2010 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 8-18-2010 

# Ramon B rit o v

. U S D ept of Ju s t ice 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 . 10-2128

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_2010

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 2010 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 " R amon B rit o v

. U S D ept of Jus t ic e " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 741. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/741CL 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. 10- 2128

___________ RA M ON B RI T O, A ppel l ant v . UN I TED STATES DEPAR TM ENT O F J USTI CE; ATTO RN EY G ENER AL; DI RECTO R, FEDERA L BU REA U O F P RI SON S; W AR DEN J ERRY M AR TI NEZ;

P. A . BR A D Y , A LLE N W O O D M ED I CA L STA FF; A H SA PO TO PE, A LLE N W O O D M ED I CA L STA FF

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from 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 vi l N o. 08- cv- 01673) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ames M . M unl ey

____________________________________ 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 A ugus t5, 2010 B efore: B A R R Y , F ISH E R and G R E E N A W A Y , JR . , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: A ugus t18, 2010 )

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AMA l though i tappea r s the appe l l anti dent i fi es the U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof 1 J us t i ce a s one of the def endant s , the D i s tr i ctC our tfound thatthe D epart m entw as us ed m er el yt o hel p i dent i fythe ac tual defe ndant s . B as ed upon the compl ai nt , the D i s tr i ct C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t th e o n lyd e f e n d a n ts a re th o se th e c o u rt a d d re ss e d in its me mo r a n d u m. T he fa ct s ar e t aken from the ap pell ees’ bri ef i n sup po rtof m oti on t o d i sm i ss, 2 appel l ant ’ s br i ef i n oppos i t i on t o m ot i on t o di s m i s s , and the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s m emora ndum opi ni on and or derand, unl es s not ed, ar e noti n di s put e. 2 R amon B r i t o, a fe der al pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s fr om the j udgm entof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a ent er ed on M ar ch 15, 2010, gr ant i ng the appe l l ees ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s or , i n the al t ernat i ve, m ot i on for s um m aryj udgm ent . Forthe r eas ons s t at ed her ei n, w e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff i r m the j udgm ent o f th e D istric t C o u rt. I n S e p t e m b e r2 0 0 8 , B r i t o f i l e d a c i v i l r i g h t s c o m p l a i n ta g a i n s tM i c h a e l M u k a s e y, form erU ni t ed St at es A t t orneyG ener al , H ar l eyG . L appi n, D i r ect orof the U ni t ed St at es B ur eau of

Pr i s ons , J erryM art i nez, the W ar den atA l l enw ood L ow Secur i tyC orr ect i onal In stitu te, a n d Jim B ra d ya n d Ja m e s P o to p e , m e d ica l sta f f m e m b e rs. B rito b ro u g h t th is

