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 9-14-2005 

# R a y v . C el l Extr a c t ion 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 . 04-4651

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . 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 a nd 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 l l a nova 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 a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova 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 l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " R a y v . C e l l Extr a ct ion" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 548. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/548DP S - 3 0 2 NOT 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 NO. 04-4651 F RE D E RIC K

T . RAY , III , Appellant v. CELLEXTRACTI ON UNIT 7; WALKER, CAPT; J OHN DO E #1; J OHN DO E #2; J OHN DO E #3; J OHN DO E #4; J OHN DO E #5; J OHN DO E #6; J OHN DO E #7; J OHN MASTERS, WARDEN; AUCH, S E R G E A N T ; T H O M A S , S E R G E A N T ; YA M A GU C H I, C S I; P E T T IF O RD , C S I; CPO HAWKI

NS; COIFORD; CORPORALBO YD

_________________________________ 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 E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( C i v. N o. 03- cv- 873) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ohn P. Ful l am

_______________________________________ S u b m itted F o r P o ssible D ism issal U n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2) o r P o ssible S u m m ary

A c tio n u n d e r T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

J ul y14, 2005 BEFORE: RO TH, BA RRY a n d SM I TH, CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed: Sept ember14, 2005)

_______________________ OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM F re d e ric k R a yf

iled th is c iv il righ ts a c tio n p ro se p u rsu a n t to 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 inA s th e p a rties a re f a m ili a r w ith th e f

a c ts, w e re c ite th e m h e re o n lya s n e c e ss a ryto 1 ourdi s cus s i on. W e not e thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tcons ol i dat ed thi s cas e w i t h t w o ot her cas es br oughtbyR ay , R ayv. W al ker , C i v. N o. 03- 3093, and R ayv. B r ooks , C i v. N o. 03- 1 0 5 0 . 2 t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, al l egi ng due p ro c e ss v io latio n s. R a ya lleg e s th a t A p p e llee s, c o rre c tio n a l o f f ice rs a n d p riso n o f

f icia ls 1 atC hes t erC ount yPr i s on, vi ol at ed hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s w hen theyfor ci bl yt r ans ferr ed hi m t o a puni t i ve i s ol at i on cel l and fa i l ed t o pr ovi de hi m w i t h a di s ci pl i naryhear i ng. R ay f u rth e r a lleg e s th a t th e c o n d iti o n s o f c o n f in e m e n t in p u n iti v e iso latio n v io late d h is rig h ts a s a p re tr ia l d e ta in e e . R a ys e e k s b o th d a m a g e s a n d in ju n c tiv e re lie f. T hr oughoutt he di s coveryper i od, t he part i es fi l ed var i ous m ot i ons t o compel di s covery , fora pr ot ect i ve or der , and forperm i s s i on t o t ake de pos i t i ons , w hi ch the D i s t r i ctC our tr es ol ved i n an or derent er ed Sept ember13, 2004. A ppel l ees t hen moved f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t, attac h in g p riso n re c o rd s a n d R a y ’s d e p o sitio n in su p p o rt o f th e ir arg u m en t th at th ere w ere n o issue s o f m aterial fa ct be ca u se th e a ll eg ati o n s in R ay ’s compl ai ntw er e uns uppor t ed byanyevi dence . R ayfi l ed a mot i on fora thi r t yday enl ar gementof t i m e i n w hi ch t o r es pond, w hi ch the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed, t her eby ext endi ng t he r es pons e dea dl i ne t o N ovember8, 2004. R aydi d notfi l e a r es pons e t o t he su m m aryjud g m en t m o ti o n . In a n o rde r en tered N o v em b er 3 0 , 2 0 0 4 , the D istri ct C o u rt gr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof A ppel l ees , aft erconcl udi ng t hatt her e w as no evi dence i n t he r ecor d t hatA ppel l ees had fa i l ed t o fol l ow pr operpr ocedur es i n r emovi ng3

R a yf ro m h is c e ll an d tra n sp o rtin g h im to a n iso latio n c e ll. T h e D istric t C o u rt a lso h e ld t hatt her e w as no evi dence t o s uppor tR ay ’ s condi t i ons of conf i nementcl ai m . O n t he s ame dayt hatt he D i s t r i ctC our ti s s ued i t s s um m aryj udgm entor der , R ayfi l ed a mot i on pur s uantt o Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 56( f) fora cont i nuance i n or dert o conduct f u rt h e r d is c o v e ry. T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt d e n ie d th is m o tio n a s m o o t o n D e c e m b e r 7 , 2 0 0 4 . R a ya p p e a ls f

ro m th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s o rd e r g ra n tin g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . §§ 1331 and 1343. W e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s gr antof su m m a ryju d g m e n t de novo , vi ew i ng t he under l y i ng fac t s and al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s th e re f ro m in th e lig h t m o st f

a v o ra b le to th e p a rtyo p p o sin g th e m o tio n . P e n n sy lv a n ia C o a l A ss ’n v . B a b b itt , 6 3 F .3 d 2 3 1 , 2 3 5 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 5 ). S u m m a ryju d g m e n t is appr opr i at el ygr ant ed w her e ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand the m o v in g p a rtyis e n tit led to ju d g m e n t as a m a tter o f law . F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (c ). A p a rty o p p o sin g a su m m a ryju d g m e n t m o tio n c a n n o t re st u p o n th e “ m e re a lleg a tio n s o r d e n ials of the adve r s e part y ’ s pl eadi ng” butm us tr es pond w i t h aff i davi t s ordepos i t i ons s et t i ng f o rt h “ s p e c if

ic f a c ts s h o w in g th a t th e re is a g e n u in e is s u e f o r t ri a l.” F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (e ). A s th e D istric t C o u rt n o ted , A p p e llee s s u p p o rte d th e ir su m m a ryju d g m e n t m o tio n w ith p riso n re c o rd s a n d R a y ’s d e p o sitio n . R a yw a s a llo w e d d isc o v e ry , y e t f iled n o re sp o n se to the s u m m aryjud g m en t m o ti o n . O n the re co rd b ef o re the D istri ct C o u rt , A p p ell ee s w ere ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . W e fi nd no abus e of di s cr et i on i n t he D i s t r i ctW e do notr evi ew t he or derdeny i ng t he R ul e 56( f) m ot i on, as i tw as notappea l ed. 2 See U ni on Paci fi c R ai l r oad C om panyv. G r eentr ee Tr ans p. T rucki ng C o. , 293 F. 3d 120, 1 2 5 -26 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). I tdoes notappea rfr om t he r ecor d t hatt he D i s t r i ctJ udge had Ray ’ s R ul e 56( f) 3 m ot i on befor e hi m w hen he w as deci di ng t he D efe ndant s ’ s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on. 4 C our t ’ s deni al of R ay ’ s di s coverym ot i on. See I n r e Fi ne PaperA nt i t rus tL i t i gat i on, 685 F . 2 d 8 1 0 , 8 1 7 -18 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 2 ). W e r ecogni ze thatR ayfi l ed a mot i on fora cont i nuance underFeder al R ul e of C i vi l Pr ocedur e 56( f) , as s er t i ng a nee d forfur t herdi s covery . R ay ’ s m ot i on w as r ece i ved byt he C l erk of the D i s t r i ctC our ton N ovember29, 2004, t he s ame dayt hatt he D i s t r i ct C our ti s s ued i t s s um m aryj udgm entor derand tw enty - one day s aft ert he thi r t yday ext ens i on of t i m e had e xpi r ed. W hi l e ther e i s no fi xed t i m e l i m i tforfi l i ng a R ul e 56( f) 2 m ot i on, undert hes e ci r cumst ance s , R ay ’ s m ot i on w as notfi l ed w i t hi n a r eas onabl e t i m e, and the D i s t r i ctC our thad no r eas on t o defe ract i ng on A ppel l ees ’ m ot i on. See 3 R eso luti o n T rust C o rp. v. N o rth B ri d g e A sso cs., Inc . , 2 2 F . 3 d 1 1 9 8 , 1 2 0 4 (1 C ir . 1 9 9 4 ); st s e e a ls o A s h to n -T a te C o rp . v . R o s s , 9 1 6 F .2 d 5 1 6 , 5 2 0 (9 C ir . 1 9 9 0 ). th Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m t he or derof the D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant i ng sum m aryj ud gm ent t o A pp el l ees.