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 Third C irc uit 3-11-2008 

# Rohn v . B e ard 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 . 07-4833

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://digit alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc ircuit_2008

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 by 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 ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Digit 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 by an authori z e d a dmini s trat or of V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Digit 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 . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Ro hn v . Be ard " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1458. http://di git alc ommon s .l a

w . vill anova . e du/thirdc ircuit_2008/1458C L D - 140 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- 4833

________________ J AM OD- KHAL I L RO HN, A ppel l ant v. J E FFR E Y B E A R D , i n hi s i ndi vi dual and off i ci al capa ci t i es as Secr et aryof the D epartm entof C orr ect i ons ; H A R R Y W I L SO N , i n hi s i ndi vi dual and off i ci al capa ci t i es as Super i nt endentof SC I Fay ett e; E D W A R D M A N C H A S, i n hi s i ndi vi dual and off i ci al capa ci t i es as C apt ai n: H ead of Secur i ty ; M A R I A N N E H A M M A K E R , i n heri ndi vi dual and off i ci al capa ci t i es as N ot aryPubl i c of SC I Fay ett e; C A R O L A . SC I R E , i n her i n d i v i d u a l a n d o f

f i c i a l c a p a c i t i e s a s Gr i e v a n c e Co o r d i n a t o ro f S CI F a y e t t e ; DAN B U R N S, i n hi s i ndi vi dual and off i ci al capa ci t i es as M aj orof the quar ds of SC I Fay ett e; DAN I EL E. HOO P ER, i n h i s i n d i v i d u a l a n d o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t i e s a s Li e u t e n a n to f S CI Fay ett e; M I K E O PPM A N , i n hi s i ndi vi dual and off i ci al capa ci t i es as B us i nes s M anage r of SC I Fay ett e; J A M E S R E E D , i n hi s i ndi vi dual and off i ci al capa ci t i es as G r i evanc e C o o rd in a to r o f

S C I F a y e tte

____________________________________ 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 W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i v. N o. 07- cv- 00783) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e D avi d S. C er cone

_______________________________________ Subm i tt ed forPoss i bl e D i s m i s s al U nder28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) orSum m aryA ct i on

U n d e r T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d IO P 1 0 .6

February22, 2008 B efor e: A M B R O , FU E N T E S and J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: M ar ch 11, 2008 )2 _______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM T h is is a n a p p e a l f

ro m th e D istric t C o u rt’s d ism iss a l o f Ja m o d -K h a lil R o h n ’s c iv il ri g h ts c o m p la in t. F o r t h e f o llo w in g re a s o n s , w e w ill d is m is s th is a p p e a l. S e e 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B )(i i) . O n J une 8, 2007, A ppel l ant , an i nm at e atSt at e C orr ect i onal I ns t i tut i on- Fay ett e, in iti a ted a p ro se c iv il righ ts a c tio n u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 . R o h n a lleg e d th a t in Ju ly 2005, pr i s on offi ci al s s ei zed l egal m at er i al s fr om hi s cel l . R ohn pr evi ous l ybr oughtthe sam e c lai m in D istri ct C o u rt , w h ich g ran ted th e d ef en d an t’ s m o ti o n fo r sum m ary j udgm entdue t o R ohn’ s fai l ur e t o exhaus thi s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es . See R ohn v. B ear d, 2007 W L 709324 ( W . D . Pa. M ar . 2, 2007) . I n thi s cas e, R ohn ar gued thathe pr oper l yexhaus t ed the cl ai m thr ough the pr i s on gr i evanc e pr oces s es byfi l i ng an a d m in istra tiv e a p p e a l. T h e D istric t C o u rt d ism iss e d A p p e llan t’s c o m p lain t f o r f a ilu re to s ta te a c la im . O u r sta n d a rd o f

re v iew o f

th e D istric t C o u rt’s d ism iss a l u n d e r R u le 1 2 (b )(6 ) is p lena ry . A tkinso n v . L aF ay ett e C o ll eg e, 46 0 F . 3 d 4 4 7 , 4 5 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). P lena ry re v iew re q u ire s u s to a c c e p t as tru e a ll alle g a tio n s in th e c o m p lain t an d a ll rea so n a b le i nfer ence s thatcan be dr aw n ther efr om , and vi ew them i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the p l a i n t i f f. S e e Ev a n c h o v . F i s h e r , 4 2 3 F . 3 d 3 4 7 , 3 5 0 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) . Un d e r2 8 U. S . C.3

§ 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) , w e mustdi s m i s s an appe al i f i tfai l s t o s t at e a c l ai m on w hi ch r el i ef m a yb e g ra n te d . T he Pr i s on R eform L i t i gat i on A ct( PL R A ) r equi r es thata pr i s onerexhaus tany avai l abl e admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es befor e br i ngi ng a § 1983 s ui ti n fede r al court . See 42 U . S. C . § 1997e( a) . W e have pr evi ous l yhel d thatthe exhaus t i on r equi r ementof the PL R A i ncl udes a pr ocedur al defa ul tcomponent . See Sprui l l v. G i l l i s , 372 F. 3d 218, 222 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . I f R ohn has fai l ed t o exhaus tal l r emedi es and he ha s no furtherpr oces s es a v a ilab le in th e p riso n sy ste m b e c a u se o f , fo r e x a m p le, a n u n tim e lya d m in istra tiv e a p p e a l, h is c la im w o u ld b e b a rr e d in f e d e ra l c o u rt . Id . a t 2 2 7 -2 3 0 . A ccor di ng t o R ohn’ s ow n fi l i ngs , he s ubm i t t ed hi s fi r s tgr i evanc e on J ul y25, 2 0 0 5 . R o h n d id n o t f

ile a n in ter m e d iate a p p e a l u n til F e b ru a ry7 , 2 0 0 7 , at w h ich tim e h is appea l w as di s m i s s ed as unt i m el yand non- compl i antw i th pr i s on pol i cy . O n M ar ch 20, R o h n ’s r e q u e st f

o r a p p e a l to f

in a l re v iew w a s d ism iss e d b e c a u se o f h is u n tim e ly interm ed iat e a p p ea l. T h u s, R o h n h as f ail ed to su cc essf

u ll yav ail h im self o f th e p ri so n ’s admi ni s tr at i ve gr i evanc e pr ocedur e. See B ooth v. C hurner , 206 F. 3d 289, 293 n. 2 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) (ou tl ining the g ri ev an ce rev iew p roc ess). T h ere fo re, th e D istri ct C o u rt p ro p e rl yd is m is s e d h is c la im s a s p ro c e d u ra lly d e f a u lte d . In su m , b e c a u se R o h n ’s a p p e a l lac k s a rg u a b le le g a l m e rit, w e w ill d ism iss it p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )( 2 )( B )( ii) .