2007 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 Third C irc uit 4-11-2007 

# B o oth v . King P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-1552

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://digit alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc ircuit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s by 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 Third C irc uit at V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Digit al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s by an authori z e d a dmini s trat or of V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Digit al Reposit ory

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

w . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Booth v . King " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1323. http://di git alc ommon s .l a

w . vill anova . e du/thirdc ircuit_2007/1323NOT 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 . 06- 1552

________________ T I M OT HY B OOT H, A ppel l ant v. L E O N K IN G , A cti n g C o m m issi o n er; C O S T E L L O , F o rm er C o m m issi o n er; P E A L E , M a

jo r; M E R C E R , M a

jo r; O S B O U R N E , S G T .; M C N A L L Y , S G T .; P I NS T ON, M s . S o c i a l Wo rk e r ; BR OWN, C/ O; J AC KS ON, C/ O; CA RT E R, C/ O; D O N L E E V L Y , W a rd e n ; B R O K E N B U R G H , M a jo r; W O R S E L Y , C /O ; H A R R IS , S G T .; T E RR Y, C/ O; YOUNG HE AR I NG E XAMI NE R, M s . ; M OR RI S ON, C/ O;

S T O O L E , L T .; S H O U L IN , W a rd e n ; W H E E L E R , C /O

_______________________ 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 ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 03- cv- 00802) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le S tew a rt D a lze ll

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

M ar ch 7, 2007 B efor e: R E N D E L L , C O W E N and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed A pr i l 11, 2007)

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM2

T im o thyB o o th ap p ea ls pro se f rom the o rde r of

the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt for the E ast ern D i stri ctof P enn sy l van i a grant i ng sum m aryj ud gm ent i n the defen dan t s’ favori n thi s ci vi l r i ght s act i on. T h e f a c tu a l an d p ro c e d u ra l h isto ryo f th is c a se n e e d n o t b e d isc u ss e d a t len g th h ere ; i t i s w ell -kn o w n to the p arti es, an d is set fo rth in b o th D istri ct C o u rto p inion s. In 2 0 0 2 , B o o th w a s a n in m a te a t P h ilad e lp h ia’ s C u rra n -F ro m h o ld C o rre c tio n a l F a c ili ty ( “C FC F”) . B ooth t ol d C FC F’ s C om m i s s i onerL eon K i ng that , unl es s K i ng addr es s ed s e v e r a l o u t s t a n d i n g g r i e v a n c e s b yJ a n u a ry2 1 , 2 0 0 3 , h e wo u l d f i l e a c i v i l r i g h t s s u i t . On J anuary2, 2003, B ooth w as tr ans ferr ed, athi s ow n r eques t , t o Phi l adel phi a’ s H ous e of C orr ect i ons ( “H O C ”) . H e al m os ti m m edi at el yfi l ed a gr i evanc e w i th R odney B ro c k e n b ro u g h , H O C ’s D e p u ty W a rd e n , in f o rm in g h im o f

th e d e a d lin e im p o s e d o n K in g . T he w eek of

J anuary9, 2003, fi ve H O C offi cer s ( H arr i s , M orr i s on, W or s l ey , T erry , and S to lle) c o n d u c ted o r b e c a m e in v o lv e d w ith a ro u tin e se a rc h o f B o o th ’s c e ll. B o o th confr ont ed one of

the off i cer s w ho w as r eadi ng hi s l egal m ai l . T hi s confr ont at i on l ed t o a m i s conductchar ge and the conf i s cat i on of pr operty , i ncl udi ng r el i gi ous and l egal m a te ri a l. T h e p u n is h m e n t w a s u p h e ld b yA d m in is tr a tiv e H e a ri n g O f f ic e r A llis o n Y o u n g . U p o n h is re le a s e f

ro m s e g re g a tio n , m o s t, b u t n o t a ll, o f B o o th ’s p ro p e rt yw a s re tu rn e d . B ooth al l eges anotheri nci dentw her e corr ect i onal offi cerT erryr ead hi s m ai l out s i de of hi s pr es ence .3

