NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF AP PEAL S

FOR T HE THIRD CIRCUIT

__________ _

No

. 1 9

- 2 6 5 0

__________

Q U I N T E Z T A L L E Y

, Appella nt

v.

C / O C O N S T A N Z O ; C / O B R O C C O L I E R ; D E P T

. O F C O R R E C T I O N S ; L T

. R E B E R

____________________________________

On A ppeal from the United Sta tes Distric t Co urt

for t h e E a s t e r n District of P e n n s y l v a n i a

(D.C. Civil Action No. 2 : 18

- cv

- 0 5416 )

Distric t Judge: Ho n orable T i m o t h y J

. S a v a g e

__________________ __________________

Submitte d Pursuant to Third Circuit L

. A

. R

. 34.1(a)

O c t o b e r 1 3

, 2 0 2 2

Befor e: G R E E N A W A Y

, J R

. , P O R T E R

, a n d N Y G A A R D

, Circuit Ju dge s

(O pinion file d : December 1, 2022 )

___________

OPINION *

___________

* This disposit ion i s not a n opinion of the full C ourt and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 doe s not

constitute binding preced ent.2 PER CURIAM

P e n n s y l v a n ia s t a t e p r i s o n e r Q u i n t e z T a l l e y a p p e a l s p r o s e f r o m t h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t ’ s o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t s ’ motion t o dismiss T a l l e y ’ s c o m p l a i n t f o r f a i l u r e t o

exhau st h i s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e m e d i e s

. F o r t h e reasons t h a t f o l l o w

, w e w i l l m o d i f y t h a t

o r d e r a n d a f f

i r m i t a s m o d i f i e d

.

I

.

I n D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 8

, T a l l e y f i l e d a p r o s e c i v i l r i g h t s c o m p l a i n t i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

against the P e n n s y l v a n i a D e p a r t m e n t o f C o rr e c t i o n s ( “ D O C ” ) a n d t h r e e D O C e m p l o y e e s

— C o r r e c t i o n s O f f

i c e r s K y l e B r u c c o l i e r e a n d J o n a t h a n C o s t a n z o

, a n d L i e u t e n a n t A n d r e w

R e b e r

. 1 T h e c o m p l a i n t a l l e g e d a s f o l l o w s

.

I n e a r l y J u l y 2 0 1 7

, w h e n T a l l e y w a s i n c a r c e r a t e d a t S C I

- G r a t e r f o r d

, B r u c c o l i e r e

a g r e e d t o o b t a i n e x t r a c o m m i s s a ry i t e m s f o r T a l l e y

— b e y o n d w h a t w a s p e r m i t t e d b y t h e

p r i s o n

— i n e x c h a n g e f o r B r u c c o l i e r e ’ s k e e p i n g a percentage o f t h a t e x c e s s

. C o s t a n z o

was i n v o l v e d i n t h i s s c h e m e

, t o o

. I n t h e w e e k s t h a t f o l l o w e d

, T a l l e y ’ s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h

B r u c c o l i e r e a n d C o s t a n z o “ s o u r e d

. ” ( C o m p l

. 3

. ) T h e t w o c o r r e c t i o n s o f f

i c e r s apparently

t o o k a l a r g e r p e r c e n t a g e o f T a l l e y ’ s c o m m i s s a ry i t e m s t h a n t h e y w e r e s u p p o s e d t o

, a n d

C o s t a n z o “ o p e n l y d e n i e d [ T a l l e y ] h i s d i n n e r t r a y ” o n A u g u s t 2 2

, 2 0 1 7

. ( I d

. ) T w o d a y s

l a t e r

, T a l l e y g a v e R e b e r

, w h o w a s a s e c u r i t y o f f

i c e r a t S C I

- G r a t e r f o r d

, “ a n o r a l a n d

w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t

. . . r e g a r d i n g the c o e r c i o n a n d / o r e x t o r t i o n ” c o m m i t t e d b y B r u c c o l i e r e

a n d C o s t a n z o

. ( I d

. a t 4

. )

1 T alley ’ s compla int misspelled t he surnames of two of the defend ants

. Altho ugh the

case caption mirrors the complaint, we use the corre ct spelling in t h is opin ion.3 A f t e r T a l l e y m a d e t h o s e s t a t e m e n t s t o R e b e r

