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 Thir d C ir c uit 2-3-2009 

# J ohnson v . Ru sh 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 . 07-4243

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_2009

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 2009 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 " J o hn s on v . R ush" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1940. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1940NOT 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. 07- 4243

___________ M E L J OHNS ON,

A ppel l ant v . JO S E P H R U S H , P .A .; M A R V A C E R U L L O , C H C A ; SH A R O N B U R K S, C hi ef G r i evanc e O ffi cer

_______________________________ 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. 06- cv- 00627) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Y vett e K ane

_______________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary28, 2009 B efor e: R E N D E L L , FU E N T E S and N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: February3, 2009)

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ P E R C UR I AM M e l Jo h n so n , a p ro se p riso n e r c u rre n tlyin c a rc e ra ted a t S C I-M a h a n o yin Fr ackvi l l e, Penns y l vani a, appea l s fr om an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfort heT hes e al l egat i ons ar e cont ai ned i n J ohns on’ s pr i s on gr i evanc es , w hi ch w er e att ache d 1 to Jo h n so n ’s c o m p lain t. P u rsu a n t to F e d . R . C iv . P . 1 0 (c ), alle g a tio n s c o n tain e d in d o c u m e n ts a tta c h e d to h is c o m p la in t a re p a rt o f th e c o m p la in t. 2 M i dd l e D i stri ctof P enn sy l van i a, dis m i ssi ng his com plai nt under 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3 ag ai nst Jo sep h R u sh , a p h y sici an ’s assist an t ( “P . A . ”) a t th e p ri so n , M aria J. C eru ll o , R u sh ’s s u p e rv is o r, a n d S h a ro n M . B u rk s , th e g ri e v a n c e o f f ic e r. J ohns on al l eges thatdefe ndant s s ubj ect ed hi m t o cruel and unus ual puni s hm ent w hen R us h al l egedl yper form ed a pa i nful r ect al exami nat i on on J ohns on, and B ur ks d en ied J o h n so n ’s griev an ce in w h ich h e a ll eg ed sex u al ab u se b yR u sh . In p arti cu lar, J ohns on al l eges thathe att ended s i ck- cal l on A pr i l 25, 2005, t o r ece i ve fol l ow - up tr eatm entforhemorrhoi ds . D efe ndantR us h w as the P. A . on dutythatday . R us h as ked J ohns on w hatai l ed hi m , and J ohns on expl ai ned hi s condi t i on. R us h then “i ns i s t ed” on per form i ng a r ect al exam, al l egedl yus i ng s ubs t ant i al for ce. T he compl ai ntal l eges that J ohns on as ked R us h w hyhe w as hur t i ng hi m , and R us h s m i r ked. J ohns on al l eges thathe fel tparal y zed f

or abou ta m i nu t e. A ft er J oh nson fi l ed a g ri evan ce aga i nstR ush, R ush al l egedl yr et al i at ed aga i ns tJ ohns on bym ani pul at i ng the s chedul e s o thathe w oul d be the onl yP. A . on dutyw heneve rJ ohns on s i gned up fors i ck- cal l . J ohns on att empt ed t o s ee 1 me d i c a l p e r s o n n e l o n two o c c a s i o n s wh i l e h i s g r i e v a n c e a g a i n s tRu s h wa s p e n d i n g . On bo th o ccasi on s, R ush w as the P . A . on du ty , and John son refused to see hi m . R ush i ns truct ed J ohns on t o l eave the s i ck- cal l ar ea. C erul l o, R us h’ s s upervi s or , di d nothi ng w hen i nform ed of Rush’ s al l egedl yi m pr operconduct , and B ur ks deni ed R us h’ s gr i evanc e3

r el at i ng t o t he i nci dent . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed C erul l o and B ur ks pur s uantt o 28 U . S . C . § 1 91 5(e) (2) (B ), bu tperm i t t ed the case t o p roceed ag ai nstR ush. R ush s ubs equent l yfi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s underFed. R . C i v. P. 12( b) ( 6) , and the D i s tr i ct C our tgr ant ed the mot i on. T he D i s tr i ctC our tnei thergr ant ed l eave t o amend nor e x p la in e d w h ya m e n d m e n t w o u ld b e f u tile . J o h n s o n a p p e a le d . W e h a v e ju risd ictio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . T h e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rly d ism iss e d C e ru llo a n d B u rk s. S e c tio n 1 9 8 3 d o e s n o t p e rm it r es pondeat s uper i orl i a b i l i ty, a n d e a c h d e f

