DL D- 2 2 2 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- 1692

___________ K EI TH D A N I ELS, A ppel l ant v . LT . TE RRANCE T . ROS ENBE RGER; S GT. ALL AN J . W EBB ; C. O. RAY W . BLOOR; C. O. L AR RY T WI GG; C. O. J E F F RE Y AL BA ; C. O. WALT E R C OUS I NS ; C. O. ANT HONY J . AL I ANI E L L O; C. O. D. A. Z I M M E RMAN; J OHN AMDRAD E

____________________________________ 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. 1- 05- cv- 01601) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Y vett e K ane

____________________________________ 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 J une 17, 2010 B efor e: FU E N T E S, J O R D A N and H A R D I M A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J ul y7, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM K eith D an iel s, a P en n sy lvan ia st ate inm ate, ap p ea ls pro se f rom a D istri ct C o u rt order deny i ng reconsi derat i on of a g rantof sum m aryj ud gm ent for defend ants . B ecause2

th e ap p e a l p r e s e n t s n o s u b s t a n t i a l q u e s t i o n , we wi l l s u mma r i l ya f f i rm. On Au g u s t8 , 2 0 0 5 , Da n i e l s f i l e da c i v i l r i g h t s c o mp l a i n tp u r s u a n tt o 4 2 U. S . C. § 1 9 8 3 , c l a i mi n g th a tg u a r d s a tth e S t a t e Co rr e c t i o n a l I n s t i tu t i o n a tCa mp Hi l l ( S CI - Ca mp H ill ) u se de x c e ss iv e f

o rc e a n da ra c ial e p ith e t ag a in st h im o n A u g u st 1 3 , 2 0 0 3 . D a n iels fi l ed an am end ed co m plai nt on S eptem ber 5, 20 06 , rai si ng the ex cessi ve fo rce cl ai m as a v io latio n o f

h is d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts a n da lleg in g th a t g u a rd s a ss a u lted h im a n dd e n ied h im a c c e ss to a d e q u a te m e d ica l trea tm e n t, fo o d , clo th in g , w a ter , v e n til a tio n , an dh o u sin g in vi ol at i on of hi s E i ghth A m endmentr i ght s . H e furtheral l eged thatguar ds “deni ed P l ai nti ff g ri evan ces and P l ai nti ff co uld not gr i eve h i s ass aultor act i on s of D efen dan t s” dur i ng hi s s i x- m onth i ncar cer at i on atSC I - C amp H i l l . D efe ndant s deni ed obs truct i ng D aniel s’ s access t o g ri evan ce fo rm s i n thei r answ er and rai sed his fai l ure t o ex hau st admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es as an af fi rm at i ve def

ens e. T o s upportthei rdefe ns e, defe ndant s pr oduced doc um ent at i on ar i s i ng fr om ad m inistrati v e re v iew o f D an iel s’s g ri ev an ce co n ce rnin g the A u g u st 20 0 3 incid en t. S C IC a m p H illp o licyg ra n ts in m a tes “ 1 5 w o rk in g d a y s a f terth e e v e n t up o n w h ich th e c laim is bas ed” t o fi l e a gr i evanc e. T he fi r s ton- r ecor d gr i evanc e, i n w hi ch D ani el s compl ai ned of the SC I - C amp H i l l i nci dent , w as fi l ed byD ani el s on O ct ober7, 2004, overa y earaft er th e a lleg e de v e n t. D a n iels h a df iled th is g rie v a n c e w h ile a n in m a te o f th e S tate Co rr e c t i o n a l I n s t i tu t i o n a tS mi th f i e l d , t o wh i c h h e h a db e e n tr a n s f e rr e df r o m S CI - Ca mp H il l i n Jan u ary2 0 0 4 . A cc o rdin g ly , the in it ial g ri ev an ce rev iew er rejec ted D an iel s’s3

O ct ober2004 gr i evanc e as unt i m el yfi l ed. T w o l evel s of i ns t i tut i onal appea l aff i rm ed. In the O ct ob er 2004 gri evan ce, D aniel s al so cl ai m ed thatthe fil i ng w as a “cont i nuance fr om a gr i evanc e pr oces s thatw as i ni t i at ed on 11/ 3/ 03 w hen i ncar cer at ed at SC I - C amp H i l l . ” B oth l evel s of appe al r ej ect ed thi s cl ai m becaus e a s ear ch of gr i evanc e r ecor ds dat i ng back t o 2001 pr oduced no r ecor d of a gr i evanc e fi l ed byD ani el s on N ovember3, 2003, and no r ecor d of a gr i evanc e fi l ed pr i ort o O ct ober2004 conce rni ng the A ugus t2003 i nci dent . T o s upporthi s cl ai m , D ani el s s ubm i tt ed t o the s econd l evelof pr i s on appea l s , an uns i gned gr i evanc e form dat ed “11/ 3/ 03” bear i ng no i ndi cat i on of a gr i evanc e tr acki ng num berand no dat e of s i gnatur e. W i th thi s evi dence , defe ndant s m oved fors um m aryj udgm entbefor e the D i s tr i ct C ourt , r ai s i ng D ani el s ’ s fai l ur e t o exhaus tadmi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es as one bas i s for di s m i s s al . T he D i s tr i ctC ourtagr eed thatD ani el s ’ s fai l ur e t o exhaus tw as di s pos i t i ve and di s m i s s ed hi s compl ai nt , concludi ng that“Pl ai nt i ff’ s att emptt o ci r cumventthe obl i gat i on to e x h a u st b ya rg u in g th a t D e f e n d a n ts re f

