2006 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 5-23-2006 

# S alley v . P A D ept C orr 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 . 03-2942

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_2006

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 2006 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 " S alley v . P A D ept C orr " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1065. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1065NOT 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 : 03- 2942 AL F ONZ O S AL L E Y, A ppel l ant v. P A D E P A R T M E N T O F C O R R E C T IO N S ; M A R T IN F . H O R N , C o m m issi o n er; WI L L I AM HAR RI S ON, Di r e c t o ro f I n ma t e S e r v i c e s ; DONAL D WI L L I AM S ON; F REDE RI CK F RANK; DI ANE BANEY; LARRY RE I D; ROBER T S . BI TNE R; M I T CH E L L ; R. NOR RI S ; RO BE RT T AYL OR ; R. M CC AL L ; HUQUI T T ; OL DE RI NG; BEARD; W AKEF I EL D; HYD E; S GT. HI CKS ; HARRI S ; BROW N; S HUG AR; P H IL IP JO H N S O N ; JA M E S P R IC E , S u p e rin ten d e n t; L . P . B E N N IN G , D e p u ty S u p erinten d en t; M A R IS A K E L L Y , P ri n cipa l; K E N T W A R M A N , U n itM an ag er; T HOMAS S E I VE RL I NG; J E AN MEAR S ; J . F . HAS S E F F ; S T E VE CU BB E RL Y; M AR I A B AL E S T RI E RI ; J . CA S NE R, P r o g r a m R e v i e w C o mm i t t e e ; J OHN D’ E L E T T O, A ct i vi t i es M anage r ; J . K I N G ST O N , C apt ai n of G uar ds ; J . R . W R I G H T , Ser geant “R H U ”; JO N E S ; R . E . R O U C H , C ap tai n o f G u ard s; B E N A N S E L L , H ea ri n g E x am iner; A. COY, Gu a r d “ RHU” ; S CHI F KO; S HARON BEE RM AN; S TOWI TZ KY; REI NER; CH AR L E S RO S S I ; S T ANL E Y F AL OR , P h y s i c i a n ; Z AP P A, P h y s i c i a n ; BL AI NE S TE I GERWA LT ; J OHN DOE 1 ; J OHN DOE 2 ; J OHN DOE 3 ; S HUG ART; LE AR; CL E AVE R; RO S S ; GR E E N; S NYDE R; ANDR E W LAS KY; DR AGOVI CH ; YOUNG

_______________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m 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 v. N o. 99- cv- 00606) M agi s tr at e J udge: H onor abl e A ndr ew J . Sm y s er

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

M ay22, 2006 Be f o r e : SLOV I TER, SM I TH A ND VA N A NTW ERPEN, CI RCU I T J UD GES ( Fi l ed M ay23, 2006 )2 _______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM I n A pr i l 1999, A ppel l antA l fonzo Sal l eys ubm i t t ed a c om pl ai ntpur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1983 s ett i ng for th var i ous al l egat i ons agai ns tcurr entand form erempl oy ees and offi ci al s of the PA D epart m entof C orr ect i ons ( “D O C ”) , i ncl udi ng cl ai m s thathi s l egal m ai l and otherpr opertyhad bee n confi s cat ed, thathe w as depr i ved of ba s i c l i fe n e c e ss iti e s, a n d th a t h e h a d b e e n d e n ied a d e q u a te h e a lth c a re a n d a c c e ss to th e c o u rts in re talia tio n f

o r f ili n g g rie v a n c e s a n d o th e r le g a l ac tio n s. O v e r th e c o u rse o f f o u r y e a rs, a ll of Sal l ey ’ s cl ai m s w er e r es ol ved i n favorof the D efe ndant s w i th the exc ept i on of an E ig h th A m e n d m e n t cla im a g a in st B lain e S teig e rw a lt. F o r th e re a so n s th a t f o llo w , w e w ill a f f i r m. I. In 1 9 9 9 , M a g istra te J u d g e S m y se r iss u e d a re p o rt re c o m m e n d in g th a t D e f e n d a n ts B etner , Shugar t , N orr i s , and M i t chel l be di s m i s s ed pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1915A and 42 U . S. C . § 1997e, and byor derent er ed M ay20, 1999, the D i s tr i ctC our tadopt ed that rep o rt . T h e re m ainin g D O C D ef en d an ts th ere af