, T a l l e y e x p e r i e n c e d “ a n e n t i r e l y n e w

deg ree o f h a r a s s m e n t ” a t t h e h a n d s o f B r u c c o l i e r e a n d C o s t a n z o

. ( I d

. ) T h e t w o

c o rr e c t i o n s o f f

i c e r s s t o l e f o u r o f T a l l e y ’ s b o o k s a n d o t h e r p r o p e r t y

, t o l d p e o p l e t h a t

T a l l e y w a s a “ r a t ” a n d a “ s n i t c h

, ” ( i d

. )

, a n d “ m a d e c o m m e n t s a b o u t w i s h i n g [ T a l l e y ] w a s

d e a d s o m u c h t h a t t h e y ’ d p o i s o n [ h i m ]

, ” ( i d

. a t 5 )

. A d d i t i o n a l l y

, C o s t a n z o “ e n g a g e d i n

r a c i a l l y m o t i v a t e d harassment” w h e n h e l a u g h e d a t a n o t h e r c o rr e c t i o n s o f f

i c e r ’ s r a c i s t

r e m a r k s a n d b e h a v i o r

. ( I d

. ) A s f o r R e b e r

, h e w a s r e a s s i g n e d s h o r t l y a f t e r r e c e i v i n g

T a l l e y ’ s s t a t e m e n t s

, a n d T a l l e y n e v e r received a r e s p o n s e t o t h e m

.

I n l i g h t o f t h e s e a l l e g a t i o n s

, T a l l e y r a i s e d c l a i m s u n d e r t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s

C o n s t i t u t i o n

, c e r t a i n f e d e r a l s t a t u t e s

, a n d P e n n s y l v a n i a s t a t e l a w

. H e s o u g h t d a m a g e s

, a s

w e l l a s d e c l a r a t o r y a n d i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f

. H e c l a i m e d t o h a v e e x h a u s t e d h i s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

remedies

, t h o u g h h e a l s o a l l e g e d that

, “ a t t h e t i m e f r a m e s t h a t f a l l o u t s i d e o f [ h i s ] r e p o r t

t o L t

. R e b e r

, [ T a l l e y ] w a s o n c l o s e / s u i c i d e w a t c h

. . . a n d h a d n ’ t b e [ e n ] c l e a r e d t o p o s s e s s

a n y f o r m o f w r i t i n g u t e n s i l

. ” ( I d. a t 6

. )

T h e d e f e n d a n t s ( h e r e i n a f t e r “ A p p e l l e e s ” ) m o v e d t o dismiss T a l l e y ’ s c o m p l a i n t

p u r s u a n t t o F e d e r a l R u l e o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 )

. T h a t m o t i o n d i d n o t a d d r e s s t h e

c o m p l a i n t ’ s m e r i t s ; i n s t e a d

, i t a r g u e d t h a t the c o m p l a i n t w a s s ub j e c t t o d i s m i s s a l b a s e d o n

T a l l e y ’ s f a i l u r e t o e x h a u s t h i s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e m e d i e s

. I n s u p p o r t o f t h i s a r g u m e n t

,

A p p e l l e e s f i l e d a c o p y o f e a c h p r i s o n g r i e v a n c e t h a t T a l l e y h a d s u b m i t t e d p u r s u a n t t o t h e

D O C ’ s I n m a t e G r i e v a n c e S y s t e m

, D C

- A D M 8 0 4

, w h i l e i n c a r c e r a t e d a t S C I

- G r a t e r f o r d

.

