NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____ _______

No. 1 9

- 2 0 1 8

__________

RODNEY OTHEL MCINTOSH

, Appellan t

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

________

____ ________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the M i d d l e District of P e n n s y l v a n i a

(D.C. Civil Action No. 1

- 18

- cv

- 0 0 9 0 3 )

District Judge: Honor able Y v e t t e K a n e

_____________

_______________________

Submitted Pursuant to Th ir d Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

S e p t e m b e r 1 1

, 2 0 2 0

Before: K R

A U S E

, M A T E Y

, a n d R O T H

, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : February 4, 2021 )

_ __________

OPINION *

___________

PER CURIAM

* T his disposition is not an opini on of t he f ull C ourt and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not

constitute binding precedent.2

R o d n e y M c I n t o s h a p p e a l s f r o m a n o r d e r o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e

M i d d l e D i s t r i c t o f P e n n s y l v a n i a

, w h i c h g r a n t e d s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t f o r t h e G o v e r n m e n t

.

F o r t h e r e a s o n s below

, w e w i l l a f f i r m i n p a r t a

n d v a c a t e i n p a r t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s

j u d g m e n t a n d r e m a n d f

o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s

.

I

.

W h i l e i n c a r c e r a t e d a t U S P L e w i s b u r g

, M c I n t o s h l e a r n e d a t s o m e p o i n t t h a t h i s

c u s t o d y c l a s s i f

i c a t i o n i n c l u d e d a P ub l i c S a f e t y F a c t o r ( “ P S F ” ) o f “ s e x o f f e n d e r

. ” See

Dkt. #1

- 1 at 2 (dated Dec. 8 , 2014 , noting “ PUB SFTY: GRT SVRTY, SEX OFFN ” ).

McIntosh alleg es that

, a t f i r s t

, he was unaware of the cla ssification but that the

clas sificatio n fo rm was shared “ through o u t t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s p e n i t e n t i a r i e s b y m u l t i p l e

i n m a t e s

, ” causing him to be assaulted by several inmates. C o m p l a i n t

, D k t

. # 1 a t 1

- 2

. I n

September 2017, he file d an informal resolu tion attempt. USP Lewisburg Sta ff member

Mr s. J. Reib some r e t

u r n e d a w ritt en r e sponse stat i n g

, “ You do n ot have a Sex Offender

P ublic Safety Factor, nor are you classified as a Sex Offender. If it was ever placed on

you, it was in e rr or. Please see attached Cu stody Classification Form dated 5

- 19

- 17,

showin g there is no Sex Off ende r PSF. ” Dkt. #1

- 1 at 1

.

McIntos h l a t e r f

iled an a dministrative claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act

( “ F T C A ” ) , alleging that he suffered “ from depression, paranoia, and severe mental

a nguish ” because the F e d e r a l B u r e a u o f P r i s o n s ( “ B OP ” ) “ has failed to k eep accur ate

records . . . and ha [ s ] e rro neously l abeled [him ] as a sex offender wi th a Public Safe ty3

Factor. ” Dkt. #1 at 13

. T h e B O P ’ s A c t i n g R e g i o n a l C o u n s e l d e n i e d t h e F T C A claim

because of insufficient evidence

, as “ [a ] review of records sh ows you h a ve no h isto ry of

any sexual offenses and are not c lassified as a sex offen der

. ” I d

. A c t i n g R e g i o n a l

C o u n s e l c o n c l u d e d t h a t there was no comp ensable loss b ased on any BOP emp loyee ’ s

negligence. Id. McIntosh then fi led a n d l a t e r a m e n d e d his complaint in t he District

Court

, raising claims under Bivens v . S ix Unknow n Named Ag ents of the Federal Bureau

of Narc otics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971) , and the FTCA

, seeking $ 3 milli on in damages.

On initial screen ing, the District Court dismissed severa l clai m s. Dkt. #13. First,

it dis missed M c I n t o s h ’ s Bivens claim that hi s due pro cess rights were vio lated when he

was temporari ly classified as a sex offender

. I d

. a t 6

– 7

. S econd, the District Court

dismissed any cla im that verbal abuse from prison sta ff viol ated McIntosh ’ s

constitution al rights. I d

. at 7

– 8. Third, the Di stric t Co urt dismissed any cl aims of libel,

sland er, or defamation under the FTCA

. I d

. a t 8

. Finally, the District Court determined

that McIntosh ’ s claims of negligence for miscla s sifying him as a sex o ffend er could

continue. I d

. at 8

– 9.