ter fil ed a m o ti o n req u esti n g a m o re defi ni t e s t at ementor , i n t he al t ernat i ve, t o have the compl ai ntdi s m i s s ed forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on. Sal l eyfai l ed t o r es pond and the D i s tr i ctC our tent er ed an or derdi s m i s s i ng th e c o m p lain t f

o r f a ilu re to p ro se c u te. S a lleytim e lya p p e a led . A f ter a p p o in tin g c o u n se l,I tappea r s thatm anyof the D efe ndant s named i n the capt i on w er e neve rs erved and 1 w er e neve roffi ci al l ypartyt o t hi s l i t i gat i on. T hus , unl es s s peci fi cal l ym ent i oned her ei n, w e do no tadd res s the clai m s agai nstthe rem ai ning i nd i vidual s. 3 w e r ever s ed the or derof di s m i s s al and r emanded the mat t erforfur therpr ocee di ngs gi ven the D istri ct C o u rt ’s fa il u re to c o n side r th is C o u rt ’s de cisi o n in P o u li s v . S tat e F arm F ir e and C as ual tyC o. , 747 F. 2d 863 ( 3d C i r . 1984) . See C . A . N o. 00- 3055. A t t orneyA ngus L ove, w hom w e appoi nt ed t o r epr es entSal l eyi n C . A . N o. 00- 3055, fi l ed an a m ended c om pl ai nti n the D i s tr i ctC our ton A pr i l 22, 2002. O nce agai n, the D efe ndant s fi l ed mot i ons t o di s m i s s . B yor derent er ed A ugus t27, 2002, the D i s tr i ctC our tadopt ed the M agi s tr at e J udge’ s r eport , w hi ch r ecomm ended thatD efe ndant Fal or ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s be deni ed, and thatthe mot i on t o di s m i s s s ubm i t t ed bythe re m a in in g D e f

e n d a n ts b e d e n ie d in p a rt a n d g ra n te d in p a rt . S a lleya n d th e re m a in in g D e f e n d a n ts c o n se n ted to p ro c e e d b e f o re th e M a g istra te Ju d g e. In a n o rde r en tered o n A p ri l 11 , 2 0 0 3 , M ag istrate Ju d g e S m y ser g ran ted s u m m ary jud g m en t i n fa v o r of

D ef en d an ts H icks , R o ssi, R o ss, G ree n , S n y d er, L ask y , Y o u n g , F alor, and R ei ner . I tdeni ed the mot i ons w i th r es pectt o D efe ndant s C l eave r , D r agovi ch, and

1 St ei gerw al t . Fol l ow i ng a tw o daytr i al , the j uryent er ed a ve r di cti n favorof C l eave rand D r agovi ch and a gai ns tSal l ey , and i n favorof Sal l eyagai ns tSt ei gerw al ti n the amountof $1. 00. T he C l erk’ s j udgm entr efl ect i ng the j ury ’ s ver di ctw as ent er ed on J une 8, 2003. C o u n s e l f

ile d a tim e ly n o tic e o f

a p p e a l.W e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. 2 4 O n J ul y9, 2003, Sal l eym ai l ed a pr o s e not i ce of appea l chal l engi ng al l of the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord ers. W e the rea fter g ran ted S all ey ’s m o ti o n fo r l ea v e to p roc ee d p ro s e. I n an or deri s s ued on J une 21, 2004, w e gr ant ed Sal l ey ’ s m ot i on forthe pr oduct i on of tr ans cr i pt s atgovernm entexpens e, l i m i t ed t o the tr ans cr i ptof the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s char ge on the is sue of

dam ages. A ft ergr ant i ng the mot i on fortr ans cr i pt s , Sal l eyfi l ed hi s openi ng br i ef. T he br i ef ex ce ed ed the p ag e len g th p rov ided b yF ed era l R u le of A p p ell ate P roc ed u re 3 2 (a)(7)(A ), a n d w a s a c c e p ted f

o r in f o rm a tio n p u rp o se s o n ly . S a lleyf in a llyf iled a m o tio n f