1 act i on pu rs uan tt o B i ven s v. S i x U nk no w n N am ed A gen t s of F ederal B ureau o f N arcot i cs, 4 0 3 U .S . 3 8 8 (1 9 7 1 ). H e a lleg e d th a t d e f e n d a n ts f a iled to p ro v id e h im w ith a d e q u a te m e d ica l ca re in v io latio n o f th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t. B r i t o r eport ed an i nj uryt o hi s l efthand pi nkyfi ngert o the pr i s on’ s H eal th Ser vi ces o n S e p tem b e r 5 , 2 0 0 6 . H e a lth S e rv ice s o rd e re d a n x -ra ya n d p ro v id e d B rito w ith p a in 2 m edi cat i on. O n Sept ember6, 2006, the x- r ayw as t aken a nd r evea l ed a f r actur ed pi nkyT h e a p p e llee s a rg u e d th a t B rito re p e a ted lya d m itt e d h e w a s n o t co m p letin g h is 3 R O M ex erc ises d esp it e se v era l w arn ing s fro m H ea lth S erv ices a b o u t th e n ee d to p erf o rm them. T he D i s tr i ctC our tadopt ed thi s fac t . H ow ever , i n B r i t o’ s r epl ybr i ef, he ar gued thatthe appe l l ees m i s cons trued thi s fac t . H e al l eges thathe t ol d H eal th Ser vi ces p erso n n el th at he w as p erf o rm ing the R O M ex erc ises, b u t th at th e sw ell ing in h is fing ers d id n o t allo w h im to p ro p e rlyc o m p lete th e e x e rc ise s. A lth o u g h th is f a c t re m a in s in di s put e, s um m aryj udgm entm ays t i l l be pr oper l ygr ant ed bec aus e thi s fac ti s notm at er i al t o ourr es ol ut i on of B r i t o’ s E i ghth A m endmentcl ai m . A m . E agl e O ut fi t t er s v. L y l e & S co ttL td., 5 8 4 F . 3 d 5 7 5 , 5 8 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). 3 fi nger . T he fr actur e w as s pl i nt ed and w r apped f ori m m obi l i zat i on and B r i t o w as i ns truct ed t o avoi d overus e and ke ep hi s fi ngeri m m obi l e. B r i t o w as al s o gi ven pai n m edi cat i on and a foll ow -up x-r ayw as ordered t o b e t aken i n fo ur w eeks. O n O ct ober3, 2006, B r i t o r eturned t o H eal th Ser vi ces fora fol l ow - up vi s i t . T he ex am ination ind icated that the ra n g e o f m o ti o n (“R O M ”) a n d sen sati o n o f h is fing er w ere in tac t. H e a lso h a d m ild sw e lli n g a n d g o o d c a p ill a ryre f ill . H e a lth S e rv ice s d ire c ted B rito t o cont i nue t o w earhi s s pl i nt , t o avoi d fur thertr auma, and t o cont i nue hi s pai n m edi cat i on as n ee d ed . D u ri n g h is th ir d fo ll o w -up v isi t on O ctob er 1 2 , 2 0 0 6 , B ri to w as to ld to p erf o rm R O M exerci ses t o p reventhis fi ng er fr om beco m i ng st i ff an d to avoid anycom pli cat i on s. 3 B r i t o w as al s o gi ven i ns truct i ons on R O M exer ci s es . O n O ct ober25, 2006, B r i t o w as s een f o r a n o th e r f

o llo w -u p v isit. H e w a s a d v ise d a g a in th a t h e m u st d o th e e x e rc ise s to a v o id com pli cat i on s. O n N o v em b er 1 , 2 0 0 6 , B ri to rec eive d an o ther x -rayw h ich re v ea led th at th e f rac ture w a s h e a lin g , b u t still p re se n t. H e w a s in stru c ted to c o n tin u e to w e a r h is s p lin t. B rito r eturned t o H eal th Ser vi ces fors even mor e s ubs equentfol l ow - up exami nat i ons . A ft erB r i t o al s o fi l ed a doc um entent i t l ed “Em er gencyM ot i on on R eques tfor 4 Pr ot ect i on. ” Thi s m ot i on as s ert ed thatthe def endant s w er e r et al i at i ng agai ns thi m for f ili n g th e law su it. T h e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied th e m o tio n b e c a u se th e iss u e s ra ise d in it ar os e af t erthi s cas e w as fi l ed. B eca us e the mot i on w as pr emi s ed on a di ffe r ents etof fac t s than the compl ai nti n thi s cas e, and s oughtdi ffe r entr el i ef, the pr opercour s e of a c tio n w o u ld b e f

o r B rito to in iti a te a n e w law su it. 4 B rito ’s p in k yf

in g e r b e g a n to d e v e lo p “ re tra c tio n ,” h e w a s e x a m in e d b ytw o o rth o p e d ic sp e c ialists , D r. T h o m a s F . D o m in ick a n d D r. D a v id J. B a ll. A lth o u g h b o th sp e c ialists r ecomm ended thatB r i t o s houl d be s een bya hand s peci al i s t , i tdoes notappea rfr om the re c o rd th a t B rito w a s e x a m in e d b ya h a n d sp e c ialist. B as ed upon the medi cal tr eatm enthe r ece i ved forhi s fr actur ed fi nger , B r i t o fi l ed a c o m p lain t alle g in g th a t th e p riso n m e d ica l sta f f d e m o n stra ted d e lib e ra te in d if f e re n c e to h is m e d ica l n e e d s in tre a tin g h is f in g e r, ca u sin g h im p e rm a n e n t d a m a g e in v io latio n o f h is E i ghth A m endmentr i ght s . I n r es pons e, the appe l l ees fi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s , ori n the a ltern a tiv e , fo r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. T h e D istric t C o u rt g ra n ted th e m o tio n to d ism iss w ith r es pectt o D efe ndant s L appi n, M ukas ey , and M art i nez, and gr ant ed the mot i on for su m m a ryju d g m e n t w ith re sp e c t to D e f e n d a n ts B ra d ya n d P o to p e . B rito f iled a tim e ly 4 a p p e a l an d a m o tio n f

o r a p p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n se l. W e have j ur i s di ct i on overthi s appea l pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e r evi ew de n o v o th e d i s m i s s a l o f

a c o m p l a i n tu n d e rR u l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) , s e e P h i l l i p s v . C n ty. o f A l l e g h e n y, 5 1 5 F .3 d 2 2 4 , 2 3 1 -3 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ), an d th e e n tryo f su m m a ryju d g m e n t, se e A m . E a g le O u tf itte rs v . L y le & S c o tt L td ., 5 8 4 F .3 d 5 7 5 , 5 8 0 -8 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ).5

D i s m i s s al underR ul e 12( b) ( 6) i s appr opr i at e i f the court“ac cept [s ] al l fac tual al l egat i ons as true, cons true[s ] the compl ai nti n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the pl ai nt i ff, and det erm i ne[s ] [that ] underanyr eas onabl e r eadi ng of the compl ai nt , the pl ai nt i ff” i s not e n tit led to re lief. P h ill ip s, 5 1 5 F .3 d a t 2 3 3 (c itatio n s o m itt e d ). S u m m a ryju d g m e n t is appr opr i at e “i f, dr aw i ng al l i nfer ence s i n favorof the nonmovi ng party , the pl eadi ngs , t he di s coveryand di s cl os ur e mat er i al s on fi l e, and anyaff i davi t s s how thatther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand thatthe movanti s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” A m . E agl e O ut fi t t er s , 584 F. 3d at581 ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . B eca us e w e conc l ude thatthi s appea l 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 ct C our t ’ s or der . 3d C i r . L A R 27. 4 & I . O . P. 10. 6. Fi r s t , B r i t o fai l ed t o es t abl i s h a val i d caus e of a ct i on agai ns tD i r ect orL appi n, and form erA t t orneyG ener al M ukas eybeca us e hi s B i vens cl ai m cannotbe pr emi s ed upon the theoryof r es pondeats uper i or . See A s hcr oftv. I qbal , 129 S. C t . 1937, 1948- 49 ( 2009) ; s ee al s o R ode v. D el l ar ci pr et e, 845 F. 2d 1195, 1207 ( 3d C i r . 1988) . T o es t abl i s h l i abi l i tyfor depr i vat i on of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght , a partym us ts how per s onal i nvol vementbyeac h d e f e n d a n t. R o d e , 8 4 5 F .2 d a t 1 2 0 7 . S u c h in v o lv e m e n t m a yb e e sta b lish e d th ro u g h : ( 1) per s onal di r ect i on oractual part i ci pat i on bythe def endanti n the mi s conduct ; or ( 2) know l edge of

and ac qui es cenc e i n the mi s conduct . I d. T hough B r i t o names D i r ect orL appi n and form erA t t orneyG ener al M ukas eyas defe ndant s , he does notal l ege thattheyw er e per s onal l yi nvol ved i n the al l eged de ni al of6

c a re . F u rth e rm o re , B rito f a iled to p re se n t an yp ro o f , o r e v e n a lleg e , tha t th e se d e f e n d a n ts h a d k n o w led g e o f

a n ym istre a tm e n t o r f

a ilu re o f tre a tm e n t b yth e m e d ica l sta f f. O n th is bas i s , the D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed the cl ai m s agai ns tL appi n and M uaks ey . T he D i s tr i ct C o u rt a lso d ism iss e d c laim s a g a in st W a rd e n Je rryM a rtin e z b e c a u se B rito m ista k e n lyh e ld M art i nez r es pons i bl e forr es pondi ng t o hi s admi ni s tr at i ve cl ai m . W i thoutanyevi dence of personal i nv olvem ent orkn ow l edg e of B ri t o’s m edical care, no cl ai m can b e rai sed aga i nst M art i nez. W e agree w i th the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s dis m i ssal againstthese t hree app el l ees. S econ d, B ri t o fail ed to est abli sh a vali d d el i berat e i nd i fference clai m against m e d ica l sta f

f m e m b e rs B ra d ya n d P o to p e . In o rd e r to a ss e rt a n E ig h th A m e n d m e n t cla im of del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence , a party“musts how ( i ) a s er i ous m edi cal need, and ( i i ) act s or om i s s i ons bypr i s on offi ci al s thati ndi cat e del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence t o thatneed. ” N at al e v. Ca md e n Cn ty . Co rr . F a c i l i ty , 3 1 8 F . 3 d 5 7 5 , 5 8 2 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) . F o re x a mp l e , th e S u p r e me C ou rti n E st el l e v. G am ble, 42 9 U . S . 97 (1976 ), held that an i nm at e’s cl ai m s agai nst m ember s of the pr i s on m edi cal depart m entdi d notr i s e t o the l evel of a vi ol at i on undert he E i ghth A m endment , w her e the i nm at e had r ece i ved cont i nui ng car e fr om m edi cal s t aff , but bel i eved thatm or e s houl d have be en done f orhi m byw ayof di agnos i s and tr eatm ent , and m a in ta in e d th a t a n u m b e r o f o p tio n s to m e d ic a l p e rs o n n e l w e re n o t p u rs u e d o n h is b e h a lf. I d. at106- 07. I n s hor t , an i nm at e’ s di s agr eementw i th the cour s e of tr eatm entpr es cr i bed bya phy s i ci an does notcons t i tut e del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence . W hi t e v. N apol eon, 897 F. 2d 1 0 3 , 1 1 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 0 ).B rito ’s c laim s a re m o re a k in to a m e d ica l m a lp ra c tice c laim , w h ich h e se e m s to 5 h av e ra ised in a s ep ara te pro ce ed ing . S ee C ivil N o . 0 9 -cv -01 2 5 7 (M . D . P a.). 7 In th is p re se n t ac tio n , B rito a rg u e d th a t th e m e d ica l sta f f w a s d e lib e ra tely i ndi ffe r entt o hi s m edi cal needs beca us e ( 1) the medi cal s t aff del ay ed i n r efe rr i ng hi m t o a sp e c ialist; a n d (2 ) th e m e d ica l sta f f a c ted n e g lig e n tlyin f

a ili n g to tak e h is d iab e tes in to cons i der at i on w hi l e pr ovi di ng forhi s m edi cal car e. T hes e al l egat i ons do notr i s e t o the lev e l o f d e lib e ra te in d if

f e re n c e o n th e p a rt o f

a p p e llee s to B rito ’s m e d ica l n e e d s. H e a lth S e rv ic e s e x a m in e d B ri to o n n u m e ro u s o c c a s io n s a n d h e re c e iv e d p ro p e r d ia g n o s tic te s tin g . He wa s a l s o p r o v i d e d wi th a s p l i n tf o rh i s f i n g e ra n d i n s tru c t i o n t o p e r f o r m R OM exer ci s es . H e w as l at err efe rr ed t o tw o or thopedi c s peci al i s t s w hen hi s fi ngerdi d notheal pr oper l y . Set t i ng as i de the di s put e as t o w hetherornotB r i t o per form ed the exe r ci s es p re sc rib e d b ya p p e llee s, w e c a n n o t co n c lu d e th a t ap p e llee s w e re d e lib e ra telyin d if f e re n t to B r i t o’ s condi t i on. See M onm outh C nty . C orr . I ns t i tut i onal I nm at es v. L anza r o, 834 F. 2d 5 3 2 6 , 3 4 6 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 7 ). A cc o rdin g ly , w e w il l sum m aril yaf firm the d ec isi o n o f th e D istri ct C o u rt . 3 d C ir . L A R 2 7 .4 & I.O .P . 1 0 .6 . B rito ’s m o tio n f o r th e a p p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n se l is d e n ied a s m o o t.