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 5-13-2009 

# J e rry Lind sey v

. P aul M . O ' C onne r 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 . 08-4579

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://d i 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 " J e rry L ind s ey v

. P aul M . O ' C onne r " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1369. http://di git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2009/1369D L D - 159 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- 4579 J E RR Y S . L I NDS E Y,

A ppel l ant v . P A U L M . O ' C O N N O R ; D O N A L D L . K E L C H N E R ; S E R G E A N T L U C A S ; CO RRE CTI ON AL O FF I CER O ' LEAR Y; CO RRECTI ON AL O FF I CER S I M S ON; AND C OR RE CT I ONAL OF F I CE R T OM 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 A ct i on N o. 08- cv- 1683) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le Jam es F . M cC lure 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 pr i l 16, 2009 B efor e: B A R R Y , A M B R O and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ay13, 2009)

OP I NI ON P E R C UR I AM J erryL i nds ey , a pr o s e pr i s onercurr ent l yhous ed atSC I - G r at er for d, appea l s fr om2

the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of hi s compl ai ntpur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) . Forthe re a s o n s s e t f

o rt h b e lo w , w e w ill s u m m a ri ly af f ir m . S e e I.O .P . 1 0 .6 . I . L ind seyco m m en ce d an ac ti o n u n d er 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 ag ains t Pa u l M . O ' C o n n o r, D i r ect orof the Penns y l vani a D epart m entof C orr ect i ons ( “D O C ”) , and the fol l ow i ng o f f icia ls a t L in d se y ’s p rio r p lac e o f c o n f in e m e n t, S C I-C a m p H ill : S u p e rin ten d e n t D o n a ld L . K e lc h n e r; S e rg e a n t L u c a s ; a n d C o rr e c tio n a l O f f ic e rs O ' L e a ry, S im s o n , a n d T o m s o n . L in d se yc laim e d th a t D e f e n d a n ts v io late d h is c iv il righ ts o n v a rio u s o c c a sio n s d u rin g h is c o n f in e m e n t a t S C I- C a m p H ill. Ac c o r d i n g t o Li n d s e y ’ s c o mp l a i n t , h e wa s tr a n s f e rr e d t o R Bl o c k a tS CI - Ca mp H ill o n M a rc h 3 , 2 0 0 8 . F o llo w in g h is a rriv a l at R B lo c k , h e h a d a v e rb a l ex c h a n g e w ith De f e n d a n tT o ms o n , wh i c h r e s u l t e d i n T o ms o n c o n f i s c a t i n g h i s i d e n t i f

i c a t i o n c a r d . On M ar ch 5, 2008, L i nds eycl ai m ed thathe w as s ubj ect ed t o verbal har as s m entbyD efe ndant O ’ L eary . O ’ L earyal l egedl y“ca l l ed i nt o” Li nds ey ’ s pr i s on cel l s ugges t i ng thatL i nds ey w as s exual l yattr act ed t o hi s cel l m at e. T he nextday , L i nds ey ’ s cel l m at e w as r emoved. O n M ar ch 6, 2008, D efe ndantT om s on al l egedl yt ol d L i nds eythatbeca us e he no l ongerhad a c el l m at e, the har as s m entw as “j us tbegi nni ng. ” The fol l ow i ng day , L i nds ey cl ai m ed thatD efe ndant s L ucas , O ’ L eary , T om s on and Si m s on came t o hi s cel l , and D efe ndantL ucas gr abbed hi m and thr eat ened hi m w i th hi s fi s t . T he fol l ow i ng m orni ng, a c c o rd in g to L in d se y , h e w a s d e n ied b re a k f a st a t L u c a s’ r e q u e st.3

L i nds eyfi l ed a § 1983 a ct i on s eeki ng decl ar at oryand i nj unct i ve r el i ef a s w el l as c o m p e n sa to rya n d p u n iti v e d a m a g e s. T h e D istric t C o u rt g ra n ted L in d se y ’s m o tio n to p ro c e e d in f

o rm a p a u p e ri s b u t la te r d is m is s e d h is c o m p la in t p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )(2 )(B )(i). L in d se yf iled a tim e lya p p e a l.