o r le a v e to excee d the pag e l i m i t , w hich w e grant ed. T he A pp el l ees j oint l yfi l ed a m oti on t o q uash the appe al ori n t he al t ernat i ve, t o cl ar i fythe i s s ues . T he A ppel l ees al s o s ubm i t t ed br i efs wi th r e s p e c tt o th i s ma t t e r . T h e a p p e a l i s n o w r i p e f o rr e v i e w. 2 I I . T I M E L I NE S S AND S CO P E OF T HE AP P E AL W e mustfi r s taddr es s w hi ch or der s w er e t i m el yappea l ed. T her e i s no di s put e that S all eyti m elyap p ea led f rom the D istri ct C o u rtjud g m en t entere d Ju n e 8 , 2 0 0 3 . H o w ev er, the A ppel l ees ar gue thatSal l ey ’ s pr o s e not i ce of appea l m ai l ed on J ul y9, 2003, and d o ck eted o n Ju ly1 4 , is un ti m elyu n d er F ed era l R u le of A p p ell ate P roc ed u re 4 (a)(1)(A ), ther ebypr ecl udi ng fr om ourr evi ew a numberof i s s ues r ai s ed i n Sal l ey ’ s br i ef. W e do nothave t o deci de w hetherSal l ey ’ s pr o s e not i ce of appea l i s t i m el yt o r evi ew the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s gr ant s of s um m aryj udgm ent . R ather , w e fi nd thatthe couns el ed not i ce of appea lW e al s o not e thatupon fur therr evi ew of the r ecor d, i tappea r s thatSal l eyfi l ed a 3 n o tice o f a p p e a l in th is C o u rt, w h ich w e re c e iv e d o n Ju ly7 , 2 0 0 3 . T h e n o tice o f a p p e a l is t i m el y , s ee Fed. R . A pp. P. 4( d) , and expr es s es a cl eari nt entt o appea l fr om the A pr i l 11 5 and as s oci at ed document s s uffi ci ent l yperm i t s an i nfer ence thatSal l eyi nt ended t o appea l f ro m th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s o rd e r e n te re d o n A p ri l 1 1 , 2 0 0 3 . W e cons true the r equi r ement s of Feder al R ul e of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e 3( c) l i ber al l y . See Shea v. Sm i th, 966 F. 2d 127, 129 ( 3d C i r . 1992) . “[J ] ur i s di ct i on ves t s over or der s nots peci fi ed i n t he not i ce of appea l i f ther e i s a conne ct i on betw een the s peci fi ed and uns peci fi ed or der s , the i nt ent i on t o appea l the uns peci fi ed or deri s appar ent , the oppos i ng partyi s notpr ej udi ced a nd has a ful l oppor tuni tyt o br i ef the i s s ues . ” I d. ( ci t i ng a n u m b e r o f

f a v o ra b le o p in io n s ). H er e, Sal l ey ’ s couns el ed not i ce of appea l does notexpr es s l yw ai ve an appeal fr om th e A p ri l 1 1 o rd e r a n d S a lle y ’s o w n p ro s e f ilin g s c la ri f

yh is d e s ir e to a p p e a l th e o rd e r. A ddi t i onal l y , couns el ’ s ci vi l i nform at i on s t at ementexpr es s i ng an i nt entt o chal l enge the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entw i th r es pectt o cl ai m s even of the compl ai nt h i g h l i g h t s th a tw e c a n i n f e ra n i n t e n tt o a p p e a l b o th o f th e D i s tr i c tC o u r to r d e r s . L a s t l y, the A ppel l ees cannotar gue pr ej udi ce e ven though theydo notaddr es s a maj or i tyof the iss u e s in th e ir b rie f

s. T h e yh a v e b e e n o n n o tice th a t th e se c laim s w e re p o ten tially a p p e a lab le, y e t in ste a d o f a d d re ss in g th e c laim s in th e a ltern a tiv e , the A p p e llee s c h o se to relyex clus ivelyo n a jurisdicti o n al arg u m en t. T h u s, w e w il l r ev iew the D istri ct C o u rt ’s g ra n t o f th e m o tio n s f

o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. 3or der . U nfor tunat el y , due t o a cl er i cal err or , the not i ce of appea l w as neverdocket ed or tr ans ferr ed t o t he D i s tr i ctC our t . J udi ci al economycouns el s agai ns ttr ans ferr i ng the u n d o c k e ted n o tice o f

