2009 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 9-2-2009 

# B ri an E dward Gri ffin v

. Mel vin S . Lo ck ett 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 . 09-2267

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://di git alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2009

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 Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 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 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 . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " B ri an E dward Gri ffin v

. M elvin S . L ocke tt " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 717. http://di git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2009/717AL D- 2 9 2 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. 09- 2267

___________ BR I AN E DWARD G RI F F I N, A ppel l ant v . M E L V IN S . L O C K E T T ; R . M . L A W L E R ; A . L O V E T T ; S C O T T W A L T E R S ; S C O T T W A L T E R S ; D O N A L D V A U G H N ; K E N N E T H H O L L IB A U G H ; DONAL D WI L L I AM S ON

____________________________________ 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. 1- 06- cv- 02445) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Sy l vi a H . R ambo

____________________________________ 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 A ugus t20, 2009 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , FU E N T E S A N D J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: Sept ember2, 2009)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM B r i an G r i ffi n appea l s pr o s e fr om the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or derdi s m i s s i ng hi s act i on fi l ed pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1983 forfai l ur e t o exhaus tadmi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es . Forthe2

r e a s o n s th a tf

o l l o w, we wi l l s u mma r i l ya f f i r m. B eca us e w e w r i t e pr i m ar i l yforthe part i es , i ti s notnece s s aryt o r eci t e the fa ct s or p roc ed u ral hist o ryo f th is case ex ce p t i n so fa r as the yare h elpf u l t o o u r discu ssion . In D ece m ber2006, G r i ffi n fi l ed a c om pl ai ntal l egi ng Fi r s tand Four t eenth A m endment vi ol at i ons byvar i ous pr i s on offi ci al s . G r i ffi n, w ho w as hous ed atSC I - H unt i ngdon, m ai l ed a l ett ert o pr i s on offi ci al s atthe ce ntr al offi ce a tSC I - C amp H i l l . T he l ett er c o n ta in e d a b u s iv e la n g u a g e th a t th re a te n e d p ri s o n e m p lo y e e s w ith b o d ily h a rm . C o n se q u e n tly , G rif

f in re c e iv e d a m isc o n d u c t re p o rt a n d w a s s e n ten c e d to six tyd a y s in D isc ip lin a ryC u sto d yin th e R e stric tiv e H o u sin g U n it (“R H U ” ). G rif f in ’s c o n f in e m e n t in R H U w a s p ro lo n g e d , h o w e v e r, an d h e c laim s th a t th is a d d iti o n a l co n f in e m e n t d e n ied h im d u e p roc ess o f law . In a d d it ion , G ri ff in allege s tha t his F ir st A m en d m en t r igh ts w ere v iolated b ec au se h e re ce ived the m isco n d u ct rep o rtin retali ati o n fo r w ri ti n g the lett er, w h ic h c o n ta in e d p ro te c te d s p e e c h . D efe ndant s fi l ed an a ns w erthati ncl uded s ever al aff i r m at i ve def

ens es , one of w hi ch i s thatG r i ffi n fai l ed t o exhaus tadmi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es . T he courtperm i t t ed dis cov eryand bo th p art i es fi l ed m oti on s for s um m aryj ud gm ent. A ft er ruli ng on these m o tio n s, th e D istric t C o u rt d e ter m in e d th a t th e f o llo w in g iss u e s w e re to b e re so lv e d a t a ben ch tr i al : G ri ffi n’s Fi rs tA m end m ent cl ai m , defe nd ants ’ ar gu m ent that there w as a l egi t i m at e governm ent al i nt er es ti n puni s hi ng an i nm at e forus i ng abus i ve l anguage , and w h e th e r G ri f

f in c o u ld s h o w p e rs o n a l in v o lv e m e n t b yth e n a m e d d e f e n d a n ts .3

D e f e n d a n ts f iled a p re trial m e m o ra n d u m , w h ich in c lu d e d a sta tem e n t th a t G rif f in di d notappea l the mat t ert o the s econd l evel of appe al . D efe ndant s al s o i ncl uded s uch a s t at ementi n thei rpr opos ed fi ndi ngs of fa ct . A ttr i al , one of thei rw i tnes s es pr oduced a M i s conductT r acki ng Sy s t em R eports how i ng thatG r i ffi n had onl yappea l ed the m isc o n d u c t to th e f

irst le v e l. G rif

f in a lso c o n c e d e d d u rin g c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n th a t h e d id n o t a p p e a l to th e s e c o n d a n d th ir d le v e ls a v a ila b le to h im . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdet erm i ned thatG r i ffi n di d nots at i s fythe exha us t i on re q u ire m e n t se t f

o rth in 4 2 U .S .C . 1 9 9 7 e (a ) a n d d ism iss e d th e a c tio n . G rif f in tim e ly a p p e a led . In su p p o rt o f h is a p p e a l, G rif