A ft erexhaus t i ng hi s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es , B ooth fi l ed a § 1983 c om pl ai nt al l eging that, from A ug ust20 02 t o earl yJanuary20 03 , the d efen dan t s denied him access t o the l aw l i br aryand opene d hi s m ai l out s i de of hi s pr es ence , deni ed hi m m edi cat i on for d iab e tes , su b

jec ted h im to a lleg e d lyin h u m a n e p riso n c o n d iti o n s w h e n h e w a s in di s ci pl i narys egr egat i on, i l l egal l ys ear ched hi s cel l and s ei zed hi s l egal and r el i gi ous m a ter ials , p ro h ib ited h im f ro m c a lli n g w itn e ss e s a t h is d isc ip lin a ryh e a rin g a n d f a iled to r es pond t o hi s gr i evanc es , di s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns thi m bas ed on hi s r el i gi ous bel i efs , and re talia ted a g a in st h im f

o r f ili n g g rie v a n c e s a n d f

o r th re a ten in g to su e th e d e f e n d a n ts civill y . A fter d isco v eryw as c o m p let ed , the d ef en d an ts fil ed m o ti o n fo r sum m ary j udgm ent , t o w hi ch B ooth r es ponded. In 2 0 0 4 , D istri ct Ju d g e B rod yg ran ted th e d ef en d an ts’ m o ti o n fo r sum m ary j udgm entas t o al l cl ai m s exce ptthe r et al i at i on cl ai m . J udge B r odyrul ed that , abs entany evi dence of ac tual i nj ury , the def endant s di d notdepr i ve B ooth of ac ces s t o the court s by d e n y in g h im a c c e s s to th e la w lib ra ry o r i n o p e n in g h is le g a l m a il o u ts id e o f h is p re s e n c e . B o o th’s E igh th A m en d m en t cl aim s w ere also ruled to b e lac k ing in m eritb ec au se th ere w a s n o re c o rd e v id e n c e a s to d e lib e ra te in d if f e re n c e to B o o th ’s h e a lth a n d s a f e ty. Fur therm or e, B ooth’ s E i ghth A m endmentpr i s on condi t i ons cl ai m fai l ed bec aus e none of the condi t i ons compl ai ned of c ons t i tut ed s er i ous deni al of the mi ni m al l yci vi l i zed m ea su re o f li fe ’s ne ce ssit ies. Ju d g e B rod yh eld th at B o o th’s il lega l search an d seizu re c laim f a iled b e c a u se h e h a s n o F o u rth A m e n d m e n t rig h t w ith re sp e c t to p riso n c e ll4

se a rc h e s u n d e r H u d so n v . P a lm e r, 4 6 8 U .S . 5 1 7 (1 9 8 4 ). B o o th ’s r e late d F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t u n law f

u l se izu re o f

p ro p e rtyc laim a lso f

a iled b e c a u se a d e q u a te p o stdepr i vat i on r emedi es w er e ava i l abl e t o B ooth. T he courthel d thatB ooth’ s s ubs t ant i ve d u e p ro c e ss c laim , a c o n g lo m e ra te o f a ll o f h is o th e r c laim s, d id n o t am o u n t to “cons ci ence - s hocki ng” beha vi orunderthe Fourt eenth A m endment . T he courtal s o rul ed thatB ooth’ s fi ft een- dayconfi nementi n puni t i ve s egr egat i on fol l ow i ng di s ci pl i naryact i on di d notcons t i tut e atypi cal and s i gni fi cantdepr i vat i on and thus , di d noti m pl i cat e any l i bertyi nt er es tunderSandi n v. C onner , 515 U . S. 472 ( 1995) . A s forB ooth’ s cl ai m of di s cr i m i nat i on bas ed on hi s M us l i m bel i efs , J udge B r odydet erm i ned thatB ooth l acke d s t andi ng t o br i ng the cl ai m bas ed on hi s s ol e fa ctual al l egat i on thatunnamed corr ect i onal off i cers con fi scat ed k ufis from otherM usl i m pri soners, bu tdid not t ake h i s. T he mat t erw as r eas s i gned t o D i s tr i ctJ udge D al zel l aft erJ udge B r odyr ecus ed her s el f. T he def

endant s fi l ed a s econd mot i on fors um m aryj udgm enton the r et al i at i on cl ai m , at t aching ad dit i on al bri efi ng and exh i bit s. Judg e D al zel l grant ed the defen dan t s’ m ot i on, concl udi ng that , bey ond the coi nci dence of t i m i ng, ther e w as no evi dence thatthe sea rch , p u n ishm en t, an d co n fisca ti o n o f p rop ertyco n d u cted in 2 0 0 2 an d ea rl y2 0 0 3 , w ere i n r et al i at i on forB ooth’ s l ett er s t o K i ng and B r ockenbr ough. B ooth t i m el yappea l ed. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . §§ 1291. W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s or der s gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm ent . See Pub. I nt er es tR es ear ch G ro u p o f N .J ., In c . v . P o w e ll D u f f ryn T e rm in a ls , In c ., 9 1 3 F .2 d 6 4 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 0 ).5

