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 8-4-2008 

# B rown v . P A D ept C orr 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 . 07-1436

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 " B r own v . P A D ept C orr " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 727. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/727NOT 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- 1436

___________ A B D U L B R O W N , A ppel l ant

v. PEN N SY LV A N I A D EPA RT M EN T O F CO RR EC TI O N S; J E F F RE Y A. BE AR D; WI L L I AM S T I CK M AN; L A N C E C O U T U R IE R ; M .D . F R E D M A U E , M .D .; DONAL D WI L L I AM S ON; RO NAL D B L ANDF OR D; NE AL M E CH L I NG; P E T E S AAVE DR A; L OUI S F OL I NO; CO UNS E L OR I VAN

____________________________________ 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 vi l N o. 04- 1361) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e G aryL . L anca s t er

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y25, 2008 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , B A R R Y and N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A ugus t4, 2008)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________A t th e tim e o f f ili n g th e c o m p lain t, B ro w n w a s in c a rc e ra ted a t S C I-F a y e tte in 1 L aB el l e, Penns y l vani a. Sum m aryj udgm entw as gr ant ed as t o anotherdefe ndant , D r . Pet erSaavedr a, 2 e a rl ie r i n th e c a s e . 2 P E R C UR I AM A bdul B r ow n, a pr o s e pr i s oner , i s curr ent l yi ncar cer at ed i n the Feder al D et ent i on C ent er - Phi l adel phi a. B r ow n fi l ed thi s l aw s ui ti n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfort he W es t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a agai ns tthe Penns y l vani a D epart m entof C orr ect i ons 1 ( “D O C ”) and numer ous pr i s on offi ci al s forvi ol at i ons of 42 U . S. C . §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1 9 8 6 a n d 1 2 1 0 1 , et. se q . B ro w n ra ise d c laim s o f c ru e l an d u n u su a l p u n ish m e n t, r et al i at i on, r ace and cl as s di s cr i m i nat i on, and cons pi r acy ; he al s o al l eged vi ol at i ons of due pr oces s and the A m er i cans w i th D i s abi l i t i es A ct( “A D A ”) . T he D O C D efe ndant s m oved fors um m aryj udgm ent , and B r ow n fai l ed t o r es pond. T he M agi s tr at e J udge 2 r ecomm ended gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm ent , and the D i s tr i ctC our tadopt ed that re c o m m e n d a tio n . B r ow n s ubs equent l yfi l ed a mot i on t o appea l nunc pr o tunc, expl ai ni ng thathe had been tr ans ferr ed t o a new fac i l i tyw hi l e s um m aryj udgm entbr i efi ng occurr ed, and that pr i s on offi ci al s had deni ed hi m acc es s t o hi s l egal m ai l . T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed r el i ef, v a c a tin g its o rd e r g ra n tin g su m m a ryju d g m e n t an d a llo w in g B ro w n to re sp o n d to defe ndant s ’ s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on. B r ow n fi l ed a br i ef, an af fi davi ti n s uppor t , and cop i es of v ari ou s Pen nsy l van i a regul at i on s. B row n als o fil ed n um erous m edical recor ds,3

corr es pondence w i th pr i s on offi ci al s , and new s art i cl es . T he D i s tr i ctC our tthen adopt ed the M agi s tr at e J udge’ s pr i orr ecomm endat i on, and gr ant ed def endant s ’ m ot i on for s um m aryj udgm ent , w i thoutel abor at i on. B r ow n t i m el yappea l ed. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e r evi ew an or dergr ant i ng su m m aryjud g m en t de n o v o , an d w e a p p lythe s am e stan d ard that the D istri ct C o u rt sh o u ld h av e a p p li ed . M B IA Ins. C o rp. v. R o y al Ind em . C o . , 4 2 6 F . 3 d 2 0 4 , 2 0 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). O n F e b ru a ry2 6 , 2 0 0 4 , B ro w n w a s tra n sf e rre d to th e L o n g T e rm S e g re g a tio n U n it (“ L T S U ” ) a t S C I-F a y e tte. B ro w n a lleg e s th a t p riso n o f f icia ls im p ro p e rlyp lac e d h im in th e L T S U b a se d o n h is “ m e n tallyill b e h a v io r,” a n d th a t th e re a so n s p ro v id e d o n h is tra n sf e r p e tit io n w e re f

a lsif ied a n d m isre p re se n ted . B ro w n a lso a lleg e s th a t th e L T S U is an expe r i m entr egar di ng “A fr i can- A m er i can ps y chol ogy , ” w i th the purpos e of

