2005 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 12-8-2005 

# M organ v . T e rhune 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 . 04-2523

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_2005

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 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 " M organ v . T e rhune " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 144. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/144NOT 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. 04- 2523 KE NNY MORGAN ,

A ppel l ant v. J AC K T E RH UNE ; RO Y HE NDR I CK S ; M OR AN; M . BR Z DE K; S . BR Z DE K; J . F RY ; M AS T RO P OL O; KE AT ON; WER E S K; G . A . SM I TH ; D I V I TI S; CM S STA FF; FRA N K J A M ES; G A I L G I LLE SPE

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 00- cv- 05888 ( H onor abl e A nne E. T hom ps on) Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember14, 2005 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, FI SH E R and A L D I SE R T C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed D ece m ber8, 2005) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT P E R C U R I A M. K en n yM o rga n , a N ew Jerse ystat e p ri so n er, ap p ea ls pro se f rom an ad v erse jury ver di ctent er ed i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey . Fi ndi ng n o e rr o r , we wi l l a f

f i r m.M or gan as s er t ed thr ee a ddi t i onal cl ai m s i n hi s A m ended Com pl ai nt , butabandone d 1 th e m in th e f

in a l p re -t ri a l o rd e r. 2 M or gan comm ence d t hi s ci vi l r i ght s act i on pr o s e, butthe D i s t r i ctC our tappoi nt ed him cou nsel w ho fi l ed an A m end ed C om plai nt purs uan tt o 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 98 3 ag ai nst p ri s o n o f f ic ia ls , n u m e ro u s c o rr e c tio n s o f f ic e rs , a p ri s o n la w lib ra ri a n , a n d m e d ic a l s ta f f. M o rg a n a lleg e d th a t h e w a s a ss a u lted b yth e o f f ice rs, a n d th a t p riso n o f f icia ls d e n ied h im sh o w e rs a n d y a rd tim e , p ro v id e d u n sa n itary ce ll co n d iti o n s, a n d p o iso n e d h is f o o d in viol at i on of the E i gh t h an d F ou rt eenth A m end m ents . 1 T h e d e f e n d a n ts f ile d a m o tio n f

o r j u d g m e n t o n th e p le a d in g s , w h ic h w a s d e n ie d . T h e d ef en d an ts th en fil ed a m o ti o n fo r pa rt ial su m m aryjud g m en t. T h e D istri ct C o u rt gr ant ed the mot i on as t o t he fa i l ur e- t o- pr ot ectcl ai m agai ns tdefe ndant s T erhune and H e n d ri c k s , b u t d e n ie d it a s to th e c la im re g a rd in g th e c o n d itio n s o f c o n f in e m e n t. T her eaf t er , t he def

endant s r enew ed thei rm ot i on fors um m aryj udgm entas t o t he condi t i ons of M or gan’ s confi nement , cont endi ng ( as theydi d i n t hei rA ns w ert o t he A m ended Com pl ai nt ) t hatM or gan fa i l ed t o exhaus tadmi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es . T he D i s tr i ct C our tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entas t o t he cl ai m conce r ni ng the condi t i ons of confi nement , butdeni ed i tas t o M or gan’ s r emai ni ng cl ai m s . M or gan pr ocee ded t o t r i al o n h i s e x c e s s i v e f

o r c e c l a i m a g a i n s tf

o u rc o r r e c t i o n s o f

f i c e r s a n d a p r i s o n s e r g e a n t . At the co nclusi on of the t hree- dayt ri al , the juryreturned a verdi cti n fav or of t he d efen dan t s, fi ndi ng thatM or gan fa i l ed t o pr ove bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence thatanyof theW e e x e rc is e p le n a ry re v ie w o v e r t h e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s g ra n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. 2 H am il ton v . L ea v y , 1 1 7 F . 3 d 7 4 2 , 7 4 6 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). 3 defe nd ants viol at ed the E i gh t h A m end m ent byi ntent i on al l yusi ng excessi ve fo rce agai nst M o rg a n . M o rg a n f

ile d a m o tio n f

o r n e w tr ia l, w h ic h w a s d e n ie d . T h is a p p e a l f o llo w e d . W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. A s a thr es hol d m att er , M or gan has notpr ovi ded a c opyof the tr i al tr ans cr i pt , and thus he ca nnotcont end on appe al t hata j uryfi ndi ng orconcl us i on i s uns uppor t ed by , or contr aryt o, t he evi dence . See Fed. R . A pp. P. 10( b) ( 2) . I n anyevent , beca us e M or gan r ai s es no s ubs t ant i ve ar gum enton appea l r egar di ng the adve r s e j uryver di ctorthe D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on fora new tr i al , he has w ai ved hi s oppor tuni t yt o chal l enge thes e rul i ngs . See Fed. R . A pp. P. 28( a) ( 5) ; U ni t ed St at es v. Pel l ul o, 399 F. 3d 197, 222 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . I ns t ead, M or gan ar gues thatthe D i s t r i ctC our ti m pr oper l ygr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof def endant s T erhune and H endr i cks on t he fa i l ur e- t opr ot ectcl ai m . See B r . at9- 10. 2 T o p revai l on an E i gh t h A m end m ent fai l ure- t o-prot ectcl ai m , a pri soner m ust e sta b lish th a t th e p riso n o f f icia l “k n o w s o f

a n d d isre g a rd s a n e x c e ss iv e risk to in m a te h e a lth o r sa f

e ty ; th e o f

f icia l m u st b o th b e a w a re o f f a c ts f ro m w h ich th e in f

e re n c e c o u ld be dr aw n thata s ubs t ant i al r i s k of s er i ous harm exi s t s , and he mustal s o dr aw the inf ere n ce . ” F arm er v . B ren n an , 5 1 1 U . S . 8 2 5 , 8 3 7 (19 9 4 ). T o su rviv e su m m ary j udgm ent , M or gan i s t hus r equi r ed “t o pr oduce s uffi ci entevi dence of ( 1) a s ubs t ant i al4

r i s k of s er i ous harm ; ( 2) t he def endant s ’ del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence t o t hatr i s k; and ( 3) ca u sati o n . ” H am il ton v . L ea v y , 1 1 7 F . 3 d 7 4 2 , 7 4 6 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). A s t he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded, M or gan has notm ethi s bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng th a t T e rh u n e a n d H e n d ric k s a c ted w ith d e lib e ra te in d if f e re n c e . M o rg a n d id n o t su b m it anyevi dence i ndi cat i ng t hathe had be en mi s t r eat ed pr i ort o t he i nci dentbycorr ect i onal offi cer s orot herpr i s on offi ci al s . I n fac t , M or gan conc eded dur i ng hi s depos i t i on t es t i m onyt hatbefor e the al l eged a l t er cat i on, he di d nothave a ny“pr obl ems” w i t h t he offi cer s . Fi nal l y , M or gan’ s l ett erw r i t t en t o T erhune and H endr i cks s um m ar i zi ng the i n c i d e n ta f

t e ri to c c u r r e d i s i n s u f

f i c i e n tt o e s t a b l i s h th a tM o r g a n s u f f e r e d f r o m a s ubs t ant i al r i s k of s er i ous harm ort hatthe def endant s w er e del i ber at el yi ndi ffe r entt o that r i s k. O n thi s r ecor d, t he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l ygr ant ed the def endant s ’ m ot i on for su m m a ryju d g m e n t. F o r t h e f o re g o in g re a s o n s , w e w ill a f f ir m th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t. A ppel l ees ’ m ot i on t o s t r i ke M or gan’ s i nform al br i ef i s deni ed.