a p p e a l to th e D istric t C o u rt a n d f u rth e r d e layi n g th is a lre a d yg re a tly pr ol onged l i t i gat i on. T he A ppel l ees as k us t o ei therquas h Sal l ey ’ s br i ef ordi s m i s s the appe al as a s anct i on 4 f o r f a ilin g to c o m p ly w ith th e b ri e f in g s c h e d u le . W e h a v e d is c re tio n u n d e r L .A .R . 1 0 7 .3 t o i m pos e s anct i ons forfai l ur e t o compl yw i th Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 32 orour l ocal rul es . Sal l eyar gues thathe neve rr ece i ved thi s C our t ’ s fi r s tr eques tthathe fi l e a m ot i on forl eave t o fi l e an e xt ended br i ef. H e r es ponded qui ckl yaft erthe s econd not i ce, and the pr obl em i s now corr ect ed. Fur ther , the A ppel l ees have notbeen pr ej udi ced byt he s hor tdel ay . See Poul i s , 747 F. 2d at868 ( as s es s i ng fac t or s t o cons i derw hen det erm i ni ng s anct i ons forfai l ur e t o pr os ecut e) . M or eover , Sal l ey ’ s br i ef i s hel pful i n cl ar i fy i ng the i s s ues on appea l . A ccor di ngl y , the mot i on t o quas h i s deni ed. W i thouttr ans cr i pt s , w e w i l l notr evi ew the ver di ct s i n favorof C l eave rand 5 D r agovi ch forthe s uffi ci encyof the evi dence . Feder al R ul e of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e 10( b) r equi r es an appe l l antt o or dera tr ans cr i ptof the part s of the D i s tr i ctC our tpr ocee di ngs thatthe appe l l antcons i der s nece s s ary . Fed. R . A pp. P. 10( b) ( 1) . W hen the R ul e i s not f o llo w e d , w e h a v e re c o g n ize d th a t R u le 3 (a )(2 ) p e rm its “ th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls to a c t as it cons i der s appr opr i at e . . . . ” Fed. R . A pp. P. 3( a) ( 2) ; s ee H ornerE qui p. I nt ern. , I nc. v. Seas cape Pool C tr . , I nc. , 884 F. 2d 89, 92- 93 ( 3d C i r . 1989) . W e r ecogni ze thatthe l ack of tr ans cr i pt s i s i n partdue t o ouror derdeny i ng Sal l ey ’ s m ot i on forthe tr ans cr i pt i on of the tr i al i n form a paupe r i s . H ow ever , w hen w e r eques t ed Sal l eyt o pr ovi de us w i th a s um m aryof i s s ues he i nt ended t o appea l , he w as l es s than forthcomi ng. T hus , w e l i m i t ed th e g ra n t to th e p ro p rie tyo f th e D istric t C o u rt’s in stru c tio n o n d a m a g e s, th e o n lyc lea rly s peci fi ed cha l l enge r el at i ng t o t he j ury ’ s ver di ctatthatt i m e. 6 I I I . S A L L E Y ’ S C L A I MS 4 A ft era cl os e r eadi ng of the fi l i ngs i n thi s cas e, w e conc l ude thati n addi t i on t o t he D istric t C o u rt’s g ra n ts o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t en ter e d A p ril 1 1 , 2 0 0 3 , o n lyo n e iss u e is p rop erlyb ef

o re u s: w h ethe r th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s i n stru cti o n o n d am ag es w as im p rop er. 5 A . I ns truct i on on N om i nal D amages7