e n d a n t m u s t b e p e rs o n a lly in v o lv e d in th e c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n s a lle g e d . R ode v. D el l ar ci pr et e, 845 F. 2d 1195, 1207- 08 ( 3d C i r . 1988) . A ccor di ngl y , defe ndant C e ru llo c a n n o t b e h e ld liab le m e re lya s R u sh ’s s u p e rv iso r. B u rk s w a s a lso p ro p e rly di s m i s s ed. A n i nm at e has no cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o a gr i evanc e pr ocedur e, and B ur ks ’ act of deny i ng J ohns on’ s gr i evanc e as unt i m el ydi d noti nfr i nge J ohns on’ s r i ghtt o pet i t i on th e g o v e rn m e n t f

o r r e d re s s . S e e F lic k v . A lb a , 9 3 2 F .2 d 7 2 8 , 7 2 9 (8 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). W e d isa g re e , h o w e v e r, w ith th e D istric t C o u rt’s d ism iss a l o f Jo h n so n ’s c laim agai ns tR us h w i thoutl eave t o amend. J ohns on al l eges thatR us h appl i ed s i gni fi cantfor ce i n per form i ng a r ect al exam, and thatJ ohns on had a s m i r k on hi s fac e af t erJ ohns on c o m p lain e d o f

th e p a in . Jo h n so n ’s f

e a r o f e n c o u n ter in g R u sh a t sic k -c a ll d e ter re d h im fr om s eeki ng fur thertr eatm ent , thus al l egedl yl eadi ng t o a deni al of m edi cal car e. T he E i ghth A m endmentpr os cr i bes the “unne ces s aryand w ant on i nfl i ct i on of pai n. ” Est el l e v. G a m b le , 4 2 9 U .S . 9 7 , 1 0 4 (1 9 7 6 ). T o p le a d a v io la tio n o f th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t, a4

pr i s onerm us tal l ege thatpr i s on offi ci al s act ed w i th del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence t o a “s ubs t ant i al r i s k of s er i ous harm t o an i nm at e. ” Farm erv. B r ennan, 511 U . S. 825, 828 ( 1994) . T o be l i abl e, pr i s on offi ci al s m us tknow of and di s r egar d an exc es s i ve r i s k t o t he i nm at e’ s heal th ors afe ty . I d. at837. B efor e di s m i s s i ng a pr i s oner ’ s ci vi l r i ght s act i on forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m , the D istric t C o u rt m u st g ra n t th e p riso n e r le a v e to a m e n d , o r e x p lain w h ya m e n d m e n t w o u ld be fut i l e. See Phi l l i ps v. A l l eghenyC ounty , 515 F. 3d 224, 245- 46 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded thatJ ohns on had no bas i s fordi s put i ng the pr opr i etyof the exa m in li g h t of

h is co n d it ion , an d that, there fo re, he w as n eith er d en ied a d eq u ate m ed ical care nors ubj ect ed t o an i m pr operm edi cal exam. H ow ever , the D i s tr i ctC our tover l ooked the pos s i bi l i tyof a pr i s on m edi cal offi ci al admi ni s t er i ng an appr opr i at e exa m i n an i nappr opr i at e manner . C ons trui ng the compl ai ntl i ber al l y , J ohns on al l eges thatR us h – w e a rin g a sm irk – k n o w in g lyin f licte d p a in o n h im d u rin g a m e d ica l ex a m , an d in es s ence , comm i t t ed an a ctof s exual abus e. J ohns on m i ghthave a m ended hi s compl ai nt t o pl ead a ddi t i onal fac t s r egar di ng R us h’ s i nt ent , s uch as thei rpr i ordeal i ngs . T her efor e, w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in f a ili n g to a d v ise Jo h n so n o f h is rig h t to amend hi s compl ai ntbeca us e amendm entw as notnece s s ar i l yfut i l e. Phi l l i ps , 515 F. 3d atN ei ther R ush n or the D i stri ctC ou rtadd res sed John son’s al l egati on s that R ush 2 r et al i at ed aga i ns thi m forfi l i ng a gr i evanc e r egar di ng the r ect al exam. H ow ever , w e do notr eac h the i s s ue of w hetherJ ohns on’ s compl ai nts t at es a cl ai m forr et al i at i on beca us e J o h n s o n f

a ile d to ra is e th is is s u e o n a p p e a l. Ju d g e F u e n tes w o u ld c o n c lu d e th a t an yf u rth e r a m e n d m e n t to th e c o m p lain t in th is 3 cas e w oul d pr ove fut i l e and that , ther efor e, the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on in d ism iss in g th e c o m p lain t. 5 246. 2 3Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of Jo h n so n ’s c laim s a g a in st C e ru llo a n d B u rk s, v a c a te th e d ism iss a l o f Jo h n so n ’s E ig h th A m e n d m e n t cla im a g a in st R u sh , an d re m a n d f o r f u rth e r p ro c e e d in g s c o n sis ten t w ith th is o p in io n .