1 NOT PRECEDENT IAL UNITED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIRC UI T

08- 3649

____ ____ ____ _ ASHLEY PAITH; RON PATTERSON,

Appe llants
v. CO U N T Y O F WA SH IN G T O N ; WASHINGTON COUNTYCORRECTIONAL FACILITY; WARDEN JOSEPH PELZER; CAP TAIN KING
On Appeal from

the United State s District Court fo r the W es te rnD istri ct

of P en nsy lvania D istri ct Co urt N o. 2- 06- cv -0 0806 District Judge: The H onorable Nora B . F ischer Subm itted Pursuant to Third Circuit L .A .R. 34.1(a)

Se pte m be r 16, 201 0 Befo re: SLOVITER, BARRY, an d S MITH, Circuit Judges

(F ile d: S ep te m

be r 20, 201 0 )
OPINION
SMI TH, Circuit Judge.T he D istri ct Co urt e xe rc ise d j ur isd ic tio n purs uant t o 28 U
. S. C. §§ 1 331 1 an d 13 67. Appe llate j ur isd ic tio n e xis ts unde r 28 U
. S. C. § 12 91. W e co nduc t de novo rev ie w of a n o rd er g ran ti ng a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. Strat echuk v. B d. of E duc
. , Sou th O rang e-

M apl ew ood Sc h. D ist
. , 587 F. 3d 59 7, 603 (3d Cir. 2009 ). 2 A shl ey P ai th and h er

f athe r, Ro n P atte rs on, w er e inc ar ce rate d inthe W as hin gto n C ounty

Co rr ec tio na l F ac ili ty

f or vary ing pe ri ods of

ti m e fr om

200 3 to 2006
. I n January

of 200 6, the y

ini tiate d th is c ivi l a ct ionin state c ourt a ga ins t the Co unty of W as hin gto n, it s c or

re ct ion al f

ac ili ty , W ar de n P el ze r, a nd C ap ta in K ing (collectively

ref erre d to as the Count y ). Paith and Patter son, both o f w hom had be enr el ea se d f

ro m the W as hin gto n C ounty

Co rr ec tio na l F ac ili ty , a lle ge d inthe ir
com plaint th at the County

wa s liable for various civil rights violatio ns that
oc curr ed dur ing the ir

inc ar ce ratio n, a s w el l a s se ve ra l st at e lawtor t c la im s. T he Co unty ti m el y r em ove d th e ac tio n to the U nit ed S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f or the W estern D istrict of Pennsy lvania. A fter discovery concluded, the parties filed
cross-m otion s for sum

m ary j udgm ent. O n July25, 2008, the District C ourt granted the County ’ s m otion for sum m ary j udgm ent. This tim ely

appeal fo llo w ed
. 1 A lth oughP atte rs on r ai se d se ve ra l c la im s a ga ins t the Co unty , on a ppe al he ch al le nge s on ly

the D istri ct

Co urt di sm iss al of

his c la im that he r ec ei ve d a retaliatory

and arbitrar

y denial of his right to work r elease during Paith’ s initial inc ar ce ratio n in200 3. P atte rs on c ont en ds tha t the D istri ct Co urt f ai le d to a ddr es sT he D istri ct Co urt ana ly ze d P ai th’ s de lib er at e ind if fe re nc e an d 2 un co ns ti tu ti on al co nd it io ns of c on fin em en t cl ai m s u nd er t he Eig ht h Am en dm en t. T he se c la im s aro se in 2005 w he n P ai th w as inc ar ce rate d purs uant t o aparo le violatio n detainer afte r a dom estic incident. A s a result, Paith’ s status is like that of a pr et ria l d et ai ne e, Boring v. K ozakiewicz , 833 F. 2d 46 8, 472 (3d Cir. 1987 ), an d sh e is e nti tle d to the pr ote ct ion s of the F ourte en th A m en dm en t’ s D ue P ro ce ss Cl au se . Ci tyof R ev er e v. M ass . G en . H

osp. , 463 U. S. 239, 244 (198 3) (noting th at Eighth Am endm ent’ s protections app ly to prison ers confined as a r esult of a fo rm al a dj udi catio n of

the ir gui lt, a nd tha t the F ourte en th A m en dm en t’ s D ue Pro ces s C la us e g ov ern s t he rig ht s o f pr et ria l d et ai ne es ). 3 this claim . P uttin g aside whether ther e is such a thing as a right to work release, the re is no m er it to P atte rs on’ s a sse rt ion
. T he r ec or d e sta bli she s th at

P atte rs on filed a petition seeking work r elease in N ovem ber 2003, and that the District Court
ex pl ic it ly ide nt ifi edPat te rs on ’s cla im as o ne of s ev eral whi ch was t im e b arre d. Pa itha sse rt s th at

the D istri ct

Co urt e rr ed

by gr an tin g su m

m ar y j udgm en t on he r cl ai m s a lle gin g: ( 1) de lib er at e ind if fe re nc e to h er

m ed ic al ne ed s; ( 2)
co nf ine m en t i n un co nst itu tio na l c ondi tio ns; a nd ( 3) a n “ int en tio na l i nf lic tio n of
em oti ona l di str es s and/ or [ a] state [- ] cr eate d dange r gr ow ing out of the c ondi tio ns of he r co nf ine m en t. ” W e fi nd n o e rr or by the D istri ct