W i th r es pectt o t he appe al r el at i ng t o the j uryver di ct , Sal l ey ’ s conce rns cent eron the j ury ’ s aw ar d of nom i nal damages agai ns tSt ei gerw al t . A l though Sal l eydoes not s peci fi cal l yexpl ai n w hythe ver di cti s err oneous , he makes the fol l ow i ng ar gum ent : “[t ] he pl ai nt i ff ha s a phy s i cal i nj ury . T he def endant s puni s h hi m and ca us ed hi m m ent al and emot i onal s uffe r i ng. T he def endant s behavi orw as hi ghl yunethi cal and ca us ed ps y chol ogi cal t or tur e . . . . Pl ai nt i ff s uffe r s gr eatpai n. ” Pl . B r i ef a t36. T he ar gum ent ap p ea rs t o ad d ress the jury ’s fa ctua l determ ination m o re tha n the D istri ct C o u rt ’s i ns truct i on. W e w i l l , how ever , cons true the ar gum entt o chal l enge the i ns truct i on on n o m in a l d a m a g e s . A c h a rg e o n n o m in a l d a m a g e s s h o u ld b e g iv e n w h e re a c tu a l d a m a g e s a re d is p u te d . S e e P ry e r v . C .O . 3 S lav ic, 2 5 1 F .3 d 4 4 8 , 4 5 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). In th e c a se o f a c iv il righ ts c o m p la in t, a n o m in a l d a m a g e s in s tru c tio n w ill b e g iv e n w h e re p h y s ic a l in ju ry is d is p u te d . See 42 U . S. C . § 1997e( e) ( r equi r i ng a s how i ng of phy s i cal i nj ury ) . N om i nal damages m ayal s o be aw ar ded w hen the i nj uryi s m er el yde mi ni m i s . See M i t chel l v. H orn, 318 F. 3d 523, 533 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( s t at i ng that§ 1997e( e) r equi r es m or e than a de m i ni m us phy s i cal i nj urybefor e an e m ot i onal i nj uryi s compensa bl e) . O nl yi f an undi s put ed fa ct es t abl i s hes phy s i cal i nj urypers e, di d the D i s tr i ctC our tabus e i t s di s cr et i on byi ns truct i ng the j uryon nom i nal damages . See W al den v. G eor gi a- Paci fi c C orp. , 126 F. 3d 506, 513 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) (st ati n g the s tand ard o f re v iew ). Sal l eyar gues he s uffe r ed emot i onal and ment al i nj ury , butas s t at ed above , § 1983 r equi r es pr oof of a n actual phy s i cal i nj ury . See 42 U . S. C . § 1997e( e) . I ti s undi s put ed8

thatSt ei gerw al tw as r es pons i bl e fordeny i ng Sal l eyfood fr om February21, 2001 thr ough M ar ch 9, 2001. I ti s al s o undi s put ed thatD r . Y oung exami ned Sal l eys ever al t i m es dur i ng thi s per i od due t o hi s m i s s i ng m eal s . I n di ct a, w e have i m pl i ed thatthe depr i vat i on of food a nd dr i nk forfourday s m aybe a phy s i cal i nj ury . See M i t chel l , 318 F. 3d at533. H o w ev er, w e a re a w are o f n o p u b li sh ed au tho ri tyh o lding that h u n g er o r st arv ati o n are pers e phy s i cal i nj ur i es . T hi s ques t i on w as i m pl i ci t l yl eftt o the j ury , and the ver di ct s u g g e s ts th a t it f

o u n d S a lle y ’s h u n g e r w a s n o t s o s e v e re th a t it c o n s titu te d p h y s ic a l in ju ry. T hus , the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on byi ns truct i ng the j uryon nom i nal dam ages. B . S u m m a ryJu d g m e n t A rg u m e n ts 1 . E x h a u stio n a n d P ro c e d u ra l D e f a u lt W e begi n bynot i ng thatthe M agi s tr at e J udge di d notaddr es s count s 1 and 4 of Sal l ey ’ s amended compl ai nti n hi s m emora ndum opi ni on. C ountone w as di s m i s s ed agai ns tD efe ndant s W akef i el d and Shugarton A ugus t27, 2002, and i tappea r s thatL ear w a s n e v e r se rv e d w ith th e c o m p lain t. S im ilarly , n o p a rtyw a s s e rv e d w ith re sp e c t to co u n t 4 ag ains t on e Jo h n D o e o ff icer. T urni ng t o the cl ai m s actuall yadd res sed i n the A pri l 11 m em orandu m , w e exerci se pl enaryr evi ew overthe gr antof a mot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , s ee Fert i l i zerI ns t . v. B r ow ner , 163 F. 3d 774, 777 ( 3d C i r . 1998) , and agr ee w i th the M agi s tr at e J udge that cl ai m s 2, 3, 5, and 8 are un exh aust ed an d thatcl ai m 6 is proced ural l ydefa ult ed. W e al so fi nd thatcl ai m 7 i s i n partunexhaus t ed and i n partdefa ul t ed. T i t l e 42 U . S. C . § 1997e( a)9

