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 Thir d C ir c uit 8-10-2009 

# Frede rick H edgesp eth v

. Roy H e ndricks 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 . 09-1314

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_2009

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 2009 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 " F r e de rick H e d g e spe th v

. Ro y H e ndr ick s " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 839. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/839CL D- 2 6 1 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. 09- 1314

___________ F R E D E R IC K H E D G E S P E T H , A ppel l ant v . ROY L. HENDRI CKS , f o r me ra d mi n i s tr a t o ro f

Ne w J e r s e yS t a t e P r i s o n ; RI CHARD RU NC I E , f

o r me rc h i e f

o f c u s t o d ya tNe w J e r s e yS t a t e P r i s o n ; L I E UT E NANT W A SH I N G T O N , L i eut enant , N ew J er s eyD epart m entof C orr ect i ons ; J O H N D O E #1, L i eut enant , N ew J er s eyD epart m entof C orr ect i ons ; J O H N D O E #3, Speci al I nves t i gat i ons D iv isio n O f

f ice r, N e w Je rse yD e p a rtm e n t o f C o rre c tio n s; J O H N D O E # 4 , L ieu ten a n t, N ew J er s eyD epart m entof C orr ect i ons ; SE R G E A N T S. W I L SO N , SR . , Ser geant , N ew J er s eyD epart m entof C orr ect i ons ; D A V E D O E #2, N ew J er s eyD epart m entof C orr ect i ons ; M A K A R SK I , D i s ci pl i naryH ear i ng O ffi cer , N ew J er s eySt at e D epart m entof C orr ect i ons ; M I C H E L L E R I C C I , A s s i s t antA dm i ni s tr at or , N ew J er s eySt at e Pr i s on; B R E N D A O ' G A R A , A dm i ni s tr at i ve A nal y s tI I , B us i nes s O ffi ce a nd I nm at e Trus tFund A ccount s , N ew J er s eySt at e Pr i 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

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 06- cv- 03883) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e A nne E. T hom ps on

____________________________________ 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 J ul y23, 2009 B efor e: R E N D E L L , H A R D I M A N A N D V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A ugus t10, 2009)2 _________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM Fr eder i ck H edges peth, an i nm at e atN ew J er s eySt at e Pr i s on, appea l s pr o s e fr om an or derbythe D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant i ng defe ndant s ’ m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent . For th e r e a s o n s p r o v i d e d b yth e Di s tr i c tCo u r t , we wi l l s u mma r i l ya f f i r m. On Au g u s t1 7 , 2 0 0 6 , He d g e s p e th f i l e d a p r o s e c o mp l a i n tp u r s u a n tt o 4 2 U. S . C. § 1983 al l egi ng thatdefe ndant s vi ol at ed hi s r i ght s underthe Fi r s t , Four th, Fi fth, E i ght h, and Four t eenth A m endment s . I n hi s 100- pl us page c om pl ai nt , H edges peth l i s t ed thi r t een caus es of ac t i on, w hi ch s t emm ed fr om an i nci denton J ul y25, 2004, w hen he a nd other i nm at es i n hi s hous i ng uni tw er e s ubj ect ed t o a s tr i p s ear ch and pl ace d on “l ockdow n” s t atus . H edges peth s t at es he compl ai ned abouta pr i s on cel l condi t i on dur i ng the l ockdow n and thatas a r es ul t , he w as r et al i at ed aga i ns t , or der ed outof hi s cel l , and s ubj ect ed t o addi t i onal s tr i p s ear ches overthe nextthr ee hour s . H e w as then tr ans ferr ed t o a det ent i on hous i ng uni tt o aw ai ta di s ci pl i naryhear i ng and depr i ved of pr i vi l eges aff or ded t o gener al popul at i on pr i s oner s . H edges peth s ubs equent l yr ece i ved not i ce that h e w a s c h a rg e d w ith a ttem p ted e sc a p e a n d a g a in , cla im s h e w a s s u b jec ted to f

u rth e r strip s ear ches . H edges peth r ece i ved a di s ci pl i naryhear i ng, butcl ai m s thathe w as not perm i t t ed the opportuni tyt o confr ontw i tnes s es . H e w as found notgui l tyof the att empt ed escape ch arge and rel eased from adm i nis trat i ve segregati on . H edg espet h all eges,3

h o w e v e r, th a t h e is e n tit led to w o rk c re d its a n d b a c k p a yf o r h is tim e sp e n t in admi ni s tr at i ve s egr egat i on and aw ai t i ng hi s hear i ng and r eques t s decl ar at ory , i nj unct i ve, and monet aryr el i ef. D e f e n d a n ts in iti a llyf

iled a m o tio n to d ism iss , w h ich th e D istric t C o u rt g ra n ted in partand deni ed i n part . H edges peth’ s s ur vi vi ng cl ai m s i ncl uded: ( 1) hi s r i ghtt o due p ro c e ss in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e p ro c e d u re s th a t w e re su p p o se d to b e a f f o rd e d to h im a t h is dis ci pli naryheari ng ; (2) his ri gh tt o d ue p rocess i n co nn ect i on w i th the al l eged l yfal se di s ci pl i narychar ges br oughtagai ns thi m ; ( 3) hi s Fi r s tA m endmentr i ght s w hen he w as fal s el ychar ged, s tr i p s ear ched, and pl ace d i n admi ni s tr at i ve det ent i on i n r et al i at i on for c o m p l a i n i n g a b o u tp r i s o n c o n d i t i o n s ; a n d ( 4 ) h i s l i b e r ty i n t e r e s ti n r e c e i v i n g b a c k p a y. D efen dan t s fi l ed a m oti on for sum m aryj ud gm ent w hich setforth si x argum ents , i ncl udi ng H edges peth’ s fai l ur e t o exhaus thi s avai l abl e admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es pur s uant t o 42 U . S. C . § 1997e. D efe ndant s al s o fi l ed w i th the D i s tr i ctC our ta s epar at e l ett ert hat i ndi cat ed thatthe N ew J er s eyD epart m entof C orr ect i ons r ei m bur s ed H edges peth $66. 00, the amounthe r eques t ed i n back pa y . T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed def endant s ’ m ot i on for s um m aryj udgm entbas ed on thei rexhaus t i on ar gum entand found thatH edges peth’ s back paycl ai m w as m oot . H edges peth t i m el yappea l ed. We h a v e a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rth i s a p p e a l u n d e r2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . We exer ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overa di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or derof s um m aryj udgm ent . See K auche r v . C o u n tyo f

B u c k s, 4 5 5 F .3 d 4 1 8 , 4 2 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). S u m m a ryju d g m e n t is p ro p e r ifAs th e Di s tr i c tCo u r tn o t e s i n i t s o p i n i o n , He d g e s p e th c o n t e n d e d th a th e f i l e d f o r ms 1 reg ard ing h is co n sti tuti o n al claim s in a d d it ion to the tw o Inm ate R eq u est F o rm s tha t are partof the recor d. H edg espet h clai m ed thatthese fo rm s w ere i n h i s possess i on becau se theyw ere r eturned to him as i m properl yfi l ed. H edg espet h n ever provided these d o c u m e n ts to th e c o u rt, an d e v e n if h e h a d , ex h a u stio n in c lu d e s a p ro c e d u ra l d e f a u lt component . Sprui l l v. G i l l i s , 372 F. 3d 218, 222 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . A n “unt i m el yor otherw i s e pr ocedur al l ydefe ct i ve admi ni s tr at i ve gr i evanc e orappea l ” does nots at i s fyt he m andat oryexhaus t i on r equi r ementof the PL R A . W oodfor d v. N go, 548 U . S. 81, 83 ( 2006) ; s ee a l s o Sprui l l , 372 F. 3d at230. A ccor di ngl y , s uch document s w oul d fur ther s u p p o rt d e f