Sum m aryj udgm ents hal l be gr ant ed w hen “no ge nui ne i s s ue [e xi s t s ] as t o anym at er i al f a c ta n d [ wh e n ] th e mo v i n g p a r tyi s e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g me n ta s a ma t t e ro f l a w. ” F e d . R. C i v. P. 56( c) . W e vi ew the fa ct s i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the nonmovi ng partyand w e dr aw al l i nfer ence s i n thatparty ’ s favor . See R ei t z v. C ountyof B ucks , 125 F. 3d 139, 1 4 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). I. Fi r s t , w e w i l l addr es s the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deni al of B ooth’ s m ot i on t o amend t he compl ai ntt o add a ne w defe ndant , C apt ai n L ow el l . T he pr opos ed amended compl ai nt al l eges thatL ow el l vi ol at ed B ooth’ s r i ghtt o pr act i ce hi s r el i gi on w hen he di s ci pl i ned B o o th f o r c a lli n g a n “ A d h a n ” a f terth e c e ll co u n t o n th e e v e n in g o f A p ril 2 , 2 0 0 3 . B o o th as s ert s thatL ow el l r et al i at ed aga i ns thi m forpr act i ci ng hi s r el i gi on and forbr i ngi ng a l aw s ui tagai ns tfel l ow corr ect i ons offi cer s bypl aci ng B ooth i n admi ni s tr at i ve s egr egat i on forabouttw o w eeks i n A pr i l 2003. R u le 1 5 o f

th e F e d e ra l R u les o f

C iv il P ro c e d u re a llo w s a p lain tiff to a m e n d h is c o m p lain t o n c e , w ith o u t lea v e o f c o u rt, “a t an ytim e b e f

o re a re sp o n siv e p lea d in g is s erved. . . ” B ooth fi l ed the mot i on on A pr i l 8, 2003, the dayhe s i gned the pl eadi ng and p re su m a b lysu b m itt e d it t o th e p riso n m a il sy ste m . A t th e tim e h e f iled th e m o tio n to a m e n d , n o n e o f

th e d e f e n d a n ts h a d f

iled re sp o n siv e p lea d in g s. U n d e r R u le 1 5 , B o o th coul d have f

i l ed the amended compl ai ntw i thoutthe D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s perm i s s i on. I ns t ead o f a llo w in g th e a m e n d m e n t, h o w e v e r, t h e D is tr ic t C o u rtd e n ie d B o o th ’s R u le 1 5 m o tio n .T h e D istric t C o u rt re n d e re d its o p in io n o n B o o th ’s le g a l m a il cla im b e f o re th is 1 C ourtr ender ed i t s deci s i on i n J ones v. B r ow n, 461 F. 3d 353 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( hol di ng that in m a tes h a v e a F irst A m e n d m e n t p riv a c yrig h t in th e ir leg a l m a il an d th a t an in m a te pl ai nt i ff ne ed nots how actual i nj uryt o m ake outs uch a c l ai m ) . C ons trui ng B ooth’ s l egal m ai l cl ai m as a Fi r s tA m endmentpr i vacyr i ghtcl ai m , w e conc l ude thati tfai l s on q u a l i f i e d i mm u n i tyg r o u n d s f o rth e s a me r e a s o n s s e tf o r th i n J o n e s . I d . a t3 6 4 . An in m a te’ s rig h t to p riv a c yin leg a l m a il w a s n o t cle a rlye sta b lish e d w h e n th e d e f e n d a n ts opened Boot h’ s m ai l out s i de of hi s pr es ence i n 2002- 2003. 6 W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in d e n y in g B o o th ’s m o tio n , an d th u s, w e w ill vaca t e the or derdeny i ng amendm entand r emand fors ervi ce of the amended compl ai nt a n d f u rth e r p ro c e e d in g s a s to C a p tain L o w e ll. II. A s forthe r emai ni ng defe ndant s , w e hol d thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tcorr ect l ygr ant ed su m m aryjud g m en t on all claim s, fo r th e re aso n s fu ll yex p lai n ed in the D istri ct C o u rt opi ni ons i s s ued i n 2004 and 2005. G i ven the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s compre hens i ve tr eatm ent 1 of B ooth’ s cl ai m s , w e w i l l comm entbr i efl yonl yon the Ei ghth A m endmentm edi cal tr e a tme n ta n d p r i s o n c o n d i t i o n s c l a i ms a n d th e r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m. B o o th ra is e d th re e a lle g e d v io la tio n s o f th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t in h is C o m p la in t. H e cl ai m ed thathe w as deni ed es s ent i al m edi ci ne, m ade t o s l eep i n a ce l l w i th br oken w i ndow s forfi ft een da y s i n di s ci pl i narys egr egat i on, and w as verbal l yas s aul t ed and threat ened bygu ards. W i th respectt o the del i berat e i nd i fference to hi s m edical need s, “[ i] t i s w ell -sett led th at claim s o f n eg li g en ce o r m ed ical m alpra cti ce , w ith o u t som e m o re cul pabl e s t at e of mi nd, do notcons t i tut e ‘ del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence . ’ ” R ous e v. Pl ant i er , 1827