“ d e stro y [ in g ] th e A f

ric a n A m e ric a n m in d ,” a n d th a t d e f e n d a n ts f a iled to p ro v id e h im a d e q u a te p s y c h ia tr ic tr e a tm e n t, in s te a d re lyin g “ ju s t [ o n ] d ru g s to le a v e h im in a . . . s tupor . ” B r ow n acc us es L T SU offi ci al s of obs truct i ng hi s l i t i gat i on agai ns tdefe ndant B e a rd a n d o th e rs, a n d a ss e rts th a t, bu t f o r h is b e in g o f

A f ric a n d e sc e n t, en g a g in g in l i t i gati on and being m ental l yi l l , he w ou l d n ot have b een p l aced in the L T S U . B row n als o a l l e g e s th a td e f

e n d a n t s a r e d e l i b e r a t e l y i n d i f f e r e n tt o h i s h e a l th a n d s a f e ty. B a se d o n th e se a lleg a tio n s, B ro w n c laim e d th a t h is rig h ts to d u e p ro c e ss , ad e q u a te m edi cal car e, and equa l pr ot ect i on had bee n vi ol at ed. H e al s o as s ert ed vi ol at i ons of theAs Br o wn h a s n o tr a i s e d h i s e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n o rr e t a l i a t i o n c l a i ms o n a p p e a l , we 3 cons i derthos e ar gum ent s w ai ved. A ns pach v. C i tyof Phi l a. , 503 F. 3d 256, 259 n. 1 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( ci t i ng L abor er s ’ I nt ’ l U ni on of N . A m . v. Fost erW heel erE ner gyC orp. , 26 F. 3d 375, 398 ( 3d C i r . 1994) ) . A l though B r ow n has notexpr es s l ym ade a n ar gum ent u n d e r th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t o n a p p e a l, w e w ill a d d re ss th a t cla im b e c a u se it i s p re d ic a te d o n th e s a m e f a c ts a s h is c la im u n d e r t h e A D A .

