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 12-8-2008 

# Gregory Mi lt on v

. Ra y 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 . 08-1593

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 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 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 " Gr e g ory Mi lt on v

. R a y " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 145. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/145C L D - 3 9 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. 08- 1593

___________ GR E GOR Y A. M I L T ON, A ppel l ant v . M. E. RAY, former Reg ional Direc tor for the No rt he a st Re g ion

of theF e deral B ure a

u o f P ri so ns ; TODD W. CERNEY, Disciplinary Hea ringOffic er f

or the Fe deral Bure au of Prisons at U.S.P. Allenwood, Pennsylvania; ALAN STEVENSON, f

ormer IIIUnit Manag er f

or the F ederal B ure a u o f P ri so ns at U .S. P. A llenw oo d, Pe nn sylva nia ; G. GALLI CK , (A) Couns e lor fo r t heF e deral B ure a

u o f P ri so ns at U.S.P. Allenwood, Pennsylvania; J . KAMI NSKI , Manag er f

or theF e deral B ure a

u o f P ri so ns at U .S. P. A llenw oo d, Pe nn sylva nia ; M. FLANAGA

N, L ieutenant f

or the F ederal B urea

u of Prisons at U. S.P. Al lenw oo d, Pe nn sylva nia ; R. ED ER, Se nio r O ff ic e r S pe c ialis t fo r t heF e deral B ure a

u o f P ri so ns at U .S. P. A llenw oo d, Pe nn sylva nia

____________________________________ 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 ( M . D . Pa. N o. 04- cv- 01586) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Y vett e K ane

____________________________________ 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 N ovember21, 2008 B efor e: R E N D E L L , H A R D I M A N and N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: D ece m ber8, 2008)S ee B iven s v . S ix U n k n o w n A g en ts of F ed . B u rea u o f N arc o ti cs, 40 3 U . S . 3 8 8 (19 7 1 ). 1 2 _________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_________ P E R C UR I AM G r egoryM i l t on, a pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pro se , fi l ed a B i ven s act i on against 1 v ariou s o ff

ici als o f th e F ed era l B u rea u o f P ri so n s (“B O P ”), al legin g that B O P d isci p li n ary p roc ed u res v iolated h is D u e P roc ess a n d F ir st A m en d m en t r igh ts. T h e D istri ct C o u rt i n i t i a l l yg r a n t e d s u mma r yj u d g me n ti n f a v o ro f De f e n d a n t s a s t o th e d u e p r o c e s s c l a i ms underW ol ff v. M cD onnel l , 418 U . S. 539 ( 1974) . M i l t on fi l ed a mot i on for r econs i der at i on, not i ng thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tover l ooked addi t i onal due pr oces s and fr eedom of spe ech c l ai m s . A ft ergr ant i ng hi s m ot i on and cons i der i ng thos e cl ai m s , the D i s tr i ctC our tagai n gr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof D efe ndant s . M i l t on fi l ed ano ther m oti on for r econ si derat i on , w hich w as denied. T his app eal foll ow ed. B ecause the a p p ea l do es n o t prese n t a su b stan ti al qu esti o n , w e w il l sum m aril yaf firm . S ee 3 d C ir . L A R 27. 4; 3d C i r . I O P 10. 6. I I n 2002 and 2003, M i l t on r ece i ved s anct i ons s t emm i ng fr om tw o i nci dent s at U . S. P. A l l enw ood, w her e he i s i ncar cer at ed. I n the fi r s ti ns t ance , M i l t on w as char ged w i th vi ol at i ng Pr ohi bi t ed A ct i on C ode 397, w hi ch pr ohi bi t s “U s e of the Tel ephone f orI tw as al l eged thatM i l t on had i ni t i at ed a pl an of thi r d partycont actbys ugges t i ng over 2 the phone thathi s br othercont actanotherr el at i ve on M i l t on’ s behal f, ther eby ci rcum ven t i ng B O P ’s m on i t ori ng of inm at e com m un i cat i on s. B O P o f f icia ls a lleg e d th a t M ilt o n p o ss e ss e d f o o d item s ta k e n f