N o n e o f t h o s e g r i e v a n c e s h a d r a i s e d a n y o f the a l l e g a t i o n s p r e s e n t e d i n T a l l e y ’ s

c o m p l a i n t

.4 T a l l e y o p p o s e d A p p e l l e e s ’ m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s

, a p p e a r i n g t o argu e t h a t h e h a d

e x h a u s t e d h i s adm inistrative r e m e d i e s u n d e r D C

- A D M 0 0 1

, w h i c h c o v e r s a l l e g a t i o n s o f

i n m a t e “ a b u s e

, ” b y g i v i n g a n o r a l s t a t e m e n t a n d a w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t t o R e b e r

. T a l l e y

a t t a c h e d t o h i s op position f i l i n g a c o p y o f t h a t w r i t t e n s t at e m e n t

, w h i c h h a d b e e n

p r e p a r e d u s i n g a D C

- A D M 0 0 1 f o r m t i t l e d “ I n m a t e W r i t t e n S t a t e m e n t ” ( h e r e i n a f t e r

I W S )

. T a l l e y ’ s I W S b e g a n b y n o t i n g t h a t Bruccolier e and Co stanzo ha d g i v e n h i m i t e m s

f r o m t h e c o m m i s s a ry

, t h a t t h e s e t w o c o r r e c t i o n s o f f

i c e r s “ u s e t h e c o m m i s s a ry t h a t t h e y

h a v e t o c o o k f o o d

, ” t h a t “ [ t ] h e y f e e d t h e i n m a t e s t h e y w i s h t o g a i n f a v o r w i t h

, ” t h a t

C o s t a n z o h a d g i v e n T a l l e y t o b a c c o w h e n T a l l e y ’ s c o m m i s s a ry a l l o t m e n t h a d r u n o u t

, a n d

t h a t

, o n A u g u s t 2 2

, 2 0 1 7

, C o s t a n z o t o l d T a l l e y t o “ s t a n d a t t h e b a c k o f [ h i s ] c e l l t o

receive a t r a y

. ” ( D i s t

. C t

. d o c k e t # 1 8

, a t 1 0

. ) B u t t h e I W S d i d n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y a l l e g e

t h a t C o s t a n z o h a d d e n i e d T a l l e y h i s f o o d t r a y

, n o r d i d t h e I W S mention a n y o f the o t h e r

a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t f o r m e d t h e b a s i s o f t h e c l a i m s t h a t T a l l e y b r o u g h t a g a i n s t A p p e l l e e s i n

t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

. I n s t e a d

, t h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h e f i v e

- p a g e I W S r e c o u n t e d T a l l e y ’ s o w n

b e h a v i o r ( w h i c h i n c l u d e d f l o o d i n g h i s c e l l a n d s e t t i n g f i r e t o t o i l e t p a p e r ) a n d m a d e

v a r i o u s allegat ions a g a i n s t p r i s o n o f f

i c i a l s w h o a r e n o t parties t o t h i s l a w s u i t

.

T a l l e y ’ s o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s a l s o i d e n t i f i e d t h e d a t e s o n w h i c h h e

h a d b e e n o n “ c l o s e / s u i c i d e ” w a t c h a t S C I

- G r a t e r f o r d

— D e c e m b e r 1 5

, 2 0 1 7

, t o J a n u a ry

3 0

, 2 0 1 8

. H e a r g u e d

, w i t h r e s p e c t o n l y t o h i s allegation a b o u t t h e s t o l e n b o o k s

, t h a t h i s

l a c k o f a c c e s s t o a w r i t i n g impl ement w h i l e o n “ c l o s e / s u i c i d e ” w a t c h p r e v e n t e d h i m f r o m

g r i e v i n g t h a t a l l e g a t i o n

. B u t h i s c o m p l a i n t h a d a l l e g e d t h a t h e d i d n o t e v e n l e a rn t h a t t h e5 b o o k s h a d b e e n s t o l e n u n t i l a f t e r h e h a d b e e n t r a n s f e rr e d f r o m S C I

- G r a t e r f o r d t o a nother

D O C p r i s o n

.

A f t e r A p p e l l e e s r e p l i e d t o T a l l e y ’ s o p p o s i t i o n f i l i n g

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t e d

A p p e l l e e s ’ m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s

. I n d o i n g s o

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o b s e r v e d t h a t n o n e o f

T a l l e y ’ s D C

- A D M 8 0 4 g r i e v a n c e s “ c o v e r s

, directly o r i n d i r e c t l y

, h i s c l a i m s i n t h e

c o m p l a i n t

, ” ( D i s t

. C t

. M e m

. O p

. 6 )

, a n d t h a t t h e I W S “ d o e s n o t detail t h e e v e n t s t h a t g i v e

r i s e t o t h e c l a i m s i n h i s c o m p l a i n t

, ( i d

. a t 8 )

