2006 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 6-1-2006 

# D a vi s v . U SA 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 . 05-4801

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_2006

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 2006 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 " D a vi s v . U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 973. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/973BP S - 2 0 5 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. 05- 4801

________________ M I CH A EL D A V I S, A ppel l ant

v. UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA; DR. M ARI E T YRGOV AC; T RO Y WI L L I AM S ON, WARDE N, US P AL L E NWOOD; S. CO NFA I R; R. DI VER S; S. M I TCH ELL; TOD D C ERN EY

________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m 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 v. N o. 04- cv- 02284) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le A . R ich a rd C a p u to

________________ 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 Un d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) A pr i l 27, 2006 B E FO R E : SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge R E N D E L L and A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed: J une 1, 2006)

________________ OP I NI ON

________________ P E R C UR I AM M icha el D av is ap p ea ls from the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er g ran ti n g su m m ary j udgm enti n favorof the def endant s . I n hi s B i vens act i on, D avi s al l eges thatoffi ci al s atW e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew over 1 the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on t o gr ants um m aryj udgm ent . See Torr es v. Fauver , 292 F. 3d 141, 145 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . Sum m aryj udgm enti s appr opr i at e w her e ther e i s no genui ne iss u e o f m a ter ial f

a c t. S e e F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 . A g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial f

a c t ex ists o n ly w her e a r eas onabl e j urycoul d fi nd forthe non- m ovi ng partyi n l i ghtof the evi dence pr es ent ed. See C hi l der s v. J os eph, 842 F. 2d 689, 693- 94 ( 3d C i r . 1988) . W e r evi ew the fac t s i n a l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the partyagai ns tw hom s um m aryj udgm entw as ent er ed, and w her e the part i es ’ evi dence i s i n confl i ct , w e ac ceptthe non- m ovant ’ s as true. See P asto re v . B ell T elep h o n e C o . o f P a., 2 4 F . 3 d 5 0 8 , 5 1 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). 2 the U ni t ed St at es Peni t ent i ary - A l l enw ood r et al i at ed aga i ns thi m fort aki ng l egal or a d m in istra tiv e a c tio n a g a in st a p ro g ra m c o o rd in a to r a t th e p riso n . S p e c if ica lly , D a v is cont ends thatthe def

endant s pl ant ed a s even- i nch s harpened met al r od i n hi s l ocked l ocker( l ocat ed w i thi n hi s tw o- per s on cel l ) and cha r ged hi m w i th pos s es s i on, m anu facture, or i ntr od ucti on of a w eapo n. D avis al so cl ai m s that hi s r i gh tt o d ue p rocess w a s v i o l a t e d d u r i n g th e s u b s e q u e n td i s c i p l i n a ry h e a r i n g a n d r e s u l t i n g s e n t e n c e o f 6 0 d a ys i n di s ci pl i narys egr egat i on. I n r es pons e t o the compl ai nt , the def endant s fi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s the co m p lai n t or, alt ern ati v ely , fo r sum m aryjud g m en t. T h e D istri ct C o u rten tered su m m ary j udgm enti n the def

endant s ’ favor ; thi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed. B eca us e the appe al 1 lack s arg u ab le m erit , w e w il l dism iss i t pu rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ). T o p ro v e re talia tio n , a p riso n e r m u st d e m o n stra te 1 ) th a t h e e n g a g e d in c o n stitu tio n a lly -p ro tec ted c o n d u c t, 2) a n a d v e rse a c tio n b yp riso n o f f icia ls, su f

f icie n t to d eter a p erso n o f o rdin aryfirm n ess f rom ex erc isi n g h is co n sti tuti o n al ri g h ts, an d 3 ) a c a u s a l lin k b e tw e e n th e e x e rc is e o f th e ri g h ts a n d th e a d v e rs e a c tio n ta k e n a g a in s t h im .3

S e e M itch e ll v . H o rn , 3 1 8 F .3 d 5 2 3 , 5 3 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). In g ra n tin g su m m a ryju d g m e n t, th e D istric t C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t b e c a u se D a v is w a s n o t p re v e n ted f ro m p u rsu in g th is s ui toradmi ni s tr at i vel yexhaus t i ng hi s cl ai m s , anyadver s e ac t i on fai l ed the det err ence p ro n g . T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt a ls o f o u n d D a v is ’ e v id e n c e o f a c a u s a l lin k la c k in g . W e a g re e th a t D a v is’ re talia tio n c laim f a ils, b u t f

o r d if f e re n t re a so n s. T h o u g h h is al l egat i ons ar e notpr eci s el ycl ear , D avi s cl ai m s ei therthatpr i s on offi ci al s pl ant ed a s even- i nch kni fe- l i ke met al r od i n hi s l ocker , orthatoffi ci al s l egi t i m at el yfound a pa i rof g lo v e s a n d a m e tal s a rd in e c a n to p (p ro h ib ited item s), a n d late r c h a n g e d th e p a p e rw o rk to m ak e itloo k as if the yh ad fo u n d the k n ife. W e f ind n o cre d ible ev iden ce to su p p o rt e ith e r c laim . D a v is p ro v id e s n o su p p o rt f o r h is a ss e rtio n th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts d e lib e ra tely d e stro y e d a su rv e ill a n c e tap e th a t w o u ld sh o w th a t th e w e a p o n w a s n o t leg iti m a tely di s cover ed. I ns t ead, the evi dence s how s thatbythe t i m e the appr opr i at e s t aff m ember w as cont act ed nea r l ytw o m onths aft erthe i nci dent , the t ape w as r ecor ded overas partof a r egul arpr act i ce of

