T. S. Ellis, III, Senior Judge of the United States * District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation. 07- 5597- pr Jo hns on v. Ba r ney UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SE CO ND CI RC UI T SUM M AR

Y O RD ER
R UL I NG S B Y S UM M ARY OR DE R DO NO T HA V E P RE CE DE NT I AL E F F E CT . C I TAT I ON TO A S UM M ARY ORDE R FI LE D ON OR AF T E R J AN UA RY 1, 2007, I S PE RM I TTED AN D I S GOVERNED BY F EDER AL R ULE OF A PPELLATE P RO CED UR E 3 2 .1 AND T HI S CO URT ’ S L OC AL R ULE 32. 1. 1. W HE N CI T I NG A S UM M ARY OR DE R I N A D OC UM E NT F I L E D W I T H T HI S CO URT , A P A R TY M U ST C I TE EITH ER THE F EDER AL A PPEND I X OR A N ELECTR ON I C D ATA BASE ( W I T H T HE NO T AT I ON “ S UM M ARY OR DER ” ). A PAR TY CI TI NG A SUM M AR Y ORD ER M UST S ERVE A C OPY OF I T ON A NY PA R TY N O T R EP R ES EN TED BY CO UN SE L . At a stated te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan Courthouse, 500 Pear l Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 12 day th of January , two thousand ten. PRES ENT: WILFRED FEINBERG,

ROBERT A. KATZMANN,

Circuit Judges , T. S. ELLIS, III, *

District Judge.

_______________________________________________ J ohnathan Johnson, Plaintif f-Appellant , v. No. 07-5597-pr B arn e y , Se rg e ant O ra c z, Sgt. S ull iva n, Se ve ra l Unk

no wn Gu ard s, Mic ha e l L ave nd e r, Da

vid L awr e nc e , JosephPa le rm o, Se rg io R e ye s, Defendants-A

ppellees , F r ank T r a c y, Defendant
.

______________________________________________2

For Appellant: J OHNAT HAN JOHNSON, pro s e , Malone, N.Y
. For Appellee s: ANDREW M. CUOMO, Attorney Gene ral of the State of Ne w York, (David L awr ence , I I I , on the brief ), New Y ork, N.Y. Appea l from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New Y ork (Sand, J. ). UP ON DU E C ON SID ER AT ION , i ti s h e r e b y ORDERED, ADJUDG ED AND DECREED that th e jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

is AF F IRM ED
. Plaintiff-Appellant Johnathan J ohnson, pro se and inca rce rate d, appea ls from a judgment of the district cour

t entere d afte r a jury

verdic t was re ndere d in favor of sever al employees of

the New Y ork State De partment of Corr ectional Ser vices (“ DOCS”), dismissing Johns on’s complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. J ohnson alleg ed that (1) he wa s phy sically assaulted by DO CS c or

re c tio ns of

fi c e rs duri nga

se arc h o f h is p ri so n c e ll i n v iol atio n o f t he Ei g hth Amendment; (2) F rank Tr acy , the prison superintende nt, failed to pre serve videotape f ootag e of the a lle g e d a ssa

ult ; and (3 ) D anie l Su lli va

n, an e mpl oye e of

the Southp or

t Co rr e c tio na l F a c ili ty wher e Johnson was later inca rce rate d, fabricated a

repor t of the investig ation into the incident. We assume the par

ties’ familiarity

with the underly

ing f acts, the pr ocedur al history of the c ase, and the issues ra ised on appe al. On appe al, J ohnson challeng es, inte r a lia , (1) the dismissal of his claim as to Sullivan for fa ilure to s tate a

c la im; (2 ) t

he g ra nt o f p art ia l summa

ry jud g me nt i n f

avo r o f T ra c y

fo r f a ilure to exhaust administ rative r emedies unde r the Prisoner’ s L itigation Refor m Act (“ PL RA”); (3) the denial of his re quest that the district court or der a dverse infere nce jur y instructions due to the alleg ed intentional or ne g lige nt disposal of the videotape s and other e vidence ; (4) the3

int ro du c tio n o f t

he te sti mony

of de fe nd ants ’ w itn e ss Jame s Cava le ri wi tho ut f ir st c e rt if yinghim
as an e x pert; and ( 5) the introduction of e vidence at trial re g ardingJ ohnson’s history of re ceiving misbehavior re ports in prison. We review de novo (1 ) a