u se dto p ro v id e h im a g rie v a n c e f o rm is compl et el yl acki ng i n evi dent i arys upport , i ncl udi ng hi s ow n depos i t i on t es t i m ony . ” D ani el s fi l ed a t i m el ym ot i on forr econs i der at i on, i n w hi ch he c oncede d thathe di d not t i m el yfi l e hi s gr i evanc e butm ai nt ai ned thatdefe ndant s ’ r efus al t o pr ovi de gr i evanc e fo rm s ex cu sed h is fail u re to e x h au st r em ed ies. H e p rov ided n o n ew ev iden ce in su p p o rt of hi s cl ai m . T he courtdeni ed hi s m ot i on on February3, 2010. D ani el s t i m el yappea l ed. W e h av e jurisdicti o n u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . O u r rev iew o f a g ran t of su m m ary4

jud g m en t i s p lena ry . S ee K au ch er v . C o u n tyo f B u ck s, 4 5 5 F . 3 d4 1 8 , 4 2 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). Sum m aryj udgm enti s pr operw her e ther e i s “no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al f a c t” a n d“ th e m o v a n t is e n title dto ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f la w .” F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (c ). T h e re c o rd is v iew e din 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 da ll inf ere n ce s are d raw n in it s fa v o r. S ee K au ch er, 45 5 F . 3 dat 42 3 . T o o v erc o m e su m m ary j udgm ent , the non- m ovi ng partym us tpr ovi de s uffi ci entevi dence fr om w hi ch a r e a s on abl e j uryc ou l d f

i ndi n i t s fa vo r . Se e A nd e r s on v. Li be rtyLobb y , I nc . , 47 7 U. S. 242, 248 ( 1986) . I f the non- m ovi ng partyfai l s t o es t abl i s h s uffi ci ent l y“the exi s t ence of an el ementes s ent i al t o thatparty ’ s cas e, and on w hi ch thatpartyw i l l bearthe bur den of pr oof attr i al , ” then the movi ng partyi s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a matt erof l aw . See C elotex C o rp. v. C atrett , 4 7 7 U . S . 3 1 7 , 3 2 2 (19 8 6 ). U n d e r th e P riso n e r L iti g a tio n R e f o rm A c t, a p riso n e r m u st e x h a u st a v a ilab le a d mi n i s tr a t i v e r e me d i e s b e f o r e b r i n g i n g s u i tc o n c e rn i n g p r i s o n c o n d i t i o n s . S e e 4 2 U. S . C. § 1997e( a) . W hetheran admi ni s tr at i ve r emedyi s avai l abl e t o the pr i s oneri s a matt erof law . S e e R a yv . K e rte s, 2 8 5 F .3 d2 8 7 , 2 9 1 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 2 ). “‘ A v a ilab le’ m e a n s ‘c ap ab le of us e; athand. ’ ” B r ow n v. C r oak, 312 F. 3d 109, 113 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . Pr operexhaus t i on of admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es r equi r es fi l i ng a t i m el yorotherw i s e pr ocedur al l ynond e f e c tiv e g rie v a n c e . S e e W o o d f o rd v . N g o , 5 4 8 U .S . 8 1 , 8 3

– 8 4 (2 0 0 6 ). F a ilu re to exhaus tadmi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es i s an af fi rm at i ve def

ens e t o be pl eade d bythe defe ndant s . See R ay , 285 F. 3d at295.5

H av ing rev iew ed the re co rd, w e a g ree w ith the D istri ct C o u rt ’s gra n t of su m m ary j udgm entfordefe ndant s . T hr ough fi ve y ear s of l i t i gat i on, D ani el s fai l ed t o pr ovi de e v id e n c e f

ro m w h ich a re a so n ab le ju ryc o u ldc o n c lu d e th a t g u a rd s a t S C I-C a m p H ill o b stru cted h is ab il ityto f il e a ti m elyg ri ev an ce ab o u t th e A u g u st 20 0 3 incid en t. R athe r, D ani el s r epea t edl ycontr adi ct s hi s ow n cl ai m . D ani el s admi t s i n hi s depos i t i on that gr i evanc e form s w er e ava i l abl e upon r eques t . Furtherm or e, hi s cl ai m thathe fi l ed a gr i evanc e on N ovember3, 2003, underm i nes hi s ar gum entthatadmi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es w e re n o t av a ilab le to h im w h ile in c a rc e ra ted a t S C I-C a m p H ill . A c c o rd in g ly , D a n iels w as r equi r ed t o fi l e hi s gr i evanc e w i thi n fi ft een w orki ng day s of the A ugus t2003 al t er cat i on. T he fi r s ton- r ecor d gr i evanc e compl ai ni ng of the i nci dentw as fi l ed on O ct ober7, 2004. D ani el s di d notm eetthe pr i s on’ s r equi r ementforfi l i ng and, ther efor e, fai l ed t o exhaus thi s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es . T he D i s tr i ctC ourtpr oper l ygr ant ed sum m aryj ud gm ent i n fav or of d efen dan t s. B e c a u se w e f

in dn o su b sta n tial q u e stio n ra ise do n ap p e a l, w e w illsu m m a rily aff i rm . A ppel l ant ’ s m ot i on forl eave t o fi l e exhibi t s i s G R A N T E D w i th r es pectt o copi es o f th e thre e m isco n d u ct fo rm s filed b yp ri so n o ff ici als b ec au se th o se d o cu m en ts are inclu d ed in the D istri ct C o u rtrec o rd, bu t D E N IE D w ith resp ec t t o D an iel s’s “In m ate’s R e q u e st to S taf

f M e m b e r” f

o rm a n dth e lette r f

ro m a S e n io r D e p u tyA tto rn e yG e n e ra l, dat ed Sept ember29, 2006, becaus e thos e document s ar e notpartof the r ecor d.