. A d d i t i o n a l l y

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e j e c t e d

T a l l e y ’ s a r g u m e n t t h a t h i s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e m e d i e s w e r e u n a v a i l a b l e d u e t o h i s l a c k o f

a c c e s s t o a w r i t i n g i m p l e m e n t f r o m D e c e m b e r 1 5

, 2 0 1 7

, t o January 3 0

, 2 0 1 8

. I n v i e w o f

i t s e x h a u s t i o n a n a l y s i s

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i s m i s s e d T a l l e y ’ s f e d e r a l c l a i m s w i t h

p r e j u d i c e

, d e c l i n e d t o e x e r c i s e supplemental j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r h i s s t a t e

- l a w c l a i m s

, a n d

d i s m i s s e d t h e s t a t e

- l a w c l a i m s w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e

. T h i s t i m e l y ap p e a l f o l l o w e d

. 2

I I

.

The P r ison L iti gation Reform Act ( “ P L R A ” ) provides that “ [n]o ac tion sha ll be

bro ught with respect to pris on conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3] , or any other Federa l

law, by a pr isoner . . . until such adm in istrative remedies as are av ailable are ex ha usted. ”

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). A s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e x p l a i n e d

, “ [ a ] g r i e v a n c e

. . . ‘ m u s t a t l e a s t

a l e r t [ ] t h e p r i s o n t o t h e n a t u r e o f t h e w r o n g f o r w h i c h r e d r e s s i s s o u g h t

. ’ ” ( D i s t

. C t

.

M e m

. O p

. 9 ( q u o t i n g M a c k v

. W a r d e n L o r e t t o F C I

, 8 3 9 F

. 3 d 2 8 6

, 2 9 5 ( 3 d C i r

. 2 0 1 6 ) )

. )

2 W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h i s ap p e a l p u r s u a n t t o 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 9 1 , and we exercise

plenary review over the District Cour t ’ s dismiss al order. S e e T a l l e y v

. W e t z e l

, 15 F.4th

275, 286 n.7 (3d Cir. 2021).6 A p l a i n t i f f

’ s f a i l u r e t o e x h a u s t h i s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e m e d i e s i s a n a f f

i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e t h a t

,

i n a n ap p r o p r i a t e c a s e

, m a y b e r a i s e d i n a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s

. B rown v. Croak

, 31 2 F.3d

109, 111 (3d Cir. 2002 )

. W h e n a d e f e n d a n t f i l e s s u c h a motion and “ the exhaustion is sue

turns on [] indisp utably authentic document s related to [the inmate ’ s] grievances, [ a

c ourt] may co nsider tho s e documents w ithout conver tin g [a mot ion t o dismiss] to a

motion for summary judgment. ” Ri naldi v. United States , 904 F.3d 257 , 261 n.1 (3d C ir.

2018) ( t hi r d a l t e r a t i o n added ) (int ernal qu o tation m arks omitted)

. I n t his c ase

, t he

a u t he n t i ci ty of T al le y ’ s I W S a n d t h e g r i e v an ce s t h a t h e s u b mi t te d p u r sua n t to D C

- A D M

8 0 4 ar e n ot i n d i sp u te

. 3

W e a g re e w it h the D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s de cis ion t o d i s m i s s T a l l e y ’ s f ed er al cla ims f o r

l a c k o f e x h a u s t i o n

. 4 A s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t h i g h l i g h t e d

, n e i t h e r T a l l e y ’ s I W S n o r h i s D C

3 The curre n t policies and proce d ures governi ng D C

- ADM 804, effective since 2015, are

available at th e DOC ’ s website, https://www.cor .p a. gov

. Th at website also has a cop y of

the current pol icies and procedures governing DC

- ADM 001

, which have been e ffec tive

sin ce April 11, 2022. Talley attached to his brief an earlier version of the DC

- ADM 001

policies and procedures

. ( See 3d Cir. doc ket # 55, at 1 12

- 28.) In all respec ts r elev ant to

this appeal

, the earlier version is the sam e as the current versi on.

4 B e c a u se T a l l e y ’ s f e d e r a l c la i m s w er e s ubj ec t t o d is m is s al

, t he D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o per l y

d e c l i ne d t o exercise s u p p l e m e nt a l j u r i s d i c t io n o v e r his s t a te

- l a w c l a i ms

. S e e H e d g e s v

. M u s c o

, 2 0 4 F

. 3 d 1 0 9

, 1 2 3 ( 3 d C i r

. 2 0 0 0 )

.7 A D M 8 0 4 g r i e v a n c e s a l e r t e d A p p e l l ee s t o th e se c l ai ms

. 5 A n d s i n c e T a l l e y a l l e g e d t h a t

h e d i d n o t learn t hat h is b o ok s h ad b e en s to le n u n t i l a f t e r h i s t r a n s f e r t o a n o t h e r p r i s o n

, h e

c a n n o t s h o w t h a t h i s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e m e d i e s w e r e u n a v a i l a b l e b a s e d o n h i s a l l e g e d l y n o t

h a v i n g a c c e s s t o a w r i t i n g i m p l e m e n t b e f

o r e t h a t t r a n s f e r

. 6 T o the e x t e n t t h a t T a l l e y

a r g u e s t h a t i t w o u l d h a v e b e e n f u t i l e for him t o g r i e v e t h e s t o l e n b o o k s b e c a u s e h e d i d n o t

l e a r n o f t h e t h e f t w i t h i n t h e 1 5

- w o r k i n g

- d a y d e a d l i n e t h a t g o v e rn s t h e s u b m i s s i o n o f

g r i e v a n c e s u n d e r D C

- A D M 8 0 4

, s e e D C

- A D M 8 0 4 P ro c e du re s M a n u al § 1

. A

. 8

, t h i s

a r g u m e n t i s u n p e r s u a s i v e

. T h i s C o u r t “ d o [ e s ] n o t recognize a f u t i l i t y e x c e p t i o n t o

e x h a u s t i o n [ u n d e r t h e P L R A ]

, ” D o w n e y v

. P a

. D e p ’ t o f C o r r

. , 9 6 8 F

. 3 d 2 9 9

, 3 0 7 ( 3 d C i r

.

5 As me ntioned earlier, T alle y al leg es th at, on August 2 4, 2017, he made both an oral

statement and a writ ten statement to Reber. Although DC

- ADM 001 permits both types

of statements

, see DC

- ADM 001 Poli c y S tate m en t § I V

. D. 1 , there is no indication that

the cont ent of Talley ’ s oral s tate ment to Reber was different from the content o f T alley ’ s

IWS. And even if there were a difference, such that the oral statement included

allega tions from Talley ’ s complai n t about ( 1) Br uccoliere ’ s and Costa nzo ’ s takin g too

m any o f Talley ’ s commissary item s and (2 ) Costanz o denying Talley his food tray on one

occasion, those allegations would not properly fall under the ambit of DC

- ADM 001.

See DC

- ADM 001 Procedure s Man ua l Glossary ( defining “ abus e ” as be ing limited to

“ the use of excessive force upon an i nmate, ” “ the improper use of force upon an inmate, ”

“ an occurrenc e of an unwa rran t ed life

- t hreat ening act against an inmate, ” or “ an

articulated verbal or written thr eat t o inflic t physical injury directed toward an inmate ” );

see also Jones v. Boc k , 54 9 U. S. 199

, 218 (2007) ( “ [T]o properly exhaust administrative

remedies[ ,] prisoners must complete the administrative review process in accordance

with the applicable proc edura l rules [ ]

— rules tha t are defined not by the PL RA, but by th e

p rison grievance pro cess itself. ” (intern al quotation marks omitted)).