f in a rg u e s th a t d e f

e n d a n ts h a d w a iv e d th e ir a f f irm a tiv e d e f

e n se a n d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in d e n y in g h im th e o p p o rtu n ityto a m e n d h is c o m p la in t. W e h a v e ju risd ictio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . B e c a u se G rif f in is p ro c e e d in g in f o rm a p a u p e ris, w e m u st d ism iss th e a p p e a l u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )(2 )(B ) if it i s le g a lly f ri v o lo u s . W e m a ys u m m a ri ly af f ir m th e a p p e a l p re s e n ts n o s u b s ta n tia l q u e s tio n . See 3d C i r . L . A . R . 27. 4 and 3d C i r . I . O . P. 10. 6. A ft era benc h tr i al , w e r evi ew the D istric t C o u rt’s f

a c tu a l f in d in g s f o r c lea r e rro r a n d e x e rc ise p len a ryre v iew o v e r its concl us i ons of l aw . A m . Soc’ yforT es t i ng & M at er i al s v. C orrpr o C os . , 478 F. 3d 557, 566 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . W e r evi ew deni al of a mot i on t o amend t he compl ai ntforabus e of d iscreti o n . F o m an v . D av is, 3 7 1 U . S . 1 7 8 , 1 8 2 (19 6 2 ).4

T he Pr i s on L i t i gat i on R eform A ctof 1996 ( PL R A ) pr ovi des thatno act i on s hal l be br oughtw i th r es pectt o pr i s on condi t i ons under42 U . S. C . § 1983 bya pr i s onerconfi ned in an yjai l, p ri so n , o r oth er c o rrecti o n al fa cil ityu n ti l suc h ad m inistrati v e re m ed ies as a re avai l abl e ar e exha us t ed. 42 U . S. C . § 1997e( a) . Fai l ur e t o exhaus tadmi ni s tr at i ve rem edies i s an affirm at i ve d efen se that defend ants m ustplead and prove. R ayv. K ert es, 2 8 5 F .3 d 2 8 7 , 2 9 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). T h e d e f e n s e m u s t b e ra is e d e a rl yin litig a tio n . R o b in so n v . Jo h n so n , 3 1 3 F .3 d 1 2 8 , 1 3 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ); B ra d f o rd -W h ite C o rp . v . E rn st & W h in n e y , 8 7 2 F .2 d 1 1 5 3 , 1 1 6 0 -6 1 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 9 ). G r i ffi n ar gues thatthe def endant s w ai ved the def

ens e. H ow ever , as the D i s tr i ct C our tpr oper l yfound, defe ndant s pl ed thatG r i ffi n fai l ed t o exhaus tadmi ni s tr at i ve re m e d ies a s th e ir f

irst a f f irm a tiv e d e f

e n se in th e ir a n sw e r. D e f e n d a n ts a lso a rg u e d th is defe ns e i n thei rpr etr i al m emora ndum and i n thei rpr opos ed fi ndi ngs of fa ct , and s uppor t ed thei rdefe ns e attr i al vi a w i tnes s t es t i m onyand the M i s conductT r acki ng Sy s t em R eport . M or eover , G r i ffi n admi t t ed on cr os s - exami nat i on thathe di d notappea l to the sec o n d an d thir d leve ls av ail ab le t o h im . A cc o rdin g ly , there is no m eritin G ri ff in’s ar gum ent . G r i ffi n’ s al t ernat i ve ar gum ent , thathe exha us t ed thi s m att erbyfi l i ng a pet i t i on f o r w rit o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s in sta te c o u rt, d o e s n o t sa tisf y4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 9 7 e (a ). S e e S p ru ill v. G i l l i s , 372 F. 3d 218, 232 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( di s cus s i ng the Penns y l vani a D epart m entof C o rr e c tio n s th re e -t ie r g ri e v a n c e s y s te m a s th e a v a ila b le a d m in is tr a tiv e re m e d y ).F in a lly , to th e e x ten t th a t G rif f in a p p e a ls th e D istric t C o u rt’s r e f u sa l to p e rm it h im to a m e n d h is c o m p la in t, w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e D is tr ic t C o u rtd id n o t a b u s e its d is c re tio n . O n s ever al occa s i ons , the D i s tr i ctC our texpl i ci t l yor der ed G r i ffi n t o compl yw i th the L ocal R ul es and/ orthe Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e forpr oper l yfi l i ng an amended c o m p lain t. A lth o u g h th e c o u rt p ro v id e d h im w ith d e taile d in stru c tio n s, G rif f in f a iled to c o m p l y. A s G r i ffi n’ s appea l pr es ent s no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on, w e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff i r m the D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t.