e n d a n ts ’ c la im th a t H e d g e s p e th f a ile d to p ro p e rl ye x h a u s t h is re m e d ie s . 4 ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand the movanti s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a m a tte r o f

la w . F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (c ). T he D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l yfound thatH edges peth fai l ed t o exhaus tadmi ni s tr at i ve rem ed ies b ef

o re f il ing h is co m p lai n t. U n d er the P ri so n L it igation R ef o rm A ct (“P L R A ”), pr i s oner s m us tfi r s tpr oper l yexhaus tthei radmi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es befor e fi l i ng an ac t i on u n d e r s e c tio n 1 9 8 3 . 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 9 7 e (a ); W o o d f o rd v . N g o , 5 4 8 U .S . 8 1 , 8 3 (2 0 0 6 ). D efe ndant s demonstr at ed thatH edges peth fai l ed t o pr oper l yexhaus thi s admi ni s tr at i ve re m e d ies b a se d o n a n a f f id a v it b ya p riso n o f

f icia l in v o lv e d in p ro c e ss in g in m a te gr i evanc es and appe al s , copi es of the admi ni s tr at i ve gr i evanc e form s fi l ed byH edges peth, a n d h is o w n te s tim o n ya t h is d e p o s itio n . T he record i nd i cat es that H edg espet h fil ed tw o g ri evan ces: (1) t o reque st compensa t i on forhi s i m pr operdet ent i on and ( 2) t o r eques tback pa yand w or k cr edi t s for the t i m e he w as admi ni s tr at i vel ydet ai ned and a w ai t i ng hi s di s ci pl i naryhear i ng. 1 A lth o u g h h e a rg u e d th a t th e p ro p e r g rie v a n c e f o rm w a s u n a v a ilab le to h im , p re su m a b lyto5

sh o w th a t h e w a s p re v e n ted w h e n h e tried to a d m in istra tiv e lye x h a u st h is c laim s, th is ar gum entl acks m er i t . H edges peth conce ded thatpr i s on offi ci al s perm i t t ed hi m t o us e a s ubs t i tut e form t o exhaus thi s r emedi es . See Sprui l l v. G i l l i s , 372 F. 3d 218, 227- 28 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). W hen compl et i ng a gr i evanc e, the N ew J er s eySt at e Pr i s on I nm at e H andbook i ns truct s i nm at es t o be “a s cl ear , compl et e and e as yt o r ead a s pos s i bl e, and be ba s ed on the fa ct s conce r ni ng the pr obl em or que s t i on bei ng pr es ent ed. ” H ow ever , even c ons trui ng H e d g e sp e th ’s s u b m itt e d g rie v a n c e s lib e ra lly , h e f a iled to a lleg e (1 ) th a t d e f e n d a n ts r et al i at ed aga i ns thi m forexer ci s i ng hi s Fi r s tA m endmentr i ght s ; ( 2) thathe w as s ubj ect ed t o r et al i at orydi s ci pl i ne s tr i p s ear ches ; or( 3) thathe w as deni ed due pr oces s w i th r es pect to th e d isc ip lin a ryc h a rg e s. A lth o u g h H e d g e sp e th c o n ten d e d th a t h is re f e re n c e to

“ c o m p e n sa tio n ” b ro a d lye n c o m p a ss e d th e c o n stitu tio n a l cla im s s e t f o rth in h is c o m p lain t, h e c o n c e d e d i n h i s d e p o s i t i o n th a t“ c o mp e n s a t i o n ” r e f e rr e d t o “ [ m] yb a c k p a ya n d my t i me c r e d i t . ” He d g e s p e th n e i th e ri n c l u d e d a n yf a c t s r e l e v a n tt o h i s c o n s t i tu t i o n a l c l a i ms i n hi s fi l ed gr i evanc es nornamed anyof the i ndi vi dual s i nvol ved i n the cl ai m s cont ai ned in h is c o m p lain t. S e e S p ru ill , 3 7 2 F .3 d a t 2 3 0 (a n e x h a u stio n ru le c a n b e f a irlyre a d to in c lu d e a p ro c e d u ra l d e f a u lt c o m p o n e n t) . In f

