2007 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 7-18-2007 

# M e a nor v . W i lcox P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 06-5059

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" M e a nor v . W i lc o x " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 732. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/732B L D - 274 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 . 06- 5059

________________ RUS S EL L M EANOR, A ppel l ant
v. DR . W I LCO X; BEA VER CO UN TY

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D ist ri 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. 06 -cv- 00 24 9J) D i s t r i ct J udge: H onor abl e K i m R . G i bs on

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed For Poss i bl e D i s m i s s al U nder 28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) or S u m m a ry A c tio n U n d e r T h ir d C ir c u it L .A .R . 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 J une 21, 2007 BEFORE: M CK EE, FUEN TES AND VA N A NTW ERPEN, CI RCU I T J UD GES ( Fi l ed J ul y 18, 2007 )

_______________________ OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM R us s el l M eanor , a pr o s e Penns y l vani a s t at e pr i s oner , appea l s fr om t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s di s m i s s al of hi s compl ai nt for fai l ur e t o exhaus t admi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es as2

re q u ir e d b y 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 9 7 e (a ). Beca use this a pp ea l does not pres ent a

substantia l que s t i on, we wi l l s umm ar i l y a ffi rm the Di s tr i c t

Court ’ s de c i s i on. Se e 3d Ci r . L. A. R. 27. 4; I . O. P. 10. 6. Meanor al le ges that while he was c on fined at Beaver Cou nty Ja il fo r pre tr ia l de t e nt i on, de fe ndant s W i l c ox and Be ave r County vi ol at e d hi s c i vi l r i ght s whe n W i l c ox, th e B eav er C o u n ty

p h y sician , p ro v id edh im

w ith sub stan d ardm ed ical care. A cco rd in g to Me anor , W i l c ox r e fus e d t o tr e at hi s i nt e s t i na l he rni at o ke e p Be ave r County fr om in cu rrin g ex p en ses. Wilco x alleg ed ly g av e M ean o r ib up ro f

en f o r p ain , b u t d idn o th in g to tr e at the unde r l yi ng he rni a . Me anor ha d an ope r at i on t o r e pa i r hi s he rni aat

Al t oona H o sp ital sev eral m o n th s af ter h e w as tran sf

erredto th e C am

p H ill state p riso n . The c a s e wa s a s s i gne d t o aMa gi s tr at e Judge , who de ni e d the de fe ndant s ’ m ot i ons fo r s umm ar

y ju dg m ent at t

he sam e t im e he ordere d a heari ng on the quest ion o f M eano r’ s ex h au stio n o f

ad m in istrativ e rem ed ies. A f ter an O cto b er 2 , 2 0 0 6 h earin g , th e M ag istrate Ju d g e reco mm en d edth at M ean o r’s co m p lain t b e d ism issedf

o r f ailu re to ex h au st a dm i ni s tr at i ve r e m e di e s . Aft e r c ons i de r i ng Me anor ’ s obje c t i ons , the Di s tr i c t Judge adop te d the Magistrate Judg e’ s r eport anddism is se d M eano r’ s c om plai nt. This a

pp ea l fol l owe d, and Me anor

ha s be e n gr ant e d l e ave t o a ppe a l i n form apaupe r i s . W e have ju ri sdic ti on un der 28 U .S.C. § 12 91 , andexer ci se plenar y re view ov er

the Dis tr ic t Court ’ s de c i s i on. Se e Spr ui l l v. Gi l l i s , 372 F. 3d 218, 226 ( 3d Ci r . 2004) . W e r e vi e w the M ag istrate Ju d g e’s f

actu al f in d in g s f o r clear erro r. S ee Watso nv . S e. P a. T ran sp . A u th .,3

2 0 7 F .3 d2 0 7 , 2 2 4 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 0 ). Unde r 42 U. S. C. § 1997e ( a ) , pr i s one r s m us t e xhaus t ava i l abl e a dm i ni s tr at i ve re m edie s before bri ng ing a ci vil r ights a ct ion con ce rning p ri son con diti on s. See W oodfor d v. Ngo, 126 S. Ct . 2378, 2382- 83 ( 2006) . W e have i nt e r pr e t e d thi s pr ovi s i on to re qu ir e not on ly

that the i nm at e has no fu rt

her proces s avail able to him , but al so that th e in m ate h as en g ag edin “p ro p er ex h au stio n ,” th at is, th e in m ate h as reach edth is en dp o in t o n ly

af ter h av in g tim ely

so u g h t relief

at ev ery lev el av ailab le to h im . S p ru ill, 372 F. 3d at

230; s e e a l s o W oodfor d, 126 S. Ct . at 2387. I f an i nm at e fa i l s t o fol l ow the pr i s on gr i e vanc e pol i c y , hi s c l a i m s ar e pr oc e dur a l l y de faul t e d. Spr