r ecy cl i ng s ur vei l l ance t apes aft era ce r t ai n amount of t i m e has pas s ed. T her e i s al s o evi dence , notaddr es s ed byD avi s , thateven i f i texi s t ed, the t ape w oul d notbe frui t ful beca us e the s ur vei l l ance s y s t em does notr ecor d act i vi tyi ns i de the c e ll. D a v is’ a lleg a tio n th a t th e w e a p o n th a t p riso n o f f icia ls p lan ted w a s o n e p re v io u sly se ize d f ro m a n o th e r in m a te is re f u ted b yth e d isc ip lin a ryh e a rin g o f f ice r’s sp e c if

ic f in d in g th a t th e tw o w e a p o n s a re n o t sim ilar. D a v is o f f e rs n o e v id e n c e to su p p o rt h is a ss e rtio n th a t th e d isc ip lin a ryre p o rt d o c u m e n tin g th e e v e n t o rig in a llyc h a rg e d h im w ith pos s es s i on of an una uthor i zed i t em, butw as then cha nged t o the more s er i ous w eapon4

char ge. Fi nal l y , D avi s ’ al l egat i ons r egar di ng t i m e di s cr epanc i es i n r eport s document i ng th e e v e n t s d o n o ts u p p o r th i s l a r g e rp l a n t e d - we a p o n c l a i m. F o rth e s e r e a s o n s , we c o n c lu d e th a t D a v is h a s n o t s h o w n a d v e rs e a c tio n b yp ri s o n o f f ic ia ls . W ith reg ard to the d u e p roc ess c lai m , D av is’ p roc ed u ral du e p roc ess righ ts are tr i gger ed bydepr i vat i on of a l egal l ycogni zabl e l i bertyi nt er es t . See M i t chel l , 318 F. 3d at 5 3 1 . I f D a v i s h a s n o p r o t e c t e d l i b e r ty i n t e r e s ti n r e m a i n i n g f r e e o f d i s c i p l i n a ry c u s t o d y, th e n th e F o u rt e e n th A m e n d m e n t d o e s n o t o b lig a te th e s ta te to p ro v id e h im w ith p ro c e s s . I d. H er e, the D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded thatbeca us e D avi s ’ s anct i on di d noti ncl ude the l os s of good conduc tt i m e, he di d notpos s es s a l i bertyi nt er es t , and ac cor di ngl y , w as not e n title d to d u e p ro c e s s ri g h ts . T hough w e agr ee w i th the conc l us i on, the ana l y s i s i s i ncompl et e. T hough the S u p re m e C o u rt h a s f

o u n d th a t th e lo ss o f

g o o d tim e c re d its e n tit les p riso n e rs to appr opr i at e due pr oces s , s ee W ol ff v. M cD onnel l , 418 U . S. 539, 556- 57 ( 1974) , the ques t i on of w hethera s anct i on i m pl i cat es a l i bertyi nt er es ti s notans w er ed byl ooki ng at good t i m e cr edi t s al one. A l i bertyi nt er es tm ayal s o be pr es entw her e a puni s hm ent ent ai l s an “a typi cal and s i gni fi canthar ds hi p. ” M i t chel l , 318 F. 3d at532 ( ci t at i on o m itt e d ). C o u rts a re re q u ire d to lo o k in to th is p o ss ib ili ty . S e e id . at 5 3 3 n .6 . In o rd e r to do s o, a courts houl d per form a fa ct - s peci fi c i nqui ryeval uat i ng “the dur at i on of di s ci pl i naryconfi nementand the condi t i ons of thatconfi nementi n r el at i on t o other p ri so n co n d it ion s. ” Id . at 53 2 (cit ati o n o m itted). A p p ly in g th e se c riter ia, w e c o n c lu d e th a t D a v is h a s n o t sh o w n th a t h e h a d a lib e rty5

i nt er es tats t ake. H e has pr ovi ded no evi dence thatthe condi t i ons dur i ng hi s 60 day s of di s ci pl i narys egr egat i on i nvol ved atypi cal ors i gni fi canthar ds hi p. C ontr a i d. at528, 533 ( “depl or abl e” c ondi t i ons of pr i s oner ’ s cel l i n r es tr i ct ed hous i ng uni ti ncl uded human w as t e s m ear ed on the w al l s , i nfes t at i on byi ns ect s , and ni ght l yki cki ng and bangi ng on the w al l s byotheri nm at es ) . I n addi t i on, thi s C our thas found s ever al t i m es that r es tr i ct i ve conf

i nementfora much l ongerper i od than thati m pos ed upon D avi s does not i m pl i cat e the pr i s oner ’ s l i bertyi nt er es t s . See Sm i th v. M ens i nger , 293 F. 3d 641, 645, 654 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( s even mont hs di s ci pl i naryconfi nement ) ; T orr es v. Fauver , 292 F. 3d 141, 151- 52 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( di s ci pl i narydet ent i on forfi ft een da y s and admi ni s tr at i ve s egr egat i on for120 day s ) ; G r i ffi n v. V aughn, 112 F. 3d 703, 706- 09 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ( fi ft een months admi ni s tr at i ve det ent i on) . D avi s offe r s no otherr eas on w hythe s anct i on agai ns thi m m eet s the s t andar d. In s u m , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e D is tr ic t C o u rt p ro p e rl yd is m is s e d D a v is ’ c la im s . B ec au se th is ap p ea l l ac k s m erit , w e w il l dism iss i t pu rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ).