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 Third C ir c uit 6-26-2009 

# T ito Reyes v . Ra ymond S obin a P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-1348

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re 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 Third C irc 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 by 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 more 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 " Tit o Reye s v

. Ra ymond S o b in a" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1118. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2009/1118BL D- 2 0 9 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED S TATES 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- 1348

___________ TI TO RE Y ES, A ppel l ant v . R A Y M O N D S O B IN A , S u p e rin ten d e n t; DE P UT Y S UP T . BA RO NE

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt forthe W es t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 08- cv- 00067) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le S e a n J. M c L a u g h lin

____________________________________ 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 11, 2009 B efor e: M C K E E , FI SH E R and C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J une 26, 2009 )

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM T it o R ey es, an inm ate a t SC I-Fo rest, ap p ea ls from an o rde r of the D istri ct C o u rt g ra n tin g s u m m a ry 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 in th is p ro s e c iv il r ig h ts a c tio n . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf

o l l o w, we wi l l s u mma r i l ya f f i r m.“I f, on a mot i on underR ul e 12( b) ( 6) . . . m att er s out s i de the pl eadi ngs ar e pr es ent ed 1 to an d n o t exc lud ed b ythe c o u rt , the m o ti o n m u st be tr ea ted a s o n e f o r sum m ary j udgm entunderR ul e 56. ” Fed. R . C i v. P. 12( d) . H er e, the def endant s s ubm i t t ed evi dence w i th thei rm ot i on t o di s m i s s . I n addi t i on, the C om m onw eal th' s R ul e 12( b) m ot i on i nvi t ed th e D is tr ic t C o u rtto c o n v e rtit to a re q u e s t f o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t if n e c e s s a ry. A cc o rdin g ly , R ey es w as su ff ici en tl yo n n o ti ce o f th e p o ssible co n v ersion to su m m ary j udgm ent . See I n r e R ockef el l erC tr . Pr ops . , I nc. Sec. L i t i g. , 184 F. 3d 280, 288- 89 ( 3d

2 R e y e s f iled a n a c tio n p u rsu a n t to 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 , alle g in g th a t p riso n o f f icia ls vi ol at ed hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s bypr ovi di ng poorm edi cal car e r egar di ng the r emoval of hi s cat ar act s and byor der i ng hi m t o w or k w i th haza r dous chemi cal s i n the ki t chen a ft er hi s s ur gery . T he def

endant s fi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s on the gr ound thatR ey es had fa i l ed t o exhaus thi s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es as r equi r ed bythe Pr i s on L i t i gat i on R eform A ct ( “PL R A ”) . 42 U . S. C . § 1997e( a) . T o s uppor tthe mot i on, the def endant s s ubm i t t ed a decl ar at i on fr om C hr i s t i na K ennedy , the pr i s on s uper i nt endent ’ s as s i s t ant , i ndi cat i ng that R ey es had s ubm i t t ed onl yone gr i evanc e w hi l e i ncar cer at ed atSC I - For es t . T hatgr i evanc e w as d ated Jan u ary3 1 , 2 0 0 8 , an d itw as re jected as u n ti m elyb ec au se itrelated to w o rk i s s ues fr om 2006 and 2007. A ccor di ng t o K ennedy ’ s decl ar at i on, R ey es di d notappea l this decis i on . In hi s bri ef i n o pp osi t i on t o the defen dan t s’ m oti on , R ey es di d n ot address the issu e o f e x h au sti o n o r pro v ide e v iden ce that h e h ad co m p li ed w ith the p ri so n ’s g ri e v a n c e p ro c e d u re ; in s te a d , h e m e re ly re ite ra te d th e m e ri ts o f h is c a s e . T he M agi s tr at e J udge tr eat ed the def endant s ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s as one for s um m aryj udgm entand r ecomm ended thati tbe gr ant ed bec aus e R ey es had notexhaus t ed hi s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es i n acc or dance w i th the PL R A . R ey es di d notobj ectt o the 1C ir. 1 9 9 9 ). In a n ye v e n t, w e n o te th a t R e y e s re sp o n d e d to th e C o m m o n w e a lth ' s m o tio n to

d i s m i s s b y s u b m i t t i n g o u t s i d e m a t e r i a l o f h i s o w n . M o r e o v e r , th e M a g i s tr a t e J u d g e 's R eportand R ecomm endat i on m ade e xpl i ci tthe conve r s i on t o s um m aryj udgm ent , and Re y e s wa s g i v e n t i me t o f i l e o b j e c t i o n s . He d i d n o t . F o rth e s a k e o f c o mp l e t e n e s s , we not e that

