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 9-14-2007 

# W i l son v . B udgeon 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 . 07-1607

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_2007

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 2007 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 " W i l s on v . B ud g e on" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 429. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/429A L D - 369 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 . 07- 1607

________________ J OHN D. WI L S ON, A p p e llan t, v. U N K N O W N B U D G E O N ; R O B E R T S H A N N O N ; K EV I N K A N E; PETE D A M I TER ; J O H N K A RE STES;

J . D. SHU TT; RO BERT BI TNER

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt Forthe M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . C i v. N o. 05- cv- 02101) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le E d w in M . K o sik

__________________________ 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 n d /o r 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

A ugus t30, 2007 Be f o r e : SLOV I TER, CH AG AR ES AN D C OW EN, CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed Sept ember14, 2007)

_________________ OP I NI ON

_________________ P E R C UR I AM A ppel l antJ ohn D . W i l s on, a s t at e pr i s oner , fi l ed a c i vi l r i ght s act i on under42T he al l egedl yfabr i cat ed mi s conductchar ges W i l s on w i th thr eat eni ng an empl oy ee or 1 hi s orherfami l ym emberw i th bodi l yharm . A ccor di ng t o the mi s conduct , on J anuary5, 2 0 0 4 , W ils o n w a s c o u n s e le d b yB u d g e o n n o t to g e t in to a n o th e r i n m a te ’s p ro p e rt y . W i l s on w as al l eged t o have a s ked: “D o y ou have a pr obl em w i th m e?” W hen B udgeon r epl i ed thathe w as s i m pl yenfor ci ng the rul es , W i l s on w as al l eged t o have s ai d: “I f y ou have a pr obl em w i th m e, m ypeopl e on the s tr eetw i l l t ake c ar e of i tform e. ” W i l s on d e n ied iss u in g th is th re a t. W h a t re a llyh a p p e n e d , ac c o rd in g to W ilso n , is th a t h e to ld B udgeon the t el evi s i on w as fori nm at es , notguar ds . H e then w entt o the “c how hal l ” and the n ext thing he k new he w as i n h and cuff s. 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 in U n ited S tate s D istric t 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 agai ns tcorr ect i onal offi cerT i m othyB udgeon, hear i ng exami nerK evi n K ane, and other corr ect i onal offi ci al s . W i l s on al l eged thatB udgeon fabr i cat ed and pur s ued mi s conduct compl ai ntN o. A 465945 agai ns thi m i n r et al i at i on forexer ci s i ng hi s Fi r s tA m endment r i ghtt o ar gue aboutw hatpr ogr am t o w at ch on the ce l l bl ock t el evi s i on. K ane w as 1 al l eged t o be bi as ed i n hi s adj udi cat i on of the mi s conduct , w hi ch r es ul t ed i n a s anct i on of 60 day s di s ci pl i naryconfi nement . W i l s on s oughtm oneydamages . E ar l yi n the l i t i gat i on, the D i stri ctC ou rtdis m i ssed W i l son’s s t at e l aw neg l i gen ce cl ai m , and the co urtal so di s m i s s ed tw o defe ndant s fr om the ac t i on beca us e the bodyof the compl ai ntdi d not in c lu d e a n ya lle g a tio n s a g a in s t th e m . W i l s on’ s r et al i at i on and due pr oces s cl ai m s w er e al l ow ed t o pr ocee d. T he defe ndant s m oved fors um m aryj udgm ent . T he M agi s tr at e J udge fi l ed a Repor tand R ecomm endat i on, addr es s i ng thatm ot i on, and W i l s on fi l ed O bj ect i ons t o i t . I n an or der ent er ed on February13, 2007, the D i s tr i ctC our toverrul ed W i l s on’ s O bj ect i ons and g ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t to th e re m a in in g d e f e n d a n ts. W ilso n a p p e a ls. H is m o tio n toA p r i s o n e rmu s tf i r s te x h a u s ta v a i l a b l e a d mi n i s tr a t i v e r e me d i e s p u r s u a n tt o 4 2 U. S . C. 2 § 1997e( a) befor e fi l i ng s ui t . W i l s on appea l ed hi s m i s conductatthe hi ghes tl evel , buthe d id n o t r aise h is FirstA m en d m en t r etali ati o n arg u m en t du ri n g the d isci p li n ary pr ocee di ngs . I ns t ead, he s ubm i t t ed a s epar at e gr i evanc e. I tw as r eturned t o hi m bypr i s on o f f ic ia ls u n a d

