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 Third C ir c uit 12-7-2005 

# K eys v . C raig 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 . 05-2285

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2005

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 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 Third C irc 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 2005 D e c i sion s by an authori 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 more 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 " Keys v . C r ai g " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 148. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2005/148D PS-345 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 . 05- 2285 CA RR I N G TO N K EY S, A ppel l ant

v. C .O . C R A IG ; S U P E R IN T E N D E N T Z IM M E R M A N ; L IE U T E N A N T R H O D E S , S g t.; W O L A R D ; C .O . W IT T E L ; C .O . I A L B A ; J E F F R E Y B E A R D , S e c re ta ry o f D .O .C .; S ERGE ANT W EBB ; ROBER T BI LOUS ; DON ALD KEL CHNER;

GRI EVANCE COORDI NATOR J AGG ERT

_____________________________________ 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 M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i v. N o. 04- cv- 01004) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e W i l l i am J. N eal on

_______________________________________ Subm i tt ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 27. 4 and I . O . P. 10. 6

A ugus t18, 2005 B efor e: R O T H , B A R R Y and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed D ece m ber7, 2005)

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM A p p e llan t C a rrin g to n K e y s a p p e a ls f ro m a D istric t C o u rt o rd e r d ism iss in g h is c o m p la in t f

o r f a ilu re to e x h a u s t a d m in is tr a tiv e re m e d ie s u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 9 7 e (a ). B eca us e no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on i s pr es ent ed, w e w i l l aff i r m . See L. A . R . 27. 4.W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291 and exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew over 1 the di s m i s s al of a c om pl ai ntforfai l ur e t o exhaus t . See Sprui l l v. G i l l i s , 372 F. 3d 218, 226 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . K ey s al s o br oughts ui tagai ns ts ever al otherpr i s on offi ci al s , eac h of w ho m the D i stri ctC ou rtdis m i ssed i n earl i er or ders. K ey s does no tapp eal these d i s m i s s a l s . T h u s , w e a d d r e s s th e c l a i m s a n d p a r t i e s d i s m i s s e d o n A p r i l 8 , 2 0 0 5 , o n l y. 2 O n M ay6, 2004, K ey s fi l ed a c om pl ai ntunder42 U . S. C . § 1983 al l egi ng Fi r s tand E i gh th A m end m ent vi olat i on s agai nstnu m erous pri son o ffi ci al s. H e fi l ed h i s fi rs t a me n d e d c o mp l a i n to n M a y1 9 , 2 0 0 4 , r a i s i n g th e s a me c l a i ms , b u twi th a d d e d d e t a i l s . At i s s ue i n thi s appea l i s the di s m i s s al of K ey s ’ cl ai m s agai ns tC orr ect i onal O ffi cer s C r ai g, Z i m m erm an, W i t t el , A l ba, and W ebb. K ey s al l eges eac h deni ed hi m food, r el i gi ous m aterial , an d lega l m aterial in retali ati o n fo r his test im o n yin an o ther inm ate’s co u rt pr ocee di ngs . O n A pr i l 8, 2005, adopt i ng a M agi s tr at e J udge’ s r eportand r ecomm endat i on, the D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed the compl ai ntbeca us e i thel d K ey s fai l ed t o p roperl yexh austhis avail able adm i nis trat i ve rem edies . K ey s appea l s. 1 A n in m a te m u st p ro p e rlye x h a u st a ll av a ilab le a d m in istra tiv e re m e d ies p rio r to fi l i ng s ui tunder§ 1983. See 42 U . S. C . § 1997e( a) ; Por t erv. N us s l e, 534 U . S. 516, 524 ( 2002) ; Sprui l l , 372 F. 3d at222. I n Sprui l l w e hel d thatpr operexhaus t i on m eans that in m a tes m u st f

o llo w th e p ro c e d u ra l re q u ire m e n ts o f th e p riso n g rie v a n c e sy ste m . S p ru ill , 3 7 2 F . 3 d a t2 3 1 . I f

a n i n ma t e f

a i l s t o f o l l o w t h e p r i s o n g r i e v a n c e p o l i c y , th e n h i s c l a i ms ar e pr ocedur al l ydefa ul t ed. Th e Co mmo n we a l th ’ s g r i e v a n c e p o l i c yp r o v i d e s th r e e l e v e l s o f r e v i e w. S e e DCA D M 804, Par tV I . T he D i s tr i ctC our tfound K ey s fai l ed t o s at i s fythe fi nal s t age ofK ey s fi l ed hi s i ni t i al gr i evanc e, G r i evanc e N o. 82727, w i th r es pectt o the depr i vat i on 2 of food c l ai m s onl y . H i s l egal and r el i gi ous m at er i al depr i vat i on cl ai m s ar e def aul t ed. I n Sprui l l , w e l eftunr es ol ved atw hatpoi ntcompl i ance w i th pr i s on gr i evanc e 3 pr ocedur es i s deemed s uffi ci ent l y“s ubs t ant i al ” t o excus e pr ocedur al defa ul t . Sprui l l , 373 F. 3d at232 ( ci t i ng N yhui s v. R eno, 204 F. 3d 65, 77- 78 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ) . T o the ext entthat K e y s ra is e s th is is s u e , th e in s ta n t f a c ts d o n o t r e q u ir e u s to d e c is iv e ly re s o lv e th e q u e s tio n . I ns t ead, i ts uffi ces t o s t at e thatK ey s ’ fai l ur e t o even a t t empt compl i ance w i th the gr i evanc e pr ocedur es cannotbe s uffi ci ent l ys ubs t ant i al t o actas an exc us e. O therw i s e, f e w , if a n y , sin g le p ro c e d u ra l f a ilu re s w o u ld e sta b lish a d e f a u lt. 3 re v iew . “A n in m a te w h o is d iss a tisf ied w ith th e d isp o sitio n o f a n a p p e a l f

ro m th e F a c ili ty M anage r , m ays ubm i tan appe al t o the Secr et ary ’ s O ffi ce of I nm at e G r i evanc es and A ppeal s , [her ei naft erSO I G A ] . . . . ” D C - A D M 804, Par tV I . D . 1. b. O n M ay24, 2004, K ey s t i m el yfi l ed an appeal , butfai l ed t o att ach doc um ent s r equi r ed for“a pr operappea l t o fi nal r evi ew . ” D C - A D M 804, Par tV I . D . 1. h. T he SO I G A r efus ed t o acton the 2 a p p e a l b e c a u s e o f

th is d e f ic ie n c y . K e y s a rg u e d in th e D istric t C o u rt th a t h e d id e v e n tu a llysu b m it th e d o c u m e n ts re q u ire d f

o r p ro p e r re v iew , b u t h e w a s d e layed b e c a u se th e p riso n to o k tw o w e e k s to m ake c opi es . H ow ever , K ey s nevers ubm i tt ed the document s t o the SO I G A , nordi d he re q u e st a n e x ten sio n o f

tim e to f ile th e m . R a th e r, h e f

o rw a rd e d th e d o c u m e n ts a lo n g w ith a l ett erexpl ai ni ng hi s s i tuat i on t o J eff r eyB ear d, the D O C Secr et ary . I ti s al s o evi dent thatK ey s w as aw ar e of the fi l i ng r equi r ement s , buts t i l l fai l ed t o adher e t o the gr i evanc e pol i cy . K ey s ’ cl ai m s ar e thus pr ocedur al l ydefaul t ed. A ccor di ngl y , beca us e no

3 su b sta n tial q u e stio n is p re se n ted , the D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r d ism iss in g th e c o m p lain t w ill be af fi r m ed.