F. 3d 192, 197 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ; s ee a l s o W hi t e v. N apol eon, 897 F. 2d 103, 108 ( 3d C i r . 1990) ( concl udi ng thatm er e medi cal m al pr act i ce c annotgi ve r i s e t o a vi ol at i on of the E i ghth A m endment ) . T he pr ot ect i ons aff or ded pr i s oner s bythe D ue Pr oces s C l aus e of th e F o u rt e e n th A m e n d m e n t a re n o t tr ig g e re d b yth e m e re n e g lig e n c e o f p ri s o n o f

f ic ia ls . S e e D a n iels v . W ill iam s, 4 7 4 U .S . 3 2 7 (1 9 8 6 ). L ik e w ise , E ig h th A m e n d m e n t li a b ili ty u n d er 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 req u ir es “ m o re tha n o rdin arylack o f d u e c are fo r th e p ri so n er’s i nt er es t s ors afe ty . ” W hi t l eyv. A l ber s , 475 U . S. 312, 319 ( 1986) . O nl y“unnec es s aryand w ant on i nfl i ct i on of pai n” or“del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence t o the s er i ous m edi cal needs ” of p riso n e rs is su f

f icie n tlye g re g io u s to rise to th e lev e l o f a c o n stitu tio n a l v io latio n . W h ite v . N a p o le a n . 8 9 7 F .2 d a t 1 0 8 -0 9 (q u o tin g E s te lle v . G a m b le , 4 2 9 U .S . 9 7 , 1 0 3 (1 9 7 6 )) . B ooth al l eged thataft erhe w as gi ven an i ns ul i n s hot , a guar d confi s cat ed hi s di abet es m edi cat i on forei ghtand a ha l f hour s , butl efthi m w i th one pac ket , s ay i ng “t ake thi s one p a c k [ .] It sh o u ld d o .” B o o th d o e s n o t cla im th a t h e w a s a c tu a llyp u t in d a n g e r. T h is conductdoes notes t abl i s h del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence . B ooth’ s pr i s on condi t i ons cl ai m al s o fai l s . T he Ei ghth A m endmentpr ot ect s pr i s on i nm at es fr om cruel and unus ual puni s hm ent . See e. g. , Farm erv. B r ennan, 511 U . S. 825 ( 1994) . H ow ever , notal l defi ci enci es and i nadequa ci es i n pr i s on condi t i ons amountt o a v io latio n o f

a n in m a te’ s c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts. T h e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t is v io late d o n ly w her e, vi ew i ng the t ot al i tyof the condi t i ons i n the pr i s on, the i nm at e’ s condi t i ons of confi nement , al one ori n combi nat i on, depr i ve hi m of the mi ni m al ci vi l i zed meas ur e of8

li fe ’s ne ce ssit ies. T il leryv . O w en s, 9 0 7 F . 2 d 4 1 8 , 4 2 6 -27 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 0 ). H ere , B o o th’s tem p o ra ryc o n f

in e m e n t in a c e ll w ith b ro k e n w in d o w s f o r f if tee n d a y s d o e s n o t am o u n t to th e k in d o f