ro m th e p riso n c a f

e ter ia 3 and s ecr et ed i n hi s l aundrybag. 3 A b u s e s o th e r t h a n C ri m in a l A c tiv ity.” A f te r M ilto n f

ile d a f o rm a l r e s o lu tio n re q u e s t, a 2 D i s ci pl i naryH ear i ng O ffi cer( D H O ) conduct ed a he ar i ng, atw hi ch the D H O det erm i ned thatM i l t on had vi ol at ed C ode 397. M i l t on r ece i ved a s anct i on of l os tphone pr i vi l eges forthr ee mont hs and a l os s of thi r t een da y s ’ good t i m e cr edi t . M i l t on appea l ed the D H O ’ s deci s i on t o t he R egi onal D i r ect or , ar gui ng thatthe s anct i on vi ol at ed hi s D ue P ro c e s s a n d F ir s t A m e n d m e n t R ig h ts . T h e R e g io n a l D ir e c to r u p h e ld th e D H O ’s d e c is io n . M i l t on then appe al ed t o t he G ener al C ouns el , w hi ch or der ed the D H O t o r econs i dert he char ge aga i ns tM i l t on. N ot abl y , M i l t on di d notar gue a Fi r s tA m endmentvi ol at i on i n that fi nal appea l . U pon r evi ew of the ca s e, a D H O det erm i ned thatM i l t on had notvi ol at ed C ode 397 and r ei ns t at ed hi s good t i m e cr edi t . I n J ul y2004, M i l t on fi l ed the i ns t antact i on in th e D istric t C o u rt. I n the s econd i nci dent , M i l t on w as char ged w i th “Pos s es s i on of A nythi ng N ot A uthor i zed, ” i n vi ol at i on of C ode 305. A ta hea r i ng, a D H O found M i l t on gui l tyof 3 vi ol at i ng C ode 305 and s anct i oned hi m w i th tw o m onths ’ l os s of comm i s s arypr i vi l eges a n d f if te e n d a y s ’ d is c ip lin a ry se g re g a tio n , s u s p e n d e d p e n d in g 1 8 0 d a y s o f c le a r c o n d u c t. M i l t on’ s appea l s w er e deni ed and, i n A ugus t2004, he amended hi s pendi ng fede r al com plai nt t o all ege D ue P rocess viol at i on s duri ng the C od e 30 5 p roceedings.M ilt o n ’s c o m p lain t in c lu d e s th e f o llo w in g c laim s: th e D H O p ro c e e d in g s re late d to h is 4 C ode 397 and Code 305 char ges fai l ed t o pr ovi de due pr oces s , as r equi r ed byW ol ff v. M c D o n n e ll, 4 1 8 U .S . 5 3 9 (1 9 7 4 ), an d S u p e rin ten d e n t, M a ss . C o rr. In st., W a lp o le v . H ill , 472 U . S. 445 ( 1985) ; the t el ephone r es tr i ct i on s anct i ons i m pos ed aga i ns tM i l t on under C o d e 3 9 7 v io late d h is f re e sp e e c h rig h ts u n d e r th e F irst A m e n d m e n t; an d C o d e 3 9 7 f a ils t o pr ovi de fa i rnot i ce of the conduc ti tpr ohi bi t s , i n vi ol at i on of the D ue Pr oces s C l aus e of th e F if th A m e n d m e n t. 4 II M i l t on con t end s that the D i stri ctC ou rti m properl ygrant ed the D efen dan t s’ m ot i ons fors um m aryj udgm ent . A m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm entm aynotbe gr ant ed 4 u n le s s th e m o v in g p a rt yis e n title d to ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f la w . F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 . S u m m a ryju d g m e n t is a p p ro p ria te if th e p lea d in g s, d e p o sitio n s, a n sw e rs to i nt err ogat or i es , admi s s i ons on fi l e, and anyaff i davi t s s how thatther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac t . Fed. R . C i v. P. 56( c) . A n i s s ue of f acti s “genui ne onl yi f a r eas onabl e j ury , cons i der i ng the evi dence pr es ent ed, coul d fi nd forthe nonmovi ng party . ” C h il d ers v . Jo sep h , 8 4 2 F . 2 d 6 8 9 , 6 9 3 -94 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) (i n terna l ci tat ion s o m itted). T h e b u rd e n o f

p ro v in g th a t th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial f

a c t is in iti a lly u p o n th e mov a n t ; u p o n s u c h a s h o wi n g , th e b u r d e n s h i f t s t o th e n o n mov i n g p a r ty . Se e El v. Sout heas t ern Penns y l vani a Tra ns p. A uth. , 479 F. 3d 232, 238 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . T he nonm ovi ng partyi s r equi r ed t o go bey ond the pl eadi ngs and byaff i davi t s orby