— i n s om e ca s es , anyw ay— i ti s acc ept abl e t o di s m i s s a pr i s oner ' s compl ai nt under42 U . S. C . § 1997e( a) atthe pl eadi ngs s t age. See, e. g. , Sprui l l v. G i l l i s , 372 F. 3d 2 1 8 , 2 2 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). 3 M agi s tr at e J udge’ s r eport . B yor derent er ed J anuary8, 2009, the D i s tr i ctC our tadopt ed the M agi s tr at e J udge’ s r ecomm endat i on and gr ant ed the def endant s ’ m ot i on. R ey es then f iled a tim e lya p p e a l. W e h a v e ju risd ictio n to h e a r th is a p p e a l. 28 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . S u m m a ryju d g m e n t is pr oper , and the movi ng partyi s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw , w her e, vi ew i ng th e 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 d d ra w in g a ll i nf e r e nc e s i n f

a vo rof tha tpa r ty , no ge nu i ne i s s ue of mat e r i a l fa c te xi s t s . Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 56 (c) ; K auch er v. C ou ntyof B uck s, 45 5 F . 3d 41 8, 42 2-23 (3d C i r. 20 06 ). W e exerci se pl enaryr evi ew overthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or dergr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm ent . C amp v. B re n n a n , 2 1 9 F .3 d 2 7 9 , 2 8 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). T h e P L R A p ro h ib its a n in m a te f ro m b rin g in g a c iv il righ ts s u it alle g in g sp e c if ic a c ts o f u n c o n stitu tio n a l co n d u c t b yp riso n o f f icia ls u n til h e h a s e x h a u ste d a v a ilab le admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es . 42 U . S. C . § 1997e( a) . “[E] xhaus t i on i s m andat oryunderthe PLR A a nd . . . un e xh a us t e d c l a i ms c a nn otbe br ou gh ti n c ou r t . ” J on e s v. Bock , 54 9 U. S. 19 9, 21 1 (200 7). P enn sy l van i a’s Inm at e G ri evan ce S y st em , D C -A D M 80 4, requi res a p riso n e r to f

o llo w a th re e -ste p re v iew p ro c e ss : A n in iti a l g rie v a n c e m u st b e su b m itt e d to4

the G ri ev an ce C o o rdin ator w ith in 1 5 d ay s af ter th e e v en ts up o n w h ich th e c lai m s are b a se d . S e e D C -A D M 8 0 4 , P a rt V I.A .8 . If th e G rie v a n c e C o o rd in a to r’s d e c isio n is adver s e t o the i nm at e, i tcan be appea l ed t o the l ocal pr i s on’ s Faci l i tyM anage ror Super i nt endent . See D C - A D M 804, Par tV I . C . O nce the i nt erm edi at e dec i s i on i s m ade, the i nm at e has 15 day s fr om the dat e thatthe dec i s i on w as r ece i ved t o fi l e a f i nal appea l wi th th e Of

f i c e o f I n ma t e Gr i e v a n c e s a n d Ap p e a l s . S e e DC - ADM 8 0 4 , P a r tVI . D. I n s uppor tof thei rm ot i on t o di s m i s s , the def endant s s ubm i t t ed a de cl ar at i on i ndi cat i ng thatR ey es had “f i l ed onl yone gr i evanc e w hi l e atSC I - For es t , on J anuary31, 2008, [that ] [i ] tw as r ej ect ed as unt i m el ybeca us e i tr el at ed t o w or k i s s ues fr om 2006 and 2007, . . . [and] that[h] e di d notappea l the r ej ect i on . . . . ” R ey es di d notpr es entany evi dence t o contr adi ctthe def endant s ’ cl ai m thathe had f ai l ed t o compl yw i th the P L RA ’ s e x h a u s t i o n r e q u i r e me n t . S e e F e d . R. Ci v . P . 5 6 ( e ) . Un d e rth e c i r c u ms t a n c e s , we a g re e th a t R e y e s f

a ile d to e x h a u s t h is a v a ila b le a d m in is tr a tiv e re m e d ie s . Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , 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 . A c c o rd in g ly, w e w ill 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 .