The Defendan ts then moved to dismis s, or in t h e alternative, for summary

judgm ent. T h e Ma gis trate Judge recommended th at the Court grant summary judgment

for two reasons: (1) the FTCA cl aims we re barred by t he discre t ionary funct io n

exemption; and (2) in the alterna ti ve , McIntosh failed t o state a claim of negligence

because “ the clas sification of McIntosh as a sex offen der was warranted under Program4

Statement 5100.08 due to his multiple infrac tions involvin g threats of sexual v iol ence and

engaging in sexual acts wh il e incarcerated. ” R&R , Dkt. #50 at 19. The Magistrate Judge

also de t ermined that McIntosh could not show causation because some of the incident

reports in the record showed that Mc Intosh was the instigat o r rather than the victim o f

assaults. Id. a t 1 9

– 2 0

. The Dis tr ict Court a d o p t e d t h e R e p o r t a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n a n d

granted summary judgment , over McIntos h ’ s ob jections. M c I n t o s h t i m e l y a p p e a l e d

.

I I

.

We exercise plenary revi ew over the District Court’s s u a s p o n t e dismissal of

M c I n t o s h ’ s claims a t s c r e e n i n g

. See Al lah v. Seiverling , 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir.

2000)

. In our review, “we accept all factual al le gations as true [and] construe the

complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Warre n Gen. Hosp. v. Amgen Inc.

,

643 F.3d 77, 84 (3d Cir . 2011) (citation omitted). Di smissal is appropriate “if, accepting

all well

- pleaded allegations in the co mplaint as true and viewing them in the light most

favorable to the plaintiff, a court finds that [ t he] plaintiff’s claims l ack facial

plausibility.” Id.

W e t u r n f i r s t t o t he D istrict Court ’ s d i s m i s s a l o f M c I n t o s h ’ s d u e p r o c e s s c l a i m

.

T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t cited Renchenski v. Williams , 622 F.3d 315, 328 (3d Cir. 201 0)

, i n

which w e held that “ the stig m a tizing effects of bein g labeled a sex offender, w hen

coupled with mandatory beha vioral modification therapy, triggers an independe nt liberty

interest emanat ing from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. ” But the5

District Court read Ren chen s k i more broadly, citing i t for the proposition tha t a sex

offen der designation al one cannot implicate a liberty interes t

. Dkt. #13 at 6

– 7.

Renchenski did not so h old, as th at fact pa ttern was not before u s

. M c I n t o s h ’ s c o m p l a i n t

a l l e g e s t h a t h e b e c a m e t h e v i c t i m o f a s s a u l t s b y f e l l o w i n m a t e s because o f t h e e r r o n e o u s

s e x o f f e n d e r d e s i g n a t i o n

. W e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r e m a t u r e l y d i s m i s s e d t h e

c l a i m a t t h e s c r e e n i n g s t a g e

. W e l e a v e i t t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e

, a f t e r

d i s c o v e r y

, i f a p p r o p r i a t e

, w h e t h e r M c I n t o s h has shown t h a t t h e s e x o f f e n d e r d e s i g n a t i o n

c a u s e d “ severe chan ges in conditions of confinement [ t h a t a m o u n t e d ] to a grievous los s

that should not be imposed without the opportu nity for notice and an adequate hearing

, ”

Renchens k i , 622 F .3d a t 325

.

W e a l s o c o n c l u d e t h a t the Dis trict Court s h o u l d n o t h a v e dismissed

, a t t h e

s c r e e n i n g s t a g e

, M c I n t o s h ’ s cla i m s o f verbal abuse from priso n staff

. Dkt. #13 at 7

– 8. In

his compla int, McIn tosh claimed that he was “ slandered by inmates & s taff with names

like: ch omo [child molester ] & ra per motherfuckers. ” Dkt. #1 at 2. In Beal v. Foster

,

803 F.3d 356, 358 (7th Cir. 2015 )

, the Court recogni zed that w hile “ mo st verbal

ha rassment by j ail or prison guards does n ot rise to the level of cruel and unusual

punishment, ” some harassment does, in cludin g the language and actions in that case that

“ could have been understood by the inmates as impl ying t hat the plaintiff is

homosexua l, ” thus “ inc rea s [in g] the likelihood of sexual assaults on him by ot h er

inmates. ” Similarly, a s M c I n t o s h a l l e g e s t h a t prison staff c alled h i m names that implied6

that he was a sex offender, M c I n t o s h m i g h t b e a b l e t o e s t a b l i s h

, p e r h a p s a f t e r d i s c o v e r y

,

t h a t s u c h i n s u l t s r e s u l t e d i n inc reased assaults against him

, o r o t h e r s i g n i f i c a n t h a r m

.