e x tr e m e d e p ri v a tio n re q u ir e d to m a k e o u t a c o n d itio n s -o f -c o n f in e m e n t c la im . See e. g. , Pet erki n v. J eff es , 855 F. 2d 1021, 1026- 27 ( 3d C i r . 1988) ( hol di ng thats l eepi ng on a di rtym attr es s on the fl oordoes notr i s e t o the l evel of an Ei ghth A m endment vi ol at i on) ; B r ooki ns v. W i l l i ams, 402 F. Supp. 2d 508 ( D . D el . 2005) ( fi ndi ng no cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on w her e, overa per i od of fi ve day s , a pr e- tr i al det ai nee w as pl ace d i n a ce l l w i th tw o otheri nm at es , for ced t o eatnearthe t oi l et , and pr ohi bi t ed fr om e x e rc ise ). F in a lly , ab se n t an ya lleg a tio n o f p h y sic a l h a rm , the d e f

e n d a n ts’ v e rb a l th re a ts do notamountt o a cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on. See I veyv. W i l s on, 832 F. 2d 950, 954- 955 (6 C ir . 1 9 8 7 ) (ho lding that v erb al ab u se, alon e, i s n o t an E igh th A m en d m en t violati o n ); th s ee a l s o B al l i etv. W hi tm i r e, 626 F. Supp. 219 ( M . D . Pa. 1986) ( hol di ng thatus e of p ro f a n e a n d v u lg a r la n g u a g e b ya sta te in v e stig a to r d u rin g a n in ter v iew is n o t a c iv il ri g h ts violati o n ), af

f’d , 8 0 0 F . 2 d 1 1 3 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 6 ) (T ab le). A s forthe r et al i at i on cl ai m , w e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthatB ooth has fai l ed to p ro v id e a n ye v id e n c e th a t th e p a rties re sp o n sib le f o r se a rc h in g h is c e ll, c o n f isc a tin g h is pr operty , and appr ovi ng the di s ci pl i narys anct i on i n J anuary2003, had anyknow l edge of the gr i evanc es he fi l ed w i th pr i s on admi ni s tr at or s . Fur ther , the admi ni s tr at or s nei ther di r ect ed the s ear ch and s ei zur e norhad know l edge thatthe s ear ch and c onfi s cat i on o c c u rre d . W h ile th e tim in g o f th e in c id e n ts a p p e a rs s u sp icio u s, th is a lo n e d o e s n o t cr e a te9

a s how i ng of r et al i at i on. T hi s i s es peci al l ytrue cons i der i ng thatB ooth has fi l ed i nnum er abl e gr i evanc es thr oughouthi s i ncar cer at i on, m aki ng i tl es s coi nci dent al thatan i ncidentoccu rr ed af

t er one o f his fi l i ng s. B ooth ar gues on appea l thatJ udges B r odyand D al zel l exhi bi t ed bi as i n favorof the d efen dan t s, and that the d efen dan t s’ second m oti on for sum m aryj ud gm ent w as p ro c e d u ra lly b a rr e d . B o th ju d g e s re c u s e d th e m s e lv e s o u t o f a n a b u n d a n c e o f

c a u tio n . B o o th d o e s n o t ar g u e , an d w e f in d n o e v id e n c e o n th is re c o rd , tha t eith e r ju d g e a c tu a lly exhi bi t ed bi as agai ns tB ooth ordi s pl ay ed an appear ance of i m part i al i tyi n thi s cas e, and thus , r ecus al under28 U . S. C . § 455( a) w as notr equi r ed. I n s upportof hi s pr ocedur al bar ar gum ent , B ooth cont ends thatthe def endant s w er e pr ohi bi t ed fr om fi l i ng a s econd m o tio n b e c a u s e th e irf

ir s t s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t m o tio n w a s g ra n te d in p a rtin 2 0 0 4 . S u m m a ryju d g m e n t w a s d e n ied a s to th e re talia tio n c laim a t th a t ti m e . T h e re is n o th in g in F ed . R . C iv. P. 56 (a) that p rev en ted th e d ef en d an ts from fil ing a se co n d su m m ary j udgm entm ot i on on the r et al i at i on cl ai m w her e, as her e, the mot i on cont ai ned addi t i onal aff i davi t s orotherevi dence . W e have thor oughl yr evi ew ed the r emai ni ng ar gum ent s B ooth m akes on appea l and fi nd them m er i t l es s . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l r ever s e the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s or derdeny i ng B o o th ’s R u le 1 5 m o tio n a n d re m a n d f o r f u rth e r c o n sid e ra tio n b yth e D istric t C o u rt in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th is O p in io n . W e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt in a ll otherres pects .