“ d e p o sitio n s, a n sw e rs to in ter ro g a to rie s a n d a d m iss io n s o n f ile” d e sig n a te “ sp 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 ).5 III W hen an i nm at e fa ces the pos s i bi l i tyof l os s of good conduc tt i m e cr edi t s , he sh o u ld re c e iv e : (1 ) w ritten n o tice o f th e c laim e d v io latio n a t lea st tw e n ty -f o u r h o u rs in ad v an ce o f th e h ea ri n g , (2) a n o p p o rtu n ityto ca ll w itn esse s an d p rese n t do cu m en tary evi dence i n hi s defe ns e w hen doi ng s o w oul d notbe undul yhaza r dous t o i ns t i tut i onal sa f e tyo r c o rre c tio n a l g o a ls, (3 ) a ss ista n c e f ro m a re p re se n tativ e , if th e c h a rg e d in m a te is i l l i t er at e ori f compl ex i s s ues ar e i nvol ved, and ( 4) a w r i t t en s t at ementbythe fa ct fi nderas to e v id e n c e re lie d o n a n d re a s o n s f o r t h e d is c ip lin a ry a c tio n . S e e W o lf f , 4 1 8 U .S . a t 5 6 4 . Fur ther , the D H O ’ s deci s i on m us tbe s uppor t ed by“s om e evi dence ” on the r ecor d. See H i l l , 472 U . S. at454. T he D i s tr i ctC our tr ecor d overw hel m i ngl ys uppor t s the conc l us i on thatthe r equi r ement s of W ol ff a nd H i l l w er e meti n both D H O pr ocee di ngs . I n the C ode 397 p ro c e e d in g , M ilt o n re c e iv e d tim e lyn o tice o f th e c laim e d v io latio n , h a d th e o p p o rtu n ityto cal l w i tnes s es and pr es entdocument aryevi dence , r ece i ved as s i s t ance fr om a s t aff r epr es ent at i ve, and r ece i ved a w r i t t en s t at ementbythe D H O conce rni ng the evi dence re lied u p o n a n d th e re a so n s f o r im p o sin g sa n c tio n s. F u rth e r, b e c a u se M ilt o n a d m itt e d to m aki ng the phone c al l and as ki ng hi s br othert o cont acta thi r d party , evi dence exi s t ed on the r ecor d t o s uppor tthe D H O ’ s deci s i on. M i l t on has notm ethi s bur den of d e mo n s tr a t i n g th e e x i s t e n c e o f a d i s p u t e d ma t e r i a l f

