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 . W al k e r 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 . 04-4650

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 l l 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 no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. 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 no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " R a y v . W al ke r " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 549. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/549DP S - 3 0 1 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. 04-4650 F RE D E RIC K

T . RAY , III , Appellant

v. CAPTAI N WALKER; CAPTAI

N TAYL OR; CAPTAI

N WIL SON; CAPTAI N DONGHERTY; CAPTAI N GRAHAM; MAJOR REED; DE PUTY WARD ENRU STI N, CPL , MAJOR ; L T. STEVENS; CONSEL OR DUANE; COI HESTER

_________________________________ 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- 3093) 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. C el l E xt r act i on U ni t( 7) , C i v. N o. 03- 873, and R ayv. B ro o k s , C iv . N o . 0 3 -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 pr oces s and Fi r s tA m endmentvi ol at i ons . R ayal l eges t hatA ppel l ees , corr ect i onal 1 o f f ice rs a n d p riso n o f

f icia ls a t C h e ste r C o u n tyP riso n , v io late d h is c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts w hen theyt r ans ferr ed hi m t o a puni t i ve i s ol at i on cel l and di d notpr ovi de hi m w i t h any not i ce pr i ort o hol di ng a di s ci pl i naryhear i ng. R ayal s o al l eges t hatt he condi t i ons of c o n f in e m e n t in th e p u n iti v e iso latio n c e ll v io late d h is rig h ts a n d th a t, w h ile h e w a s in th is cel l , A ppel l ees depr i ved hi m of ac ces s t o r el i gi on and t o t he court s . R ays eeks damages and dec l ar at or yr el i ef. A p p e llee s f

iled a m o tio n to d ism iss th e c o m p lain t p u rsu a n t to F e d e ra l R u le o f C iv il Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 6) , w hi ch the D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed. A ft erpr el i m i narydi s coveryhad been c onduct ed, R ayfi l ed a mot i on t o compel an ans w ert o i nt err ogat or i es and pr oduct i on of document s , w hi ch w as deni ed w i t houtpr ej udi ce byt he D i s t r i ctC our t . R ayfi l ed no s ubs equentdi s coverym ot i ons . A ppel l ees m oved fors um m aryj udgm ent , at t achi ng pr i s on r ecor ds and R ay ’ s depos i t i on i n s uppor tof thei rar gum entt hatt her e w er e no i s s ues of m at er i al fac tbeca us e the al l egat i ons i n R ay ’ s compl ai ntw er e uns uppor t ed byany evi dence . R ayfi l ed a mot i on fora thi r t ydayenl ar gement of t i m e i n w hi ch t o r es pond, w hi ch the D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed, t her ebyext endi ng t he r es pons e dea dl i ne t o N ovember8,3

2004. R aydi d notfi l e a r es pons e t o t he s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on. I n an or derent er ed N ov em ber 30, 2004 , t he D i stri ctC ou rtgrant ed sum m aryj ud gm ent i n fav or of A pp el l ees, not i ng t hatt her e w as no evi dence i n t he r ecor d s uppor t i ng R ay ’ s al l egat i ons t hat A p p e llee s h a d d e n ied h im a c c e ss to re lig io n o r th e c o u rts o r h a d v io late d h is co n sti tuti o n al ri g h ts. O n the s am e d aythat the D istri ct C o u rtissue d it s su m m ary j 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) for a c o n tin u a n c e in o rd e r to c o n d u c t f u rth e r d isc o v e ry . T h e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied th is m ot i on as m ooton D ece m ber7, 2004. R ayappea l s fr om t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or der g ra n tin g su m m a ryju 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 ithW 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 -2 6 (3 d 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 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 ct 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 see also A sh ton -T ate C o rp. v. R o ss, 91 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.