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 Thir d C ir c uit 6-8-2007 

# Byrd v . Karpinsky P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-4411

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_2007

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 2007 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 " Byr d v . K a rp in sk y " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 970. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/9701

BL D- 2 2 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 N O . 06- 4411

________________ J OHN B YR D, A ppel l ant

vs. SERGEA NT K AR PI NSK Y; C. O. TELEGA ; C. O. KA LBFELL;

C O R R E C T IO N A L O F F IC E R W IS Y A N S K I; CO RR E CT I ONAL OF F I CE R G AR RE T S ON;

HOR N; BL AI NE

____________________________________ 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 W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( W . D . Pa. C i v. N o. 02- cv- 01454) M agi s t r at e J udge: H onor abl e Li s a P. L eni han

_______________________________________ 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)(B ) or S u m m a ry 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 M ay10, 2007 BEFORE: M c KEE, FUEN TES a n d W EI S, CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed: J une 8, 2007)

_______________________ OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C U R I A M.

John B yrd, a P enn sy l van i a st at e pri soner proceed i ng pro se, app eal s a2

ju d g m e n t en ter e d in f

a v o r o f S e rg e a n t K a rp in sk ya n d th re e c o rre c tio n a l o f f ice rs in h is c iv il ri g h ts acti o n . W e w il l dism iss th is ap p ea l pu rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ).

B yrd’ s com plai nt w as based o n a fight that br ok e ou ti n the pri son ex erci se y a rd . B yrd a lleg e d th a t th e c o rre c tio n a l o f f ice rs w e re d e lib e ra telyin d if f e re n t to h is per s onal s afe t ybyhandcuf fi ng and aba ndoni ng hi m , and al l ow i ng anotheri nm at e t o s t ab hi m . A ccor di ng t o t he corr ect i onal offi cer s , how ever , B yr d al s o had a w eapon, and an in m a te s ta b b e d B yrd w h ile th e o f f ic e rs s tru g g le d to re s tr a in h im . T he D i s t r i ctC our tappoi nt ed couns el t o r epr es entB yr d, and the part i es agr eed t o pr ocee d befor e a M agi s t r at e J udge. A ft era tw o- dayt r i al , t he j ur yr etur ned a verdi cti n fav or of K arpi nskyand t he co rr ect i on al off i cers . T he juryfou nd t hat there w as a s ubs t ant i al r i s k t hatanotheri nm at e coul d at t ack By r d i n t he exe r ci s e y ar d on t he dat e of the in cide n t, b u t th e juryd id n o t fi n d that K arp insk yan d the c o rrecti o n al of fice rs w ere aw ar e of thatr i s k and di s r egar ded i t . T hi s appea l fol l ow ed.

I n hi s br i ef, B yr d compl ai ns t hathe w as notpr es entw hen the j ur yw as chos en. B yr d does notcont end, how ever , t hatt her e w as a pr obl em w i t h t he j ur ys el ect i on pr oces s orw i t h t he j ur or s w ho w er e s el ect ed. A bs entan ar gum entt hatB yr d w as pr ej udi ced i n s om e w ay , fur t herbr i efi ng on t hi s i s s ue i s notw arr ant ed.

B yr d al s o not es i n hi s br i ef thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed hi s m ot i on for t r ans cr i pt s . B yr d r eques t ed tr ans cr i pt s of pr ocee di ngs nothel d i n hi s cas e, i ncl udi ng pr el i m i naryhear i ng, s uppr es s i on hear i ng, and s ent enci ng hear i ng t r ans cr i pt s . I n addi t i onT h e C lerk is direc ted to fil e B yrd’s b ri ef , w h ich w as re ce ived fo r th e C o u rt ’s 1 i nfor m at i on on N ovember 15, 2006. 3 to th e trial tra n sc rip t, he re q u e ste d c o p ies o f a ll o th e r d o c u m e n ts a n d tra n sc rip ts m ai nt ai ned i n t he court ’ s fi l e. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed B yr d’ s m ot i on beca us e i tw as t oo vague, br oad, and over l ybur dens om e. T o t he ext entB yr d appea l s t hi s rul i ng, w e conc l ude t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on. W e not e thatB yr d has noti dent i fi ed a n yis s u e s s u g g e s tin g th a t h is a p p e a l is n o t f ri v o lo u s (b u t p re s e n ts a s u b s ta n tia l q u e s tio n ). S ee 2 8 U . S . C . § 7 5 3 (f).

A c c o rd in g ly, w e s h a ll d is m is s th is a p p e a l p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ). 1