I I . W e have j ur i s di ct i on overthi s appea l pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. See Tours cher v. M cC ul l ough, 184 F. 3d 236, 240 ( 3d C i r . 1999) . A ft era ca r eful r evi ew of the r ecor d, we c o n c l u d e th a tth e a p p e a l p r e s e n t s “ n o s u b s t a n t i a l q u e s t i o n ” u n d e rT h i r d Ci r c u i tL AR 27. 4 and I . O . P. 10. 6. W e w i l l ther efor e s um m ar i l yaff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ' s or deron the gr ounds thatL i nds ey ’ s cl ai m s w er e notvi abl e. I I I . T h e D istric t C o u rt c o rre c tlyd e ter m in e d th a t L in d se y ’s c o m p lain t w a s s u b jec t to di s m i s s al under28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) . A s an i ni t i al m att er , D efe ndant s O ’ C onnor and K el cherw er e notappr opr i at e D efe ndant s i n the ac t i on, as ther e w as no al l egat i on th e ywe r e i n v o l v e d i n th e e v e n t s wh i c h g a v e r i s e t o Li n d s e y ’ s c l a i m. Ci v i l r i g h t s c l a i ms cannotbe pr emi s ed on a theoryof r es pondeat s uper i or . See R ode v. D el l ar ci pr et e, 845 F . 2 d 1 1 9 5 , 1 2 0 7 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 8 ). T he D i stri ctC ou rtal so corr ect l ycon cl ud ed thatL i nd sey ’s cl ai m against D efe ndant s L ucas , O ’ L eary , T om s on and Si m s on r egar di ng thei ral l eged ve rbal abus e of h im d id n o t prese n t a viab le claim u n d er § 1 9 8 3 . V erb al ha rassm en t of a p ri so n er,4

alth o u g h d ist astef

u l, d o es n o t violate the E igh th A m en d m en t. S ee , e.g., M cB ri d e v . D ee r, 2 4 0 F . 3 d 1 2 8 7 , 1 2 9 1 n . 3 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o pr oper l ydi s m i s s ed Li nds ey ’ s otherE i ghth A m endment cl ai m s agai ns tD efe ndantL ucas . A s m ent i oned above , L i nds eycl ai m ed thatL ucas g r a b b e d h i m a n d th r e a t e n e d h i m w h e n h e wa s o u t s i d e o f h i s c e l l o n M a r c h 7 , 2 0 0 8 . He di d notcl ai m thathe s uffe r ed anyi nj uryas a r es ul t . T he fol l ow i ng day , L i nds eycl ai m ed that L u ca s d en ied h im b rea k fa st. T h e D istri ct C o u rtco rrectl yd eterm ined that L u ca s’s all eg ed g rab b ing o f L ind seyd id n o t con sti tute a v iolati o n o f th e E igh th A m en d m en t’ s cruel and unus ual puni s hm entpr ovi s i on. T he Ei ghth A m endmentdoes notpr ot ectan i n m a t e a g a i n s ta n o b

j e c t i v e l y de m i nim is us e of f or ce. See Sm i th v. M ens i nger , 293 F. 3d 6 4 1 , 6 4 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). L in d se y ’s o th e r c laim a g a in st L u c a s – th a t h e d e n ied h im f o o d o n o n e o c c a sio n in v io latio n o f

th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t –a lso f a ils. T h e p u rp o rte d d e p riv a tio n o f a sin g le m eal i s notof s uch magni tude as t o r i s e t o the l evel of a c ons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on. See R obl es v. C oughl i n, 725 F. 2d 12, 15 ( 2d C i r . 1983) ( onl ya s ubs t ant i al depr i vat i on of food to a p ri so n er se ts fo rth a v iable E igh th A m en d m en t cl aim ). Fi nal l y , the D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l ydi s m i s s ed Li nds ey ’ s cl ai m thatD efe ndant T om s on i m perm i s s i bl yconfi s cat ed hi s i dent i fi cat i on car d. T o the ext entthi s w as a due pr oces s cl ai m , i tw as fl aw ed. A pr i s oner ' s caus e of a ct i on bas ed on unauthor i zed depr i vat i on of pr opertybya s t at e ac t ori s notact i onabl e under§ 1983 unl es s ther e i s no5

adequa t e pos t - depr i vat i on r emedyavai l abl e. See Parr attv. T ay l or , 451 U . S. 527, 542 (1 9 8 1 ). A s n o ted b yth e D istric t C o u rt, P e n n sy lv a n ia la w p ro v id e d a n a d e q u a te r e m e d yin L in d se y ’s c a se . F u rth e rm o re , w e p e rc e iv e n o o th e r c o n stitu tio n a l g ro u n d th a t h is al l egat i on i m pl i cat ed. Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e conc l ude thatther e i s no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on p rese n ted b ythis ap p ea l. A cc o rdin g ly , w e w il l sum m aril yaf firm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s di s m i s s al of Li nds ey ’ s compl ai nt . See Thi r d C i r . L A R 27. 4; I . O . P. 10. 6.