2008 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 2-20-2008 

# D anc y v . C ollie 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 . 07-4329

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_2008

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 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 " D anc y v . C o ll ie r " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1564. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1564A L D - 131 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. 07- 4329

___________ L AR RY DANC Y, A ppel l ant v. M R. COLL I ER; M R. DI VERS E; M R. S NYD ER; M R. NOON; M R. T RG OVAC ; M R. WI L L I S ON; MR . S MI T H ; MR . MA T T H E WS

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from 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 vi l N o. 06- cv- 02301) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le E d w in M . K o sik

____________________________________ S u b mi t t e d f

o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l P u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) o r S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 February14, 2008 B efore: S L O V ITE R , F ISH E R and H A R D IM A N , C i rcui tJudg es.

Fi l ed: February20, 2008

_________ OP I NI ON

_________T h e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rlyc o n c lu d e d th a t D a n c y , w h o h a d c a p tio n e d h is 1 r es pons e a r es pons e t o a “mot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , ” had not i ce of the natur e of D efe ndant s ’ m ot i on fr om i t s t i t l e. 2 P E R C UR I AM L arr yD ancy , a fe der al pr i s oner , br oughts ui tagai ns tpr i s on offi ci al s and empl oy ees r el at i ng t o an as s aul the s uffe r ed atthe hands of anotheri nm at e. H e cl ai m ed t h a ta f t e rh e f i l e d a r a c e d i s c r i mi n a t i o n c l a i m wi t h th e J u s t i c e De p a r t me n ta g a i n s ts o me De f e n d a n t s , o t h e rDe f

e n d a n t s l e a k e d c o n f

i d e n t i a l i n f

o r ma t i o n f

r o m h i s c a s e . He c o n te n d e d th a t in re s p o n s e to h e a ri n g th e le a k e d in f o rm a tio n , a n o th e r i n m a te s ta b b e d h im . H e al s o al l eged thatD efe ndant s deni ed hi m m edi cal tr eatm entforthe s t ab w ound and hindered his at t em pts t o g ri eve h i s com plai nts . A s the p art i es ar e fam i l i ar w i t h the fact s, w e w ill re f

e r to o th e r d e tails o n lya s th e yb e c o m e re lev a n t. D ef en d an ts fil ed a m o ti o n to d ism iss or, in the alt ern ati v e, a m o ti o n fo r sum m ary j ud gm ent. D ancyfi l ed a m oti on for app ointm ent of cou nsel , then he sub m i t t ed a respon se t o D efe ndant s ’ m ot i on. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed D ancy ’ s couns el m ot i on w i t hout pr ej udi ce t o i t s r enew al i n t he eve ntthatanyof hi s cl ai m s w entt o t r i al . T hen, the D i s tr i ct C o u rt tre a ted D e f

e n d a n ts’ m o tio n a s a m o tio n f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t an d g ra n ted it. 1 D a n c ya p p e a ls a n d m o v e s f o r a p p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n se l. W e w ill su m m a rilya f

f irm th e D istric t C o u rt b e c a u se n o su b sta n tial iss u e is p rese n ted o n ap p ea l. S ee L . A . R . 2 7 . 4 ; I . O . P . 1 0 . 6 . B ec au se w e c o n clud e tha t D an cy ’s3

appea l i s notm er i t or i ous , w e denyhi s m ot i on forappoi nt m entof couns el . See Tabr on v. G rac e, 6 F . 3 d 1 4 7 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng D ancy ’ s m ot i on for appoi nt m entof couns el . T he D i s t r i ctC our ti dent i fi ed the appr opr i at e cons i der at i ons and di d noterri n concl udi ng t hati tw as notnece s s aryt o appoi ntcouns el . See Tabr on, 6 F. 3d at155- 58. T he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l ygr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof D efe ndant s on D ancy ’ s cl ai m t hatD efe ndant s di d notpr ovi de hi m w i t h appr opr i at e and t i m el ym edi cal car e forhi s s t ab w ound beca us e D ancyfai l ed t o exhaus thi s admi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es for th is c laim . A p riso n e r w h o c h a llen g e s p riso n c o n d iti o n s m u st e x h a u st a v a ilab le admi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es befor e fi l i ng s ui ti n fede r al cour t . See 42 U . S. C . § 1997e; W oodfor d v. N go, 126 S. C t . 2378, 2382 ( 2006) ; B oot h v. C hurner , 532 U . S. 731, 739 ( 2001) . H ow ever , al t hough D ancyhas s oughtr el i ef thr ough admi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es 35 tim e s in p riso n , h e d id n o t f o llo w th e p ro c e d u re s s e t f o rth a t 2 8 C .F .R . § 5 4 2 e t se q . to r ai s e hi s cl ai m of a l ack of m edi cal car e fol l ow i ng hi s s t abbi ng. D ancycont ended that D e f e n d a n t S yn d e r’s re f

e rra l o f a n a p p e a l o f

a d e c isio n d e n y in g a d if f e re n t g rie v a n c e to t he B ur eau of