6 As noted earlier

, it was T alley ’ s re sponse to Appellees ’ motion to dismiss that

(1) identified the date s on which he alle g e dly la c ked access to a writ ing implemen t and

(2) alleged that this lack of acce ss p revented him from grieving his stolen

- book s claim

. W e may consider these allegations in evaluating th at motion. Cf. Mack , 839 F.3d at 291

n.2 ( considering the plaintiff ’ s “ alleg a tions ma de in response to the defendants ’ motion t o

dismiss

, which inco r pora te and a re consis tent with the alleg ations in his complaint ” ).8 2 0 2 0 ) ; s e e N y h u i s v

. R e n o

, 2 0 4 F

. 3 d 6 5

, 7 1 ( 3 d C i r

. 2 0 0 0 )

, a n d

, i n a n y e v e n t

, T a l l e y h a s

n o t s h o w n f u t i l i t y b e c a u se h e could h a v e m o v e d f o r a n e x t e n s i o n o f t h e 1 5

- w o r k i n g

- d a y

d e a d l i n e

, s e e D C

- A D M 8 0 4 P r o c e d u res M a n ua l § 1

. C

. 2

. F i n a ll y

, a l t h o u g h a n

ad ministrative r e m e d y i s d e e m e d u n a v a i l a b l e w h e n p r i s o n o f f

i c i a l s “ t h w a r t i n m a t e s f r o m

t a k i n g a d v a n t a g e o f a g r i e v a n c e p r o c e s s t h r o u g h

. . . i n t i m i d a t i o n

, ” R o s s v

. B l a k e

, 5 7 8

U

. S

. 6 3 2

, 6 4 4 ( 2 0 1 6 )

, w e are no t p e r s u a d e d b y T a l l e y ’ s a r g u m e n t t h a t th o s e

circumst ances a re p r e s e n t i n this c a s e

, s ee R i n al d i

, 9 0 4 F

. 3 d at 2 6 9 ( e x p l a i n i n g that t h e

u n a v a i l a b l e

- d u e

- t o

- i n t i m i d a t io n e x c e p t i on ap p l ie s o n l y i f ( 1 ) t h e i n m a te w a s sub je c t t o a

“ t h r e a t [ t h a t ] w as s u f f

i c i e nt l y s e r io us t h at i t w o ul d d e t er a reasonable i n m at e o f o r d in a ry

f

i r m n e s s a n d fo r t i t u d e f ro m l o d g i n g a g r i e v a n c e

, ” a n d ( 2 ) “ t he t h rea t a c t u a ll y d i d d e t e r

t h is par t i cu l a r i n m a te ” )

.

A l t h ou g h w e a g r e e w i t h t he D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s d i s m is s al o f T a l l e y ’ s f e d e r a l c l a i m s

f

o r l a c k o f e x h a u s ti on

, t ha t d is m is s a l s h o u ld h a v e b e e n w i t ho u t p r e j u d i c e

, n o t w it h

p re j u di c e. S e e G a rr e t t v

. W e x f o r d H e a l t h

, 9 3 8 F

. 3 d 6 9

, 8 1 n

. 1 6 ( 3 d C i r

. 2 0 1 9 )

.

A c c o r d in g l y

, w e w i l l m o d i f y t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s d i s m i s s a l o r d e r

, entere d J u l y 3

, 2 0 1 9

, s o

t h a t t h e d i s m i s s a l i s w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e

, a n d w e w i l l a f f

i r m t h a t o r d e r a s m o d i f i e d

. 7

T a l l e y ’ s motion f o r o r a l a r g u m e n t i s d e n i e d

, a s i s h i s “ M o t i o n f o r t h e A p p o i n t m e n t o f

S t a n d b y C o u n s e l

, A l t e r n a t i v e l y a n I n j u n c t i o n

. ” A p p e l l e e s ’ m o t i o n t o s u p p l e m e n t t he

a p p e n d i x i s d e n i e d a s w e l l

. 8

7 To the extent that Tal ley ’ s appeal also challenges the District Court ’ s May 20, 2019

order denying his m o t ion t o t ake di scovery, we see no re ason to disturb that ru ling

. 8 Appellees ask us t o consid er a ha ndwritten document th at bears Talley ’ s signature and a

date that falls withi n th e period in which he allegedly lacked access to a w riting9 implement

. This d o cument

, which was not part of the District Court record in this case

, would cert ainl y underm ine T a l l e y ’ s a r g u m e n t that his administrative remedies were

unavailabl e . But since we have alread y rejected this argument on di fferent grou nds

, this

case does not present exceptional circumstances warranting supplementati on of the

record on ap peal

. See B urton v. Teleflex Inc. , 707 F.3d 417, 435 (3d Cir. 2013)

.