T he Di stric t Court a l s o dismissed a t s c r e e n i n g any c laims of libel, sland er, or

defamation under the FTCA

. Dkt. #13 at 8. W e a g r e e t h a t t h is dismissal was correct , as

such claims are barred by the statute. S ee Brumf iel d v. Sanders

, 232 F .3d 376, 382 (3 d

Cir. 2000) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2 680 (h)).

I n s u m

, a s t o t h e c l a i m s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i s m i s s e d a t s c r e e n i n g

, w e w i l l

v a c a t e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s J u n e 1

, 2 0 1 8 o r d e r i n p a r t a n d r e m a n d M c I n t o s h ’ s d u e p r o c e s s

c l a i m a n d h i s v e r

b a l a b u s e c l a i m

. W e e x p r e s s n o opinion about whether t h o s e c l a i m s

u l t i m a t e l y w i l l s u c c e e d

. W e w i l l a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s d i s m i s s a l a t s c r e e n i n g o f

M c I n t o s h ’ s l i b e l

, s l a n d e r

, a n d d e f a m a t i o n c l a i m s

.

I I I

.

We a l s o exercise plenary review over the District Court’ s order gran ting t h e

G o v e r n m e n t ’ s summary judgment m o t i o n

. See Ka uch er v. County of Bucks , 455 F.3d

418, 422 (3d Cir. 2006) . Summary judgment is proper whe n, viewing the evide nce in the

light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw ing all in ferenc e s in favor of that

party, there is no genuine dis pute over any m ater ial fact and the moving party is entitled

to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. C iv. P. 56(a) ; Kaucher , 4 55 F.3d at 422

– 23.

A genuine dispute of material fact exi sts if the eviden c e is sufficient for a reasonable7

f actfinder to re turn a verdict for the non

- moving party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,

Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)

.

A s n o t e d

, t h e Ma gis trate Judge recommended that the Court grant summary

judgm ent i n p a r t b e c a u s e the F TCA claims were b arred by the discretionary funct ion

exemption. The United States has sovereign immunity from civil liability, except when it

consents to b e sued

. See United States v. Bormes

, 5 6 8 U

. S

. 6

, 9 (2012) . The FTCA

provides a limited waiver of s overeign immunity for the negligent acts of go ver nment

employees act ing within the scope of their employment. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671

– 80

. But the

waiver is subj ect to exceptions, such as the discretionary function exception, which

p rovides that no liabi lity s h all lie for claims “based upon the ex ercise or pe rformance or

the fa ilure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty . . . whether or not the

d iscretion involved be abused.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a)

. To determine w hether the

discretionary fu n ction exception to the waiver of immunity applies , a court must asse ss

(1) whether the act involves an “element of judgment or choice,” rather than a course of

action prescribed by a federal statute, regulation, or policy; and ( 2) even if the challenged

c o nduct involves an element of judgment, “whether t hat judgment is of the kind that the

discretionary function exception was designed to shield.” Mitchell v. U nited States , 225

F.3d 361, 363

– 64 (3d Cir. 2000) (quoting Un ited Stat es v. Gaubert , 499 U.S. 315

, 322

– 2 3

(1991) ).8

Pr ogram Statement 5100.08 a l l o w s a s e x o f f e n d e r d e s i g n a t i o n

, even without a

conviction, if “ offic ial documentation . . . clearl y indicates ” the inmate ’ s “ behavior in the

current term of confinement or p r ior history includes one or more of the following

eleme n ts :

. . . (4) Any sexual act or contact not iden tified a bove that is aggressive or

abusive in nature (e.g., rape by instrument, encourag ing use of a m inor for prostitution

purposes

, incest, etc.). ” W e a g r e e t h a t d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r a s e x u a l o f f e n s e i s

“ a ggressive o r a b u s i v e i n n a t u r e ” d o e s r e q u i r e s o m e d i s c r e t i o n

. T h u s

, i f a p r i s o n o f f i c i a l

l o o k e d a t M c I n t o s h ’ s d i s c i p l i n a r y r e c o r d a n d d e t e r m i n e d t h a t a s e x o f f e n d e r d e s i g n a t i o n

w a s w a r r a n t e d

, a f

e d e r a l c o u r t c o u l d n o t s e c o n d

- g u e s s t h a t d e t e r m i n a t i o n

. 1

B u t a t t h i s p o i n t

, t h e r e c o r d d o e s n o t s u p p o r t a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t a p r i s o n o f f i c i a l

m a d e a d i s c r e t i o n a r y d e c i s i o n t o p l a c e t h e d e s i g n a t i o n i n M c I n t o s h ’ s r e c o r d

. I n d e e d

, J

.