dis tr ic t c ourt ’s dis mis sa l of a c omp la int

purs ua nt t o F e de ra l Ru le of Civil P roce dure 12(b)(6) , Chambers v. Time W arner, Inc . 282 F.3d 147, 152 ( 2d Cir. 2002), (2) a district court’s orde r grantingsummary judgme nt, Miller v. W

olpoff &Abramson, L.L.P. , 321 F.3d 292, 300 ( 2d Cir. 2003), and (3) jury instructions, Hu ds on v . Ne w York City , 271 F.3d 62, 67 (2d Cir. 2001). Where a par ty fails to object at tria l, we re view cha lleng ed jury instructions and evidentiar y ruling s for plain e rror . See F e d. R. C iv. P. 5 1( d) ; Shah v. Pan Am. W orld Servs., Inc

. , 1 48 F .3 d 8 4, 96 (2 d Ci r. 19 98 ); F e d. R. E vid . 1 03 (d); United States v. Shaoul , 41 F.3d 811 ( 2d Cir. 1994). First, Johnson’s claims ag ainst Sull ivan wer e prope rly dismiss ed bec ause, a s the district
c ourt c on c lud e d, Sul liv an’ s a lle g e dly fa lse state me nts did

no t pr e ve nt Johns on

fr om p ur su inghis
a dmi nis tr ativ e re me die s o r f ro m ha vin gme anin g fu l a c c e ss t o th e c ourt s. See F reem an v. Rideout , 808 F.2d 949, 953 ( 2d Cir. 1986) (holdingthat, wher e an inmate was grante d an administrative hea

ringand g iven the opportunity to rebut the c harg es ag ainst him, a prison
corr ectional of

fice r’s “ filing of

unfounded c harg es ag ainst the inmate did not g ive rise to a pe r se constitutional viol ation actionable under § 1983” ). Second, Johnson’s claims ag ainst Trac y failed a s a matter of

law bec ause Johnson failed to alleg e suff icient per sonal involvement on Trac y ’s par

t to make him liable under § 1983. See Se aley v . Giltner , 116 F.3d 47, 51 ( 2d Cir. 1997) (holdingthat defe ndant, the Commissi oner of DOCS, was not persona lly involved in an alleg ed constitutional violation where a n inmate’s letter

addre ssed to the Commiss ioner wa s forwa rded to a nother prison off

icial for de cision). Third, Johnson’s argument that the district4

court e rre d by

decliningto order a dverse infere nce jur y instructions is meritless because J ohnson failed to de monstrate how the de fenda nts at trial wer e eve r in control of the videotapes or had an obligation to preserve such evide nce. See B yrnie v . Town of

Cromwell Bd. of Educ. , 243 F.3d 93, 10 7 ( 2d Cir . 2 00 1) . F ourt

h, the dis tr ic t c ourt

c or re c tly a llo we d Ca

va le ri to t e sti fy

a s a lay wi tne ss reg ardingthe policies and pr actice s of the prison bec ause he had per sonal knowledg e of suc h policies and pra ctices through his everyday experience s as an e mploy ee the re. See U nited States v. Munoz-Franco , 487 F.3d 25, 35 ( 2d Cir. 2007) (discussinghow, under Fe dera l Rule of Evidence 701, courts have allowed lay witnesses to express opinions about their place of employ ment “base d on the witness’s own pe rce ptions and knowledg e and pa rticipation in the day-to-day

aff airs of [the workpla ce]”). F inally , the district court did not err in allowing the defe ndants to question J ohnson about his history of misbehavior r eports bec ause the y wer e not used to prove that J ohnson had a pr opensity to misbehave. See Fe d. R. Evid. 404(a); Hyne s v. Cou gh lin , 79 F.3d 285, 290 ( 2d Cir. 1996) (“E vidence of prior a cts is not admissibl e to prove that the ac tor had a

cer tain char acte r trait, in orde r to show that on a pa rticular oc casion he acte d in c on fo rm ity

wi th t hat tr a it. ” ). Mo re ov e r, it w a s John so n, and no t th e de fe nd ants , who fi rs t indicated that Johnson had rec eived misbehavior repor ts while in prison. See U nited States v. Rea , 9 58 F .2 d 1 20 6, 12 25 (2 d Ci r. 19 92 ) ( dis c us sin gthe c on c e pt o f “ op e nin gthe do or ” to p e rm it a par ty to introduce inadmissible evidenc e). We have r eviewe d J ohnson’s rema ining a rguments and find them to be without merit. For the re asons stated a

bove, the judgment of the district cour t is AFF I RMED.
F OR TH E CO UR T: Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk By :________________________