ui l l , 372 F. 3d at

227- 3 0 . Th e Beaver Cou nty Ja il Inm at e Handb oo k inf orm s that i f “y ou [the inm at e] feel that som eone, or s om e a ct ion taken agai nst you is un fair or un ju st , you m ay

file a g riev an ce.” If

in f o rm al reso lu tio n o f

th e p ro b lem

can n o t b e acco m

p lish edth e in m ate

“ m us t fi l l out an i nm at e r e que s t

form , c he c ki ng the box m arke d gr i e vanc e and fi l l i ng out the s l i p wi th a l l pe rt i ne nt i nform at i on. ” The i nm at e i s t o gi ve the r e que s t form t o the Ho using U nit Off

ic er , who fo rwar ds it

to the next l evel of

authority . The po li cy

re qu ir es th e au th o rities to resp o n dto th e g riev an ce w ith in f iv e b u sin ess d ay s, an dth e “Ward en is alw ay s th e f

in al step in th e g riev an ce/ap p eal p ro cess.” T h e h an db o o kalso p ro v id es a p ro cess f o r sub m ittin g h o u sin g u n it qu estio n s an dm atters, w h ich en tails f illin g o u t a requ est f o rm an dp lacin g it inth e “ap p ro p riate ag en cy b o x lo catedin [ th e in m ate’s]I n M eanor ’ s s uppl ement al obj ect i on t o t he M agi s t r at e J udge’ s r epor t , he 1 cl ai m ed for t he fi r s t t i m e t hat he s ubm i t t ed r eques t s l i ps compl ai ni ng about hi s m edi cal car e. H e expl ai ned t hi s cont r adi ct i on t o hi s t es t i m ony by s t at i ng t hat he w as i nt i m i dat ed dur i ng t he hea r i ng. T he D i s t r i ct J udge r ej ect ed t hes e cont ent i ons i n hi s m emora ndum o rd e r d ism iss in g th e c o m p lain t.

A t t he hea r i ng befor e t he M agi s t r at e J udge, W ar den W i l l i am J. Schouppe 2 te s tif ie d th a t in m a te s c o u ld f ile g ri e v a n c e s o n re q u e s t f o rm s . 4 hous i ng uni t . ” He r e , a l though Me anor s ubm i tt e d at

l e a s t four r e que s t s l i ps s e e ki ng ch an g es in h is b u n kan dw o rkassig n m en t, h e n ev er sub m itteda g riev an ce (o r requ est fo rm ) c om

plai ning abou t his m edic al care . 1 Me anor de fe nds hi s a c t i ons by

a s s e rt i ng that

he wa s ne ve r

pr ovi de d wi th the inm at e handb oo k w hich se t forth the gri evance proce du re , andthat he did n ot kn ow that h e co u ldf

ile a co m p lain t o n th e requ est f

o rm s. A t th e h earin g b ef o re th e M ag istrate 2 Judge , the W ar de n t e s t i fi e d that i t wa s the ja i l ’ s pol i c y

t o c l a s s i fy

a l l i nm at e s who r e m a i ne d at

the pr i s on for

m or e than ac oupl e day s and that the handbook i s gi ve n t o the inm at e at t

he ti m e of cla ss ific at ion. Ap pare ntly , how ever , the jail did n ot re cord wh ether i nm at e s i n fa c t

r e c e i ve d the handbook. Me anor a s s e rt e d that

he ne ve r r e c e i ve d a handbook, and that

he wa s unawar e that

any pr oc e dur e e xi s t e d t o c om pl a i n about m ed ical care. Whil e Meano r’ s frustrati on is un ders tand able , the Magistrate Judg e’ s d eterm in atio n th at M ean o r d idn o t f u lf ill th e ex h au stio n requ irem en t m u st stan d . Re gar dl e s s of whe the r

Me anor r e c e i ve d ahandbook, the Ma gi s tr at e Judge di d not beli eve Meanor’s te st im on y that he did n ot kn ow that

he could com

plai n abo ut the l ac k5

o f m ed ical atten tio n . A s th e M ag istrate Ju d g e’s f in d in g th at M ean o r kn ew h o w to u se the pri son adm inis tr at ive s y st em to file a c om

plai nt is no t c le ar ly

er roneou s, we agree that Me anor di d not s ubs t ant i a l l y

c om pl y wi th e xi s t i ng a dm i ni s tr at i ve r e m e di e s be c aus e he di d not e ve n att e m

pt t o c om pl a i n about

hi s m e di c a l c ar e . Se e Ny hui s v. Re no, 204 F. 3d 6 5 , 7 7 -7 8 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 0 ). For the s e r e a s ons , we wi l l thus s umm ar i l y a ffi rm the Di s tr i c t

Court ’ s Oc t obe r

26, 2006 Me m or andum

Or de r . Se e L. A. R. 27. 4; I . O. P. 10. 6. Me anor ’ s m ot i on for ap p o in tm en t o f

co u n sel is d en ied .