Co urt. 2 At the hear

t of Paith’ s deliberate indiffere nce claim is her contention th at dur ing he r inc ar ce ratio n in200 5 and 2 006 “ she w as f or ce d to take m ed ic at ion
w ith out f ood w hic h r es ult ed

in sto m ac h pr obl em s and r en de re d th e m ed ic at ion ine ff ec tiv e. ” I n Boring v. K

ozakiewicz , 83 3 F .2d46 8, 4 73 –7 4 (3 d C ir. 1 98 7) , we declare d that a prisoner’ s claim of deliberate indiffe rence to a serious m edicalP ai th’ s c om pla int a lle ge d c la im s of

unc onst itu tio na l c ondi tio ns o f 3 confinem ent as a re sult of her placem ent in the green room in 200 3 and 200 5. I n the D istri ct

Co urt, P ai th f

ile d am oti on t o w ith dr awhe r cl ai m ba se d onthe e ve nts that occurred in 2003. T he District C ourt granted the m otion and dism issed that claim with prej udice. A ccordingly , w e address only Paith’ s claim

challenging h er co nf ine m en t i n th e gr ee n r oom in D ec em

be r of 200 5. 4 ne ed r equir es e xpe rt

te sti m ony

w he n th e se ri ousn es s of

inj ur y or il lne ss w oul d no t be apparent to a lay

person. Whether a m edication is ineffective if it is given without food is not readily apparent to a lay

person. P aith offere d no expert testim ony to supp ort her claim
. As a consequence, she cannot establish an
es se nt ia l el em en t o f he r de li be rat e in di ffer en ce cl ai m . For t ha t re as on , we co nc lud e that the D istri ct Co urt pr ope rl y

gr an te d su m

m ar y j udgm en t i n f

av or of t h e C o u n t y o n th i s c l a i m. Pa itha lso a lle ge d th at

she w as sub

j ec te d to unc onst itu tio na l c ondi tio ns o f
co nf in em en t wh en sh e was tra ns ferr edto th e co rrec ti on al faci li ty’ s “ gr een roo m .” 3 Th e g r e e n r o o m i s n o te qu i p p e dwi t h as t a n d a r dt o i l e tf a c i l i t y; i tc o n t a i n s o n l y a fl oor gr at e ove r ane igh t i nc h dr ai n pi pe . T he D istri ct Co urt r ec ogni ze d th at

in LaR ea u v . M

ac D ouga ll , 473 F
. 2d 9 74, 978 ( 2d C ir
. 197 2) , the S ec ond Ci rc uit he ld that the c ondi tio ns o f a str ip c el l tha t ha d asim ilar toi le t f ac ili ty “ f[ e] ll be lowthe irreducible m inim

um of decency

required by

the Eighth Am endm ent.” Nonetheless, the D istrict Court granted the County ’ s m otion for sum m ary j udgm en t be ca

use the “ ab se nc e of

atr ad iti ona l t oil et

. . . is not , by

it se lf , c ru el and5

unus ua l punis hm en t” and b ec au se pr iso ne rs c onf ine d to the gr ee n r oom

ha d a cc es s to a tr ad iti ona l t oil et

upo n r eque st. Re ly ing on LaR ea u , and the f ac t that sh e w as de pr ive d of a cc es s to a traditional toi let, P aith contends that the District Court e rred in granting summ ary jud gm en t fo r th e Co un ty. LaR ea u , how ev er , is not c ontro lli ng a s it

c onc er ne d th e E igh th A m en dm en t and p re ce de d th e Su pr em e Co urt’ s de ci sio n in B el l v
. W olf ish , 441 U
. S. 520 ( 1979 ), w hic h se t f orth the standard

appl ic ab le und er

the F ourte en th A m en dm en t. I n th at

c as e, the S upr em e Co urt e xpl ai ne d th at “ [i ] n e va luatin g th e co nst itu tio na lity

of c ondi tio ns o r re str ic tio ns o f pr etri al de te nti on tha t i m pli cate
on ly the pro te ct io n a ga in st de pr iv at io n o f li be rty with ou t due pro ces s o f la w, we thi nk tha t the pr ope r inquir y is w he the r tho se c ondi tio ns am ount to puni shm en t of the detainee.” Id

. a t 53 5. I n U

nio n C ount y Ja il In m ates v . D iB uono , 713 F
. 2d 984, 992 ( 3d C ir
. 198 3) , w e de te rm ine d th at B el l requires application of a tw o part te st. “ [W ] e m

ust a sk, f ir st, w he the r an y

le git im at e pur

pose s are se rv ed

by the se co ndi tio ns, and s ec ond, w he the r the se c ondi tio ns are r at ion al ly r el at ed to the se purpos es.” Id