R e i b s o m e ’ s d e c l a r a t i o n s t a t e s t h a t

, u p o n h e r r e v i e w o f M c I n t o s h ’ s r e c o r d

, a s e x o f f e n d e r

d e s i g n a t i o n w o u l d n o t b e w a r r a n t e d

, b a s e d o n h o w U S P L e w i s b u r g s t a f f i n t e r p r e t s t h e

P r o g r a m S t a t e m e n t

. S e e D k t

. # 3 0

- 1 a t 2

. S h e s t a t e s t h a t “ i t i s u n c l e a r e x a c t l y w h e n t h e

P S F w a s a p p l i e d

, ” b u t t h a t t h e d e s i g n a t i o n “ w a s l i k e l y p l a c e d b a s e d o n s t a f f ’ s

d e t e r m i n a t i o n

, ” p r e s u m a b l y a t a n o t h e r p r i s o n

, “ t h a t M c I n t o s h e n g a g e d i n s e x u a l b e h a v i o r

t h a t w a s a b u s i v e a n d

/ o r a g g r e s s i v e

. ” I d

. T h i s m a y o r m a y n o t b e t r u e

, b u t with no

1 McIntos h ’ s d i s ci plinary record shows that he was found guilty on several occasions of

making sexual threa ts to female cor r e ction officer s

, Dkt. #30

- 1 at 23, 24, 26, 27, 31, 32,

3 9, and twice was fo und guilty of “ engaging in sexual acts, ” i d. at 36 , 37. McIntosh

states that t hese “ sexu al act ” findings were for masturbation and he notes that on e was

overturned a fte r prison officials reviewe d surveillance video

.9

f a c t u a l s u p p o r t

, t h e s t a t e m e n t i s p u r e s p e c u l a t i o n

, a n d d o e s n o t s u p p o r t t h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t ’ s s t a t e m e n t t h a t “ t h e r e c o r d d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t t h e B O P d i d i n f a c t f o l l o w t h i s

p r o c e d u r e w h e n i t a p p l i e d t h e s e x o f f e n d e r P S F t o M c I n t o s h ’ s f i l e

. ” R e p o r t a n d

R ecommendation

, D k t

. # 5 0 a t 1 6 ; c f

. B O P ’ s A c t i n g R e g i o n a l C o u n s e l ’ s r e s p o n s e

, D k t

.

# 1 a t 1 3 ( “ A review of records sh ows you have no h istory of any sexual offenses and are

not c lassified as a sex offen der

. ” )

. B e c a u s e t h e r e i s a f a c t u a l dispute over w h e n a n d w h y

t h e P S F w a s p l a c e d o n M c I n t o s h ’ s r e c o r d

, s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t w a s n o t w a r r a n t e d

.

Relatedly, the D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s a l t e r n a t i v e h o l d i n g

, th a t the sexua l offender

de signation was supported by the record

, improperly resolved a fa ctual dispute a t t h e

s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t p h a s e . And f i nally, the D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s c on clusion that McI n tosh

could not show cau s ation b ecause he instigat ed s o m e o f t h e i n c i d e n t s i s also premature at

the summary judgment sta ge. McIntosh was not given any c h anc e to t a k e discovery . He

may b e able to locate e vidence to back up his claim that he was attac ked o r t o r e f u t e a n y

a s s e r t i o n t h a t h e i n s t i g a t e d a n i n c i d e n t b y s h o w i n g t h a t h e was threatened with a t ta ck

because of the perception that he is a sex offender

.

A s w i t h t h e c l a i m s d i s m i s s e d o n s c r e e n i n g

, w e e x p r e s s n o opinion about whether

M c I n t o s h w i l l u l t i m a t e l y s u c c e e d o n h i s n e g l i g e n c e c l a i m s

. B u t b e c a u s e s u m m a r y

j u d g m e n t w a s p r e m a t

u r e

, w e w i l l v a c a t e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s A p r i l 2

, 2 0 1 9 o r d e r a n d w i l l

r e m a n d f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s

.10

For all these reasons

, w e w i l l affirm i n p a r t a n d v a c a t e i n p a r t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s

o r d e r e n t e r e d J u n e 1

, 2 0 1 8

, a n d v a c a t e t h e o r d e r e n t e r e d A p r i l 2

, 2 0 1 9

, a n d r e m a n d f o r

f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s

.