r e qu i r e s Sa l l e yt o e xh a us thi s a dmi ni s tr a t i ve r e medi e s . Se e Port e rv. N us s l e , 53 4 U. S. 51 6, 53 2 (200 2); N yhu i s v. R eno , 20 4 F . 3d 65 , 71 (3d C i r. 20 00 ). In order t o ex hau st re m e d ies , S a lleym u st p u rsu e a g rie v a n c e th ro u g h f in a l ad m in istra tiv e re v iew . S e e In m a te Gr i e v a n c e S y s . P o l i c y , DC - ADM 8 0 4 VI D. T s hanna K y l er , an admi ni s tr at i ve off i ceri n the Secr et ary ’ s O ffi ce of G r i evanc es and A ppeal s expl ai ns thataft eran i nves t i gat i on of the gr i evanc e r ecor ds , s he coul d fi nd no appea l s forfi nal r evi ew r egar di ng the s peci fi c cl ai m s r ai s ed i n count s 2, 3, 5, or8. Sal l eyfai l s t o r efut e K y l er ’ s as s ert i ons . K y l eral s o s t at es thatw i th r es pectt o cl ai m 6, t he ap p ea l fo r fina l r ev iew w as u n ti m ely , an d w ith resp ec t t o claim 7 , sev era l gri ev an ce s w ere fil ed fo r fina l r ev iew w h ich ra ised claim s o f d ep ri v ati o n o f leg al m ail , b u t th e c lai m s w ere a b s e n t f ro m th e in itia l g ri e v a n c e . T h e a d m in is tr a tiv e e x h a u s tio n re q u ir e m e n t is a ls o s u b je c t to p ro c e d u ra l d e f

a u lt. S ee S p ruil l v. G il li s, 3 7 2 F . 3 d 2 1 8 , 2 3 0 -31 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). W e loo k to the D O C ’s e s ta b lis h e d p ro c e d u re s to d e te rm in e w h e n a c la im is d e f a u lte d . Id . T u rn in g to c la im 6 , a pr i s oneraggr i eved byan i nt erm edi at e rul i ng m ays eek f i nal r evi ew w i thi n fi ve day s of re c e iv in g th e d e c is io n . D C -A D M 8 0 4 V I D .1 .b . S a lle y ’s a p p e a ls w e re a ll u n tim e ly f ile d . H e a rg u e s th a t h e w a s u n a b le to a c c e ss h is le g a l m a il, b u t at th e tim e w h e n h is a p p e a ls w ere due, he w as not i n the speci al ho usi ng un i t . T hu s, his argum ent fai l s. W ith re sp e c t to c laim 7 , the in iti a l g rie v a n c e m u st “ in c lu d e a sta tem e n t o f th e f a c ts r el evantt o t he cl ai m . ” D C - A D M 804 V I A . 1. d. Sal l eyfi l ed s ever al cl ai m s t o fi nal r evi ew as s ert i ng deni al of ac ces s t o l egal m at er i al cl ai m s , buthe fa i l ed t o i ncl ude theC la im 1 1 a lle g e s th a t S te ig e rw a lt a n d C le a v e r d e n ie d S a lle yb a s ic h u m a n n e c e s s itie s . 6 T he M agi s tr at e J udge deni ed the D efe ndant s ’ m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm entand al l ow ed the mat t ert o pr ocee d t o t r i al . T hus , Sal l eyhas no bas i s t o chal l enge the rul i ng atthe s um m aryj udgm ents t age. 10 cl ai m s i n hi s i ni t i al gr i evanc es . Fai l ur e t o fol l ow pr i s on gr i evanc e pr ocedur es r es ul t s i n a pr ocedur al defa ul t . See Sprui l l , 372 F. 3d at230- 31. I n onl yone i ns t ance di d Sal l ey i n c l u d e th e s e c l a i ms i n a n i n i t i a l g r i e v a n c e . S e e Gr i e v a n c e No . GR N- 1 1 7 2 - 9 9 . He cl ai m ed thatthe D efe ndant s deni ed hi m acc es s t o hi s l egal m ai l . T he pr i s on r es ponded thati thad err ed and mi s di r ect ed the mai l . T he gr i evanc e coor di nat orthen as s ur ed Sal l ey thatthe err orw as corr ect ed. Sal l eydi d notappea l the dec i s i on al though he w as appar ent l ydi s s at i s fi ed w i th t he r es ol ut i on beca us e he di d notr ece i ve monet aryr el i ef, but now cont ends s uch r el i ef i s w arr ant ed. Sal l eyar gues thathe di d notneed t o fi l e an appeal t o fi nal r evi ew beca us e he r ece i ved a f avor abl e dec i s i on. B oth l aw and comm on s ens e bel i e Sal l ey ’ s cl ai m . W e hel d i n N yhui s v. R eno that an i nm at e mustpur s ue hi s gr i evanc e thr ough fi nal r evi ew even w her e the r el i ef r eques t ed i s eff ect i vel yunavai l abl e. 204 F. 3d at71. N yhui s expr es s l ypr ovi des thatful l exhaus t i on i s r equi r ed eve n i f m onet arydamages ar e notavai l abl e. I d. A ddi t i onal l y , i f Sal l ey r ece i ved a f

avor abl e dec i s i on, he ca n notfi l e a f eder al cl ai m on the i nci dent . I f he w as d isc o n ten t w ith th e p riso n ’s d e c isio n b e c a u se h e d id n o t g e t m o n e tar yre lief h e h a d to p re s e n t h is a rg u m e n ts th a t th e re lie f w a s in s u f

f ic ie n t in h is a p p e a ls o f

th e g ri e v a n c e . Id . T hus , the M agi s tr at e J udge di d noterri n gr ant i ng the D efe ndant s ’ m ot i on. 2. C l ai m s 9, 10, 12, and 13 611

T he M agi s tr at e J udge addr es s ed thes e cl ai m s on the mer i t s . H e conc l uded that al though no gr i evanc es pr es ent i ng thes e i s s ues forfi nal r evi ew ar e pr ovi ded i n the r ecor d, th e c laim s in v o lv e o n g o in g in ju rie s, a n d S a lleyo f

ten c o m p lain s th a t h e w a s e f f e c tiv e ly s hutoutof the gr i evanc e pr oces s and hi s r ecor ds w er e des tr oy ed. T hus , i ti s pos s i bl e that admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es w er e, ors t i l l ar e, eff ect i vel yunavai l abl e. R atherthan addr es s i ng th is iss u e , w e w ill d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e M a g istra te J u d g e a c c u ra telyd e n ied e a c h c laim on the m eri t s. In c lai m 9 , S all eyall eg es th at D r. L ask yan d S u p erinten d en t D rag o v ich w ere del i ber at el yi ndi ffe r entt o hi s pai n as s oci at ed w i th hepat i t i s C and fa i l ed t o tr eatthe condi t i on. Sal l eyadmi t t ed thathe neve rhad cont actw i th D r . L as kyand neve rr eques t ed anytr eatm entfr om hi m s peci fi cal l y . A l though he ar gues on appea l thathe r ecogni zed L a s k y , h e s till f

a ils to a lle g e th a t L a s k ye v e r p e rs o n a lly d e p ri v e d h im o f m e d ic a l a tte n tio n . Si nce l i abi l i tyunder§ 1983 cannotbe bas ed on a theoryof r es pondeats uper i or , Sal l ey h a s n o c la im a g a in s t L a s k y . S e e R o u s e v . P la n tie r, 1 8 2 F .3 d 1 9 2 , 2 0 0 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). T h e M a g istra te J u d g e d e n ied D ra g o v ich ’s m o tio n f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. T h a t ru lin g is notchal l enged he r e. C l ai m 10 al l eges m edi cal cl ai m s agai ns tL as ky , Y oung, and St ei gerw al t . Sal l ey c laim s th a t ea c h D e f

e n d a n t d e n ied h im m e d ica l atte n tio n a n d a w h e e lch a ir f o r h is co n sist en t pain an d inab il ityto w alk. A s m en ti o n ed ab o v e, no claim ex ist s ag ains t D r. L a sk y . W e a lso se e n o e rro r in th e M a g istra te J u d g e ’s th o ro u g h a n a ly sis w ith re sp e c t to D r. Y o u n g . Y o u n g p re s e n te d re p o rt s d o c u m e n tin g h is n u m e ro u s e x a m s o f S a lle y .12

N o thing in the rep o rt s sh o w s tha t Y o u n g ’s nu m ero u s ch ec k u p s an d asse ssm en ts w ere i nadequa t e. M or e i m por t ant l y , Sal l eyhas notpr oduced a nym edi cal evi dence t o count er Y o u n g ’ s m e d i c a l c o n c l u s i o n th a tS a l l e y c a n w a l k , b u ti s m e r e l y m a l i n g e r i n g . S i m i l a r l y, S tei g erw altca n n o t be d eli b era tel yind iffe ren t w h en h e re aso n ab lyreli ed u p o n Y o u n g ’s a ss e ss m e n t th a t S a lleyd id n o t re q u ire a w h e e lch a ir o r m e d ica l trea tm e n t. C l ai m 12 as s ert s thatD r agovi ch and St ei gerw al tvi ol at ed the Ei ghth A m endment byfai l i ng t o pr ovi de nec es s arym ent al heal th tr eatm ent . Sal l eydoes nothi ng m or e than al l ege thatthe D efen dan t s w ere aw are of his need for m ental health tr eat m ent. H e al so fai l s t o not e s peci fi c i nci dent s w her e he i nform ed ei therD efe ndantthathe nee ded tr e a tm e n t a n d p ro v id e s littl e m e d ic a l e v id e n c e s u g g e s tin g th a t tr e a tm e n t is n e c e s s a ry. A l though he does pr es ents ever al r eport s as s ert i ng thatps y chi atr i c tr eatm entcoul d be hel pful , none of the r eport s s t at e i ti s nece s s ary . M or eover , both D efe ndant s deni ed know l edge of

s uch r eport s . W e fi nd no bas i s t o concl ude thatei therD efe ndantw as del i ber at el yi ndi ffe r entt o a s er i ous m edi cal need. See Est el l e v. G ambl e, 429 U . S. 97, 1 0 4 -05 (19 7 6 ). Sal l ey ’ s fi nal cl ai m al l eges an equa l pr ot ect i on vi ol at i on agai ns tD r agovi ch and St ei gerw al t . Speci fi cal l y , he al l eges thathe w as the s ubj ectof num er ous r aci al s l ur s , w as tr eat ed di ffe r ent l ythan a w hi t e i nm at e i n the r es tr i ct ed hous i ng uni t , and thatthe pr i s on tr ans ferr ed more bl ack than w hi t e i nm at es i nt o r es tr i ct ed hous i ng. Fi r s t , the us e of r aci al s l ur s w i thoutacc om pany i ng har as s m entordepr i vat i on of a r i ghti s nota vi ol at i on of equal pr ot ect i on. See, e. g. , W i l l i ams v. B r amer , 180 F. 3d 699, 706 ( 5th C i r . 1999)(c o llec tin g c a se s). H o w e v e r, S a lleya lso c o n ten d s th a t h e w a s d isc ip lin e d f o r f a ili n g to abi de bythe pr i s on rul es , w her eas w hi t e i nm at es oft en w er e not . T he evi dence does not s uppor thi s ar gum ent . St ei gerw al tt es t i fi ed thatguar ds oft en i gnor e rul e vi ol at i ons beca us e w r i t i ng up everyvi ol at i on w oul d be count erpr oduct i ve. St ei gerw al tt es t i fi ed that noi s e vi ol at i ons and us e of r aci al epi thet s ar e oft en i gnor ed. Sal l eydoes notar gue he w as tr e a te d d if

f e re n tly w ith re s p e c t to th e s e ru le s , b u t w ith re s p e c t to s ta n d in g f o r f o o d . Sal l eyw as the onl yi nm at e w ho r efus ed t o s t and forfood and thi s attr act ed part i cul ar a tten tio n f

ro m th e g u a rd s. N o e v id e n c e su g g e sts th a t S a lleyw a s tre a ted d if f e re n tlyw ith res pect t o the ot her i nm at es. F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e o rd e rs o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.