a c twi th r e g a r d t o th e Co d e 3 9 7 c l a i m.M or eover , even i f W ol ff’ s pr ot ect i ons appl i ed, w e not e thatthe condi t i ons of W ol ff 5 and H i l l w er e s at i s fi ed. M i l t on r ece i ved t i m el ynot i ce of the hea r i ng. H e w as advi s ed of hi s r i ght s , i ndi cat ed thathe under s t ood them, and chos e nott o have a s t aff r epr es ent at i ve orw i tnes s es appea ron hi s behal f. T he D H O pr ovi ded a w r i t t en r eportexpl ai ni ng the concl us i on thatM i l t on comm i t t ed the pr os cr i bed conduc t , and i ncul pat oryevi dence i n t he form of M i l t on’ s pos s es s i on of the food pr ovi ded s om e s uppor tforthatdeci s i on. 6 IV M ilt o n ’s c laim w ith re sp e c t to th e C o d e 3 0 5 p ro c e e d in g a lso lac k s m e rit. “D i s ci pl i ne bypr i s on offi ci al s i n r es pons e t o a w i de r ange of m i s conduct ” i s expec t ed as partof an i nm at e’ s s ent ence , Sandi n v. C onner , 515 U . S. 472, 484 ( 1995) , and a s anct i on o f f if tee n d a y s’ s e g re g a ted c o n f in e m e n t o rd in a rilyd o e s n o t v io late a p ro tec ted lib e rty i nter est . S ee, e. g. , S m i th v . M ensi ng er, 29 3 F . 3d 64 1, 65 3 (3d C i r. 20 02 ) ( seven m on ths’ di s ci pl i narys egr egat i on i ns uffi ci entt o tr i ggerdue pr oces s vi ol at i on) ; G r i ffi n v. V aughan, 112 F. 3d 703, 706- 08 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ( fi ft een mont hs ’ admi ni s tr at i ve cus t odyi ns uffi ci ent t o tr i ggerdue pr oces s vi ol at i on) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tr eas oned thatthe s us pended t erm of d isc ip lin a ryse g re g a tio n a n d tw o m o n th s’ lo ss o f c o m m iss a ryp riv ileg e s d id n o t am o u n t to a har ds hi p of s uffi ci entm agni tude t o i m pl i cat e a l i bertyi nt er es t , and conc l uded that s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t w a s a p p ro p ri a te b e c a u s e W o lf f d u e p ro c e s s p ro te c tio n s d id n o t a p p ly. W e agr ee. 5 V M ilt o n ’s F irst A m e n d m e n t cla im a lso f a ils. N o p riso n e r m a yf ile a n a c tio n in f e d e ra l co u rt w ith re sp e c t to p riso n c o n d iti o n s w ith o u t f irst e x h a u stin g a ll av a ilab leC o d e 3 9 7 p ro h ib its “ u s e o f th e te le p h o n e f

o r a b u s e s o th e r t h a n c ri m in a l a c tiv ity (e .g ., 6 confe r ence cal l i ng, pos s es s i on and/ orus e of a notheri nm at e’ s PI N num ber , thr ee- w ay c a llin g , p ro v id in g f

a ls e in f o rm a tio n f

o r p re p a ra tio n o f

a te le p h o n e lis t) .” 2 8 C .F .R . § 541. 13, T abl e 3. W e al s o agr ee w i th t he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s r eas ons fordeny i ng M i l t on’ s m ot i on for 7 r econs i der at i on. 7 admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es . 42 U . S. C . § 1997e( a) . Pur s uantt o B O P r egul at i ons , a fe der al pr i s onerfound gui l tyata D H O hear i ng of a c ode vi ol at i on m ayappea l the dec i s i on t o the R egi onal D i r ect or . 28 C . F. R . § 542. 14( d) ( 2) . I f he doe s notpr evai l , he mayappea l the R egi onal D i r ect or ’ s deci s i on t o t he C entr al O ffi ce. 28 C . F. R . § 542. 15. A tal l s t ages of the admi ni s tr at i ve appe l l at e pr oces s , the i nm at e must“s t at e s peci fi cal l ythe r eas on[s ] for a p p e a l,” § 5 4 2 .1 5 (b )(1 ), an d “ a n in m a te m a yn o t ra ise in a n A p p e a l issu e s n o t ra ise d in l ow er l evel fi l i ng s. ” § 5 42 . 15 (b) (2) . In the inst ant cas e, al tho ug h M i l t on rai sed a F i rs t A m e n d m e n t cla im in h is a p p e a l to th e R e g io n a l D ire c to r, h e d id n o t d o so in h is a p p e a l to the C entr al O ffi ce. B eca us e he f ai l ed t o exhaus tadmi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es conce rni ng any F irst A m e n d m e n t v io latio n s, M ilt o n c a n n o t p re v a il o n su c h a c laim in f e d e ra l co u rt. VI F in a lly , w ith re g a rd to M ilt o n ’s f a ir n o tice c laim , the D istric t C o u rt re a so n e d th a t, i n l i ghtof the D H O ’ s concl us i on thatM i l t on di d notvi ol at e C ode 397, the r egul at i ons pr ovi ded ade quat e not i ce. W e agr ee. 6 7 In su m , the a p p e a l p re se n ts n o su b sta n tial iss u e s. A c c o rd in g ly , w e su m m a rily a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.