4 F i rs tA m end m ent and t he A D A , and he clai m ed thatdefe nd ants had ret al i at ed ag ai nst h im . O n a p p e a l, B ro w n c h a llen g e s th e D istric t C o u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t o n h is du e process, A D A and F i rs tA m end m ent cl ai m s. 3 O nce the movi ng partydemonstr at es the abs ence of a ge nui ne mat er i al fac tual di s put e, the non- m ovi ng partym us tpr offe r“s peci fi c fa ct s s how i ng thatther e i s a genui ne i s s ue fortr i al . ” Fed. R . C i v. P. 56( e) . B r ow n as s ert s thatpr i s on offi ci al s deni ed hi m due pr oces s underthe Four t eenth A m endmentbytr ans ferr i ng hi m t o the LT SU w i thoutnot i ce and depr i vi ng hi m of the opportuni tyt o chal l enge the r eas ons forthe tr ans fer . R out i ne tr ans fer s t o admi ni s tr at i ve s egr egat i on do noti m pi nge on l i bertyi nt er es t s pr ot ect ed byt he D u e P ro c e ss c lau se u n les s th e c o n d iti o n s in a d m in istra tiv e se g re g a tio n p re se n t a “s i gni fi cantand atypi cal har ds hi p i n r el at i on t o the or di naryi nci dent s of pr i s on l i fe. ” Sandi n v. C onner , 515 U . S. 472, 484 ( 1995) . E ven w her e the condi t i ons of conf i nement pr es enta s i gni fi cantand atypi cal har ds hi p, tr i gger i ng the r i ghtt o due pr oces s , pl ace m ent in ad m inistrati v e se g reg ati o n co m p o rt s w ith d u e p roc ess s o lon g as p ri so n o ff ici als af fo rd a pr i s oners uffi ci entpr ocedur al pr ot ect i ons . See W i l ki ns on v. A us t i n, 545 U . S. 209T he r ecor d i ndi cat es thatD O C has r evi s ed the pr ocedur es forpl ace m enti n the 4 L T SU , s uch thati nm at es ar e now gi ven not i ce a nd an opportuni tyt o r es pond before bei ng tr ans ferr ed t o t he LT SU . ( Pl ’ s O pp. , E x. C , at26- 29) ( l ett erfr om J eff r eyB ear d t o J udge Ri c ha r d Cap ut o, M i dd l e D i s tr i c tof Pe nn s y l va ni a ) . A pp e l l e e s a l s o s t a t e tha tthe LTSU w as a b o li sh ed in F eb rua ry2 0 0 7 . A p p ell ee s’ B r. , 3 . A s B row n see k s co m p en sato ry d a m a g e s, h is c laim s a re n o t m o o t. 5 (20 0 5 ). 4 W e have det erm i ned thatdue pr oces s does notr equi r e pr i ornot i ce of a tr ans fer w her e the pos t - tr ans ferper i odi c r evi ew of an i nm at e’ s pl ace m enti n s egr egat i on pr ovi des the i nm at e w i th a meani ngful oppor tuni tyt o chal l enge the gr ounds of hi s cont i nued s egr egat i on. Shoat s v. H orn, 213 F. 3d 140, 145 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . Such per i odi c r evi ew m us tpr ovi de a meani ngful , and notm er el yt echni cal , oppor tuni tyt o be hea r d. See S o u rbe er v . R o b inso n , 7 9 1 F . 2 d 1 0 9 4 , 1 1 0 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 6 ) (D u e p roc ess v iolati o n w h ere o f f ic ia ls a p p lie d ju s tif

ic a tio n s f

o r s e g re g a tio n in “ ro te f a s h io n ” ). B r ow n admi t s thatthe pr i s on has pr ovi ded hi m w i th per i odi c r evi ew , and thathe has att ended a nd t es t i fi ed athi s r evi ew hear i ngs every90 day s . H e nonethel es s cont ends th a t th e h e a rin g s a re a sh a m a n d th e re su lt o f th e h e a rin g s a f

o re g o n e c o n c lu sio n . In h is a f f id a v it, B ro w n a ss e rts th a t u n n a m e d p riso n o f f icia ls h a v e to ld h im th a t th e p e rio d ic r evi ew s do notpr ovi de a r eal i s t i c cha nce of r el eas e i nt o the gene r al pr i s on popul at i on b e c a u s e th e L T S U i s d e s i g n e d t o h o u s e th o s e i n n e e d o f l o n g - t e r m s e g r e g a t i o n . Br o wn su g g ests that, o n ce p ri so n o ff ici als b ran d ed h im as a n inm ate n ee d ing lon g -t erm se g re g a tio n , the ysim p lyru b b e rsta m p e d h is c o n tin u e d se g re g a tio n . B ro w n ’s a f f id a v it,6

su b m itt e d in re sp o n se to d e f e n d a n ts’ m o tio n , d o e s n o t su p p o rt a c o n c lu sio n th a t h is re v ie w s w e re a s h a m . B r ow n al s o cont ends on appea l thatpr i s on offi ci al s have ne verart i cul at ed a r eas on fo r his co n fin em en t i n the L T S U . T h e re co rd b eli es th at asse rt ion . T h e d o cu m en tary ev iden ce su b m itted b ythe p arti es e stab li sh es th at prison o ff ici als b eli ev ed B row n ’s m i s conductw arr ant ed hi s cont i nued pl ace m enti n the LT SU . ( D eft . ’ s M ot . Sum m J . , E x. D ) ( 3 0 -d a yre v ie w a s s e s s m e n t s h o w in g B ro w n ’s c o n tin u e d p o o r c o n d u c t) , E x . F ( m i s conductr ecor d demonstr at i ng B r ow n’ s cont i nued patt ern of thr eat s and as s aul t s on s t aff ) . T he r ecor d r evea l s thatthe pr i s on char act er i zed Brow n’ s behavi oral t ernat i vel yas del i ber at e, i . e. , des i gned t o m ani pul at e thos e ar ound hi m , and as the pr oductof m ent al i l l nes s and poori m pul s e contr ol . ( Pl ’ s M ot . Sum m . J . , E x. I ) ( tr ans feri ndi vi dual tr eatm entpl an s t at i ng thatB r ow n s uffe r s fr om m ul t i pl e A xi s I and A xi s I I di agnos es , but thathe w as ps y chi atr i cal l ys t abl e and s houl d be pl ace d i n the LT SU due t o the ongoi ng r i s k of s t aff

