evan ces. A ft er tho rough l yrevi ew i ng the record, w e agree that none of those gr i evanc es i nvol ved the r et al i at i on and ac ces s t o the court s cl ai m s thats urvi ved the m oti on s t o d i sm i ss. G r een not es that , i n the per i od betw een the fi l i ng of hi s or i gi nal and amended compl ai nt s , he pr oper l ypur s ued thr ough fi nal r evi ew 11 addi t i onal gr i evanc es . T he D i s tr i ctC ourtr efus ed t o cons i derthos e gr i evanc es , how ever , hol di ng thatG r een w as re q u ire dto e x h a u st h is a d m in istra tiv e re m e d ies p rio r to f ili n g h is c o m p lain t, no t h is amended compl ai nt . I ti s w el l - s ett l ed thatexhaus t i on m us toccurpr i ort o fi l i ng the ac t i on i n fede r al court . See B ooth v. C hurner , 532 U . S. 731, 738- 39 ( 2001) ; A hm ed v. D r agovi ch, 297 F. 3d 201, 209 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . T hi s i s nota ca s e w her e the caus e of a ct i on di d noty etexi s tatthe t i m e G r een f i l ed the or i gi nal compl ai nt s . C f. B arnes v. B r i l ey , 420 F . 3 d6 7 3 , 6 7 9 (7th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (ho lding , in ac ti o n o ri g inallyb rou g h t un d er the F ed era l T o rt C l ai m s A ct , thatthe “f

i l i ng of the amended compl ai nt[cont ai ni ng § 1983 cl ai m s ] w as the f u n c tio n a l eq u iv a len t o f

f ili n g a n e w c o m p lain t, . . . a n dit w a s o n lya t th a t ti m e th a t itG re e n ’s m o tio n f o r a p p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n s e l is d e n ie d . S e e T ab ro n v . G ra c e , 6 3 F .3 d1 4 7 , 1 5 5 -5 7 (3 dC ir. 1 9 9 3 ). H is “ A p p lica tio n f o r C e rtific a te o f

A p p e a lab ili ty ” is d e n i e da s u n n e c e s s a ry. 9 b e c a m e n e c e ss a ryto h a v e e x h a u ste dth e a d m in istra tiv e re m e d ies a g a in st th e sta te defe ndant s . ”) . A ccor di ngl y , w e agr ee thatG r een f ai l ed t o exhaus thi s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es as t o the r et al i at i on and ac ces s t o the court s cl ai m s thatar e i dent i fi ed above . V I. F o r th e f o reg o ing rea so n s, w e w il l sum m aril yv ac ate the o rde r de n y ing G ree n ’s m ot i on t o fi l e a s econd a m ended c om pl ai nt , as w el l as thatport i on of the or derent er ed M ar ch 20, 2007, w hi ch di s m i s s ed the cl ai m s thathad bee n i ncl uded i n the or i gi nal c o m p lain ts b u t o m itt e df ro m th e a m e n d e dc o m p lain t, an dw illre m a n dw ith in stru c tio n s to perm i tthe fil i ng of an am end ed co m plai nt cont ai ning tho se cl ai m s. In al l otherres pects , w e w il l aff

irm the o rde rs gra n ti n g the d ef en d an ts’ m o ti o n s to d ism iss an dfo r sum m ary j udgm ent . See Thi r d C i r . L A R 27. 4; I . O . P. 10. 6.

3