Pr i s ons ( “B O P”) R egi onal O ffi ce i nt er fer ed w i t h hi s abi l i t yt o s eek admi ni s t r at i ve r el i ef f

orhi s m edi cal car e cl ai m , butw e do notagr ee. T he r efe r r al of anA s t he D i s t r i ctC our texpl ai ned, the r efe r r al w as r eas onabl e underthe 2 ci rcum st ances. H er e and e l s ew her e, w e s ubs t i tut e corr ects pel l i ngs forthe s pel l i ngs i n t he 3 capt i on. D ancypr ocee ds underB i vens v. Si x U nknow n N amed A gent s of Fed. B ur eau of 4 N a rc o tics , 4 0 3 U .S . 3 8 8 (1 9 7 1 ), th e f e d e ra l co u n terp a rt to § 1 9 8 3 c laim s a g a in st s tate ac tors. S ee E g erv aryv . Y o u n g , 3 6 6 F . 3 d 2 3 8 , 2 4 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). 4 unr el at ed appe al t o t he R egi onal O ffi ce coul d nothave a ffe ct ed the ava i l abl e r emedyfor 2 h i s me d i c a l c a r e c l a i m. Fur t herm or e, t he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l ygr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof fi ve D efe ndant s ( M ar i e Trgova c, T i m othyN oone, J ames Col l i er , T r oyW i l l i amson, and Joseph S m i t h) for l ack o f personal i nv olvem ent. D ancym akes no cl ai m s agai nst 3 D efe ndant s T r govac, N oone, and C ol l i eri n hi s compl ai nt ; he mer el ym ent i ons thathe fi l ed hi s J us t i ce D epart m entcompl ai ntagai ns tthem. I n r es pons e t o t hei rdecl ar at i ons d e n y in g in v o lv e m e n t in th e o th e r a c ts D a n c ya lleg e d , D a n c yd id n o t o th e rw ise im p lica te t hem . A s for D efen dan t s W i l l i am son an d S m i t h, D ancyexp l i ci t l ysoug ht t o im po se l i abi l i t yon t hem on a r es pondent - s uper i ortheory , w hi ch ca nnotbe done i n t hi s B i vens 4 ac ti o n . S ee , e.g., R ivera v . R il ey , 2 0 9 F . 3 d 2 4 , 2 8 (1st C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) (cit ing ca ses). T h e D istri ct C o u rtalso p rop erlyg ran ted th e re m ainin g D ef en d an ts’ (R icha rd D i ver s ’ s and Todd M at t hew s ’ s ) r eques tfors um m aryj udgm enton t he bas i s of qual i fi ed im m u n ity . Q u a lifie d im m u n itysh ield s g o v e rn m e n t o f f icia ls f ro m liab ili tyf

o r c iv il damages “i ns ofaras t hei rconductdoes notvi ol at e cl ear l yes t abl i s hed s t atut oryor5

cons t i tut i onal r i ght s of w hi ch a r eas onabl e per s on w oul d have know n. ” H ar l ow v. Fi t zger al d, 457 U . S. 800, 818 ( 1982) . T he i nqui r yi nt o t he appl i cabi l i t yof qual i fi ed i m m uni t yi s t w ofol d: ( 1) w hethert he pl ai nt i ff de m ons t r at ed the depr i vat i on of a cons t i tut i onal r i ght , and ( 2) w hetherthatr i ghtw as es t abl i s hed atthe t i m e of the al l eged depr i vat i on. Sauci erv. K at z, 533 U . S. 194, 201 ( 2001) . A s the D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded, D a n c yd id n o t sh o w th e d e p riv a tio n o f a c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t. D ancycl ai m ed thatD efe ndantM at t hew s pr ovi ded D i ver s w i t h i nform at i on fr om an af fi davi the s ubm i t t ed i n t he i nves t i gat i on of hi s r ace di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m . H e al l eged t hatD i ver s t hen r et al i at ed fort he fi l i ng of the cl ai m byr evea l i ng t o an i nm at e named H aynes t hatD ancyhad ment i oned hi s name and caus ed hi m t o be tr ans ferr ed t o an u n d e sira b le p riso n p ro g ra m . D a n c yc o n ten d e d th a t h e w a s s tab b e d b ya n o th e r in m a te (w h o re m a in s u n n a m e d ) a s a re su lt. D efe ndant s pr es ent ed evi dence thatM at t hew s w as the onl yoffi ceri nvol ved i n the i nves t i gat i on and thathe di d notr evea l the cont ent s of D ancy ’ s aff i davi tt o D i ver s or ot her s . D i ver s averr ed thathe di d noteven know aboutthe i nves t i gat i on unt i l m ont hs aft er the st abb i ng occu rr ed. D ancydid not r espon d w i t h ev i den ce t o p ut D efen dan t s’ decl ar at i ons i n contr over s y . A s t he D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed, D ancydi d noteven e xpl ai n t heA l s o, t he i nt ernal i nves t i gat i on of the s t abbi ng pai nt s a verya di ffe r ents t oryof 5 t he ca us e of the al t er cat i on t hatl ed t o t he s t abbi ng, namel ythatD ancyi ns t i gat ed a f i ght w i t h anotheri nm at e. 6 bas i s forhi s bel i ef thatM at t hew s l eake d i nform at i on t o D i ver s orthatD i ver s pas s ed al on g inform at i on t o H aynes. 5 I n s um , t he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l ydeni ed D ancy ’ s m ot i on forappoi nt m entof co u n sel an d g ran ted D ef en d an ts’ m o ti o n fo r sum m aryjud g m en t. A cc o rdin g ly , w e a ff irm t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j udgm ent . A l s o, w e denyD ancy ’ s m ot i on forappoi nt m entof c o u n se l.