as s aul t s and s el f- harm ) . T he ment al heal th and corr ect i onal s t aff w ho evaluat ed B row n afterhis transfert o the L T S U st at ed thathe h ad n o tr eat able A xis I iss u e s, a n d th a t h is m isc o n d u c t w a s a ss o c iate d w ith h is A x is II is su e s. (D e f t.’s M o t. Sum m J . , E x. A . ) I n otherw or ds , w hat everm ent al i l l nes s es B r ow n m ayhave, pr i s on p e r s o n n e l h a v e d e t e r mi n e d th a tn o n e wo u l d p r e c l u d e h i s tr a n s f e rt o th e L T S U. As Br o wnB r ow n al s o as s ert s on appea l thatthe D i s tr i ctC our ti m pr oper l yr es ol ved a f actual 5 iss u e re g a rd in g B ro w n ’s c laim th a t p riso n o f f icia ls v io late d d u e p ro c e ss b yd ra f tin g h im i nt o exper i m ent s agai ns thi s w i l l , i n contr avent i on of D O C pol i cy . See W as hi ngt on v. H a rp e r, 4 9 4 U .S . 2 1 0 , 2 2 1 -2 2 (1 9 9 0 ) (p riso n e r “ p o ss e ss e s a sig n if ica n t li b e rtyin ter e st in avo i ding t he u nw anted adm i nis trat i on of an t i psy cho t i c drugs u nd er the D ue P rocess C l aus e of the Four t eenth A m endment . ”) . A l though defe ndant s fai l ed t o m ove for su m m aryjud g m en t on this clai m , an d the D istri ct C o u rto v erloo k ed itas w ell , B row n ’s al l egat i ons fai l t o s t at e a c l ai m . B r ow n as s ert s thatthe LT SU cons t i tut es an expe r i m ent d e sig n e d to d e stro yth e m in d s o f A f ric a n -A m e ric a n in m a tes , b u t h a s n o t alle g e d f a c ts s uffi ci entt o s how thathe i s ent i t l ed t o r el i ef. See Phi l l i ps v. C ountyof A l l egheny , 515 F. 3d 224, 231 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . T hi s cl ai m , thatthe LT SU cons t i tut es a ps y chol ogi cal e x p e rim e n t in v o lv in g th e in v o lu n tar ya d m in istra tio n o f d ru g s, is e ss e n tiallya c o m p o site of tw o othercl ai m s : a due pr oces s cl ai m r egar di ng B r ow n’ s pl ace m enti n the LT SU , and an E i gh th A m end m ent cl ai m regar ding B row n’s m edical care i n the L T S U . In r espon se to d e f e n d a n ts’ m o tio n f

o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t, B ro w n w a s re q u ire d to c o m e f o rw a rd w ith evi dence i n s uppor tof thes e tw o cl ai m s . T her efor e, des pi t e def endant s ’ fai l ur e t o m ove fors um m aryj udgm enton t he pr i s on exper i m entcl ai m , B r ow n nece s s ar i l yw oul d have s ubm i t t ed w hat everevi dence he had i n s uppor tof thi s cl ai m w hen he s ubm i t t ed evi dence in s u p p o rt o f