. a t 99 2. T he r ec or d be fo re us c onf irm s th at the gr ee n r oom , w hic h ha d gr ee n ti le on thr ee of the w al ls and a

f ourth w al l m ad e of

gla ss, la ck ed

a ny f ur nis hin gs o r statio nary obj ec ts, inc lud ing atr ad iti ona l t oil et . I t di d have a n e igh t i nc h dr ai n in the m iddle of the floor covered by a grate . At lea st som e of the room ’ s walls w ere6

pa dde d. C or

re ct ionO ff

ic er H an k a ff irm ed that the r oom

is uti liz ed

to obse rv e

“ people com ing do wn fr om drugs, violent peop le or people on suicid e w atch.” D ep uty W ar de n H am

m ett c onf irm ed that the gr ee n r oom

is a “ ce ll de sig na te d f

or prisoners exhib iting violent andself-destructive behavior,” which allow s an inm ate to be observed constantly
. In short, the room is design ed to provid e a pr ote ct ive e nvi ro nm en t f or an in m at e w ho m ay

be adange r to h im se lf

/he rs el f or ot he rs . W e do n ot i gnor e the f

ac t tha t the abse nc e of

atr ad iti ona l t oil et

m ay de pr ive
aninm at e of

a cc es s to the usu al sanit at ionm ea sur es a ff or de d othe r inm at es w ho
ar e not a t r isk of hurtin g th em se lve s. D ep uty W ar de n H am

m et e xpl ai ne d, how ev er , that tw o othe r ce lls a dj ac en t t o th e gr ee n r oom a re e qui ppe d w ith traditional toi let fac ilities, and that inm ates confined in the green room are given
ac ce ss t o th es e tr ad iti ona l t oil et f ac ili tie s up on r eque st. I n a ddi tio n, D ep uty W ar de n H am

m ett po int ed

out that i n th e ev en t an in m at e uti liz es the dr ai n to
re lie ve him se lf

/he rs el f, pr iso n st af

f m ust c le anthe r oom

a s so on a s it

is sa fe to do
so . Furtherm ore, the rec ord dem onstrates that Paith was place d in the green
room as a protective m easure a fter she e xhib ited self-destructive behavior. Although the rec ord fails to establish with certainty the duration of her confinem ent in the green room , it a ppears to be less than a day as she wa s placed7

in the room

after 9 p.m . and was re turned to general hous ing th e next day fo llo w ing e va luatio n by

the pr iso n ps y ch ia tr ist

w ho p re sc ri be d m ed ic at ion s to ad dr es s he r m en ta l i m

pa irm en ts. I n li ght

of a ll the se c ir cum stanc es , w e co nc lud e that P ai th d id n ot e sta

bli sh tha t this c ondi tio n c onst itu te d punis hm en t i n vi olatio n of he r du e p ro ces s ri gh ts un de r th e Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t. Paith also contends that the District Court e rred by granting su m

m ary j udgm ent in favor of the County on her claim

of intention al infliction of em otion al di st res s. Kazatsky v. K

ing David Mem ’l P ark, I

nc. , 527 A. 2d 98 8, 995 (Pa. 1987 ), requires that the alleged em otion al distress be supp orted by com petent m edical
ev id en ce. Pai th di d n otad du ce an y m ed ic al ev id en ce i n s up po rt o f he r cl ai m . Acco rd in gl y , th e Dis tri ctCo ur t d idno t err in di sm is si ng th is cla im
. Fi n al l y, we c o n s i d erwh et h erth e D i s t ri ct Co u rt erre di n d i s m i s s i n g Pa i t h ’s state-cr eated danger cla im
. “ [T ] he Due P rocess Clause does not im pose an affir m ative oblig ation on the state to protect its citizens.” Phil lip s v . Co unt y of A lle ghe ny , 515 F
. 3d 2 24, 235 ( 3d C ir
. 200 8) ( ci tin g D eS hane y v. W inn eb ago Co unt y D ep ’t of Soc
. Se rv

s. , 48 9 U.S. 1 89 , 19 5- 96 (19 89 )). The state- created danger theory operates as an e xception to that ge ne ra l r ule and r equir es pla int if

fs to m ee t a

f our -p ar t t es t: (1 ) the harm ult im at el y

c au se d to the pla int if

f w as f or es ee ab le a nd f

ai rl y direct; (2) the state- actor ac ted in willful disregard for the plaintiff' s sa fe ty ; ( 3) the re w as som e re la tio nshi p be tw ee n th e state a nd the plaintiff; and (4) the state-ac tor used his auth ority to create an oppo rt uni ty f or dange r that othe rw ise w oul d no t have e xis te d.8

Id
. (c iti ng B rig

ht v
. W es tm ore lan d C

ount y , 44 3 F .3d27 6, 2 81 (3d Cir . 20 06 )). T he D istri ct

Co urt c or

re ct ly se t ou t this te st. A ft er

c onsi de ri ng the e vid en ce , the Co ur t co nc lu de d t ha t Pa it h h adad du cedev id en ce o f on ly the th ird ele m en t, i.e., the existence of a special r elationshi p by virtue of her im

prisonm ent. W e agre e. Fo r th e rea so ns set for th ab ov e, we wil l af fir m th e Dis tri ctCo ur t.