ju d ic a te d o n th e g ro u n d th a t th e re w e re o n g o in g d is c ip lin a ry p ro c e e d in g s . T hi s act i on bypr i s on offi ci al s r ai s es the ques t i on w hetherthe r emedyw as avai l abl e, cf. B r ow n v. C r oak, 312 F. 3d 109, 110 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( as s um i ng thatpr i s onerm ayr el yon instruction b yp ri so n o ff ici als t o aw aito u tcom e o f in terna l secu ri tyinv esti g ati o n b ef o re fi l i ng gr i evanc e) . W i l s on di d notappea l the dec i s i on r ej ect i ng hi s gr i evanc e on pr ocedur al gr ounds . H i s i nact i on r ai s es the ques t i on w hetherhe def aul t ed hi s r et al i at i on cl ai m , s ee Sprui l l v. G i l l i s , 372 F. 3d 218, 232 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( admi ni s tr at i ve exha us t i on r equi r ementof s ect i on 1997e( a) i ncl udes a pr ocedur al defa ul tcomponent ) . T he D i s tr i ct C our tw as r et i centt o di s m i s s the r et al i at i on cl ai m forfai l ur e t o exhaus tadmi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es , obs ervi ng thatW i l s on m i ghtj us t i fi abl ybe conf us ed aboutw hether Penns y l vani a D epart m entof C orr ect i ons A dm i ni s tr at i ve D i r ect i ve D C - A D M 801 g o v e rn in g m isc o n d u c ts o r D C -A D M 8 0 4 g o v e rn in g g rie v a n c e s p ro v id e d th e a p p ro p ria te 3 appea l i n form a paupe r i s w as gr ant ed byourC l erk and he w as not i fi ed thathi s appea l w o u ld b e c o n side red u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ). W e w i l l di s m i s s the appe al as fr i vol ous . A n appea l i s fr i vol ous w hen i tl acks an ar guabl e bas i s ei theri n l aw orfac t . N ei t zke v. W i l l i ams, 490 U . S. 319, 325 ( 1989) . O ur rev iew o f th e D istri ct C o u rt ' s g ran t of su m m aryjud g m en t i s p lena ryan d w e m u st aff irm su m m a ryju d g m e n t if th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial f

a c t an d th e m o v in g p a rtyis ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . See C el ot ex C orp. v. C atr ett , 477 U . S. 317, 322- 2 3 (1 9 8 6 ). W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e re is n o a rg u a b le b a sis in f a c t o r la w f

o r d isa g re e in g w ith the D istri ct C o u rt ’s su m m aryjud g m en t determ ination . T h e d ef en d an ts sou g h t sum m ary ju d g m e n t o n th e re talia tio n c laim o n th e b a sis th a t W ilso n f a iled to e x h a u st h is admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdecl i ned t o r eac h thi s i s s ue, concl udi ng in ste a d th a t th e re talia tio n c laim sim p lylac k e d m e rit. 2pr ocedur e forr ai s i ng hi s r et al i at i on cl ai m . L i ke the D i s tr i ctC our t , w e w i l l notdeci de the

m or e di ffi cul texhaus t i on of admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es ques t i on pr es ent ed byW i l s on’ s cas e, beca us e w e ar e s at i s fi ed thatthe mer i t s of the r et al i at i on cl ai m ar e pl ai nl yl acki ng. 4 W e agree t hat the ret al i at i on cl ai m plai nlyl acks m eri t . R et al i at i on for the ex erci se of cons t i tut i onal l ypr ot ect ed r i ght s i s i t s el f a c ons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on. W hi t e v. N apol eon, 897 F. 2d 103, 111- 12 ( 3d C i r . 1990) . W i l s on, how ever , fai l ed t o s how thatthe conduc t w hi ch al l egedl yl ed t o t he r et al i at orym i s conductw as cons t i tut i onal l ypr ot ect ed, s ee R aus erv. H orn, 241 F. 3d 330, 333 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( r el i ef una vai l abl e w her e conduc tnot p ro tec ted b yF irst A m e n d m e n t). E x p re ss in g a n o p in io n a b o u t w h ich tele v isio n c h a n n e l to selec t i s n o t pro tected sp ee ch . S ee W il so n v . S ch il li n g er, 76 1 F . 2 d 9 2 1 , 9 2 5 (3d C ir . 1985) ( pr i s oner s ’ Fi r s tA m endmentr i ght s m aybe curt ai l ed bec aus e of i ns t i tut i onal n e e d s ). W ilso n f u rth e r a lleg e d th a t H e a rin g E x a m in e r K a n e w a s b ias e d in v io latio n o f h is r i ghtt o due pr oces s ; he fi nds i n favorof the guar ds and aga i ns tthe pr i s oner s on a di s pr opor t i onat e bas i s . W i l s on ar gued thatther e w as no evi dence t o s uppor tthe s anct i on im p o se d o n h im f

o r th e m isc o n d u c t. W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt c o rre c tly d e ter m in e d th a t th e se a lleg a tio n s d o n o t sta te a d u e p ro c e ss c laim . C o n stitu tio n a lly m andat ed pr ocedur es ar e onl ynece s s aryw her e pr ot ect ed i nt er es t s ar e i nvol ved, and, u n d e r S a n d in v . C o n n e r, 5 1 5 U .S . 4 7 2 (1 9 9 5 ), p ro tec ted lib e rtyin ter e sts a re g e n e ra lly l i m i t ed t o fr eedom fr om r es tr ai ntthat“i m pos e[] atypi cal and s i gni fi canthar ds hi p on t he i nm at e i n r el at i on t o t he or di naryi nci dent s of pr i s on l i fe. ” I d. at484. T he det erm i nat i on5

o f w h a t is “ a typ ica l an d sig n if ica n t” is b a se d u p o n th e ra n g e o f c o n d iti o n s a n in m a te w oul d r eas onabl yexpec tt o encount er , A s qui th v. D ep’ tof C orr ect i ons , 186 F. 3d 407, 412 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ; G r i ffi n v. V aughn, 112 F. 3d 703, 706 n. 2 ( 3d C i r . 1997) , and the s anct i on of s i x m onths of di s ci pl i naryconfi nementi s i n the r ange of condi t i ons thatdo notvi ol at e a pr ot ect ed i nt er es tas defi ned bySandi n. See Sm i th v. M ens i nger , 293 F. 3d 6 4 1 , 6 5 4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). W ilso n c h a llen g e s th e im p a rtialityo f h e a rin g e x a m in e r K a n e , b u t S a n d in p ro h ib its us fr om cons i der i ng w hetherW i l s on i s ent i t l ed t o an unbi as ed hea r i ng exami ner . I n any e v e n t, ev e n if

w e c o n c lu d e d th a t a p ro tec ted lib e rtyin ter e st w a s a t sta k e , w e w o u ld still uphol d s um m aryj udgm entforthe def endant s on the gr ound thatther e w as an i ns uffi ci ent e v id e n tia ry b a s is o n w h ic h a re a s o n a b le ju ry c o u ld f in d in W ils o n ’s f

a v o r o n th is c la im . A n d e rs o n v . L ib e rt yL o b b y , In c ., 4 7 7 U .S . 2 4 2 , 2 4 9 -5 0 (1 9 8 6 ); F e d . R . C iv . P ro . 5 6 (e ). H i s “evi dence ” thatK ane i s bi as ed cons i s t s of conc l us oryal l egat i ons , w hi ch ar e not ad eq u ate u n d er R u le 56 (e). L a st, W ilso n a p p e a re d to a lleg e a n E q u a l P ro tec tio n c laim , b u t, ce rta in lyin th is cont ext , i nm at es and guar ds ar e not“s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed” a nd thus m aybe tr eat ed d if f e re n tly. C ity o f

C le b u rn e v . C le b u rn e L iv in g C tr ., In c ., 4 7 3 U .S . 4 3 2 , 4 3 9 (1 9 8 5 ). W e w il l dism iss th e a p p ea l as frivo lou s p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B )(i ).