a c t, th e w o rd s “ re ta lia tio n ,” “ f a ls e c h a rg e s ,” or“s tr i p s ear ch” do notappea ratal l . T hus , i ti s cl earfr om the s cope of hi s s ubm i t t ed f o rm s th a t h e d id n o t p ro p e rlye x h a u st th e c o n stitu tio n a l cla im s a lleg e d in h is c o m p lain t.6

I n addi t i on, H edges peth coul d have f i l ed a gr i evanc e r egar di ng the al l eged due pr oces s vi ol at i ons athi s di s ci pl i naryhear i ng, w hi ch w as a di s t i nctand s epar at e eve nt f ro m h is im p ro p e r d e ten tio n . Y e t, as th e re c o rd in d ica tes , H e d g e sp e th d id n o t su b m it a n yth in g c h a llen g in g th e d isc ip lin a ryd e c isio n . H e d g e sp e th a rg u e d th a t m u lti p le g ri e v a n c e s o n th e s a m e s u b je c t c o n s titu te s a n a b u s e o f th e g ri e v a n c e p ro c e d u re . H ow ever , s ubm i t t i ng a gr i evanc e on hi s di s ci pl i naryhear i ng w oul d nothave be en a r edundantcl ai m . A ccor di ngl y , the D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l yconcl uded thatno genui ne iss u e o f m a ter ial f

a c t ex ists a s to w h e th e r H e d g e sp e th p ro p e rlye x h a u ste d th e a v a ilab le admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es w i th r es pectt o hi s cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s . Sum m aryj udgm entw as p rop er.W ith re sp e c t to th e su rv iv in g c laim in v o lv in g H e d g e sp e th ’s lib e rtyin ter e st in re c e iv in g b a c k p a y , w e a g re e w ith th e D is tr ic t C o u rt th a t th is c la im w a s re n d e re d m o o t. T he r ecor d i ndi cat es thatthe St at e pr ovi ded H edges peth w i th the r el i ef he r eques t ed, namel y$66. 00 i n back pa y . See D onovan v. Punxsut aw neyA r ea Sch. B d. , 336 F. 3d 211, 2 1 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( “ if d e v e lo p m e n ts o c c u r d u ri n g th e c o u rs e o f a d ju d ic a tio n th a t . . . pr eventa courtfr om bei ng abl e t o gr antthe r eques t ed r el i ef, the ca s e mustbe di s m i s s ed a s m o o t” )( c ita tio n s o m itte d ). F in a lly , the D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rlyd e n ied H e d g e sp e th ’s M o tio n f o r D e f a u lt J udgm entas t o defe ndantR i char d R unci e bec aus e H edges peth fai l ed t o eff ects ervi ce of the compl ai nt . A pl ai nt i ff i s r es pons i bl e fors ervi ng a compl ai ntw i thi n 120 day s aft ert he7

co m p lai n t i s filed w ith the c o u rt . F ed . R . C iv. P. 4(c )(1), (m ). T h e D istri ct C o u rt ’s docketi ndi cat es thatH edges peth fi l ed hi s act i on on A ugus t17, 2006, and on N ovember 13, 2006, the s um m ons and compl ai ntfordefe ndantR unci e w er e r eturned t o the C our tas unexec ut ed. T he docke tdoes notr efl ectthatR unci e w as evers erved w i th the compl ai nt dur i ng the tw o- y ears pan i n w hi ch the part i es cont i nued t o l i t i gat e the ca s e. T hus , the D is tr ic t C o u rt p ro p e rl yd e n ie d H e d g e s p e th ’s m o tio n . A s the appe al pr es ent s no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on, w e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our tj udgm ent . See 3d C i r . L . A . R . 27. 4 and 3d C i r . I . O . P. 10. 6.