h is d u e p ro c e s s a n d E ig h th A m e n d m e n t c la im s . 7 fai l ed t o s at i s fyhi s bur den underR ul e 56( e) , s um m aryj udgm entw as pr oper l ygr ant ed. 5 B r ow n nextcont ends thathi s pl ace m enti n the LT SU vi ol at es the A D A beca us e he h a s n o a c c e ss to m e n tal h e a lth se rv ice s w h ile h o u se d in th e L T S U . A lth o u g h d e f e n d a n ts d id n o t m o v e f

o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t o n B ro w n ’s A D A c laim , an d th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t add ress this claim , itis cl ea r th at B row n ’s claim m u st fail as a m att er o f law . T it le II of the A D A s t at es , “[N ] o qual i fi ed i ndi vi dual w i th a di s abi l i tys hal l , byr eas on of s uch dis abil i ty , be ex cl ud ed from part i ci pati on i n o r be den i ed the ben efi t s of t he servi ces, pr ogr ams, oract i vi t i es of a publ i c ent i ty , orbe s ubj ect ed t o di s cr i m i nat i on byanys uch e n tity .” § 4 2 U .S .C . 1 2 1 3 2 . T itl e II o f th e A D A a p p lies to sta te p riso n s. P e n n sy lv a n ia D ep’ tof C orr . v. Y es key , 524 U . S. 206, 210 ( 1998) . H ow ever , B r ow n has notal l eged8

fac t s s uffi ci entt o s how thatthe pr i s on deni ed hi m acc es s t o m ent al heal th tr eatm ent“by r eas on of” hi s al l eged di s abi l i t i es . B r ow n al l eges thatthe pr i s on ignor ed hi s al l eged di s abi l i t i es i n or dert o j us t i fyhi s pl ace m enti n the LT SU – notthattheypl ace d hi m i n t he L T S U b e c a u s e o f

d is c ri m in a to ry a n im u s b a s e d o n h is a lle g e d m e n ta l d is a b iliti e s . A c c o rd in g ly, B ro w n ’s A D A c la im m u s t f a il. T he r ecor d es t abl i s hes thatB r ow n has notbeen de pr i ved of medi cal car e i n the L T S U . M e re d isa g re e m e n ts o v e r th e c o u rse o f m e d ica l trea tm e n t d o n o t su p p o rt a c laim fora vi ol at i on of the Ei ghth A m endment . M onm outh C ountyC orr . I ns t . I nm at es v. L anza r o, 834 F. 2d 326, 346 ( 3d C i r . 1987) . T he r ecor d demonstr at es thatpr i s on m edi cal p e r s o n n e l h a v e r o u t i n e l ya s s e s s e d Br o wn wh i l e h e h a s s t a y e d o n th e L T S U. Br o wn c h a llen g e s h is re g im e n o f m e d ica tio n s, w h ich a lleg e d lylea v e s h im in a “ stu p o r,” b u t th is ar gum ents t at es onl yhi s di s agr eementw i th tr eatm entm ethods , i . e. , hi s pr efe r ence for m edi cat i on s uppl ement ed byps y chother apyi ns t ead of m edi cat i on al one. B row n als o ap peals the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s grantof sum m aryj ud gm ent as t o h i s Fir st A m endmentcl ai m . B r ow n does notchal l enge the LT SU pol i cythatperm i t s l i m i t ed acc es s t o publ i cat i ons ; i ns t ead, he as s ert s thathe i s depr i ved of e ven thos e publ i cat i ons perm i t t ed underthe r es tr i ct i ve publ i cat i ons pol i cyuphel d bythe Supr eme C our t . See B e a rd v . B a n k s, 5 4 8 U .S . 5 2 1 (2 0 0 6 ). H o w e v e r, B ro w n d o e s n o t p ro f f e r a n ye v id e n c e in s uppor tof thi s cl ai m . B r ow n has notes t abl i s hed thatther e i s a genui ne fa ctual di s put e for tr ia l.F o r th ese rea so n s, the D istri ct C o u rtp rop erlyg ran ted a p p ell ee s’ su m m ary

j udgm entm ot i on and deni ed appe l l ant ’ s s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on. A c c o rd in g ly, w e w ill a f f ir m th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s o rd e r.

9