BL D- 0 3 4 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- 3437

___________ I V A N D A V I S, A ppel l ant v . THO M AS M . GA UB Y, SR. ( POLI CE O FF I CER) ; LI ND A K . M . LUD GA TE; K E V IN D . G IL L E S P IE (D IS T R IC T A T T O RN E Y ); K E V IN M . B E A L S (P U B L IC

DEFEND ER) ; CO M M ON PLEAS COU RT BERK S COU NTY

____________________________________ 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 E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 2- 10- cv- 03136) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le S tew a rt D a lze ll

____________________________________ S u b mi tt e df

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 dC ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n dI.O .P . 1 0 .6 N ovember12, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , J O R D A N and G R E E N A W A Y , J R . , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: N ovember30, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM1. 1

D avi s s eems t o r efe rt o gr ound cover ed bythi s C ourti n a pr i orcas e of hi s , dur i ng w hi ch he c hal l enged the al l eged us e of e xces s i ve for ce a gai ns thi m bythr ee co rrecti o n al of

fice rs. S ee D av is v. B erk s C o u n ty , 3 5 1 F ed . A p p x . 6 4 0 , 6 4 1 (3d C ir . 2009) ; s ee a l s o M ot . t o Pr ocee d In Fo rm a P a u p e ris (D . C . D k t. # 0 0 3 ) 2. H o w ev er, thes e r efe r ence s , l i ke the r es tof hi s compl ai ntand ac company i ng m at er i al s , ar e vague . 2 I van D avi s , a s t at e pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pro se , appea l s fr om an or derof the D i s tr i ctC ourtthatdeni ed hi s m ot i on forcouns el and su a sp o n te d i s m i s s e dh i s s u i t . We a g r e e wi th th e d e c i s i o n o f th e Di s tr i c tCo u rta n dwi l l s u mma r i l ya f f i rm. D avi s fi l ed a 42 U . S. C . § 1983 act i on on J une 20, 2010. H i s cl ai m s , w oven thr ough m yr i ad D i s tr i ctC ourtfi l i ngs , appeart o char ge the def endant s — m os t l ypart i es i nvol ved i n hi s cr i m i nal convi ct i on— w i th num er ous cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i ons s oundi ng u n d e r th e S ix th , E ig h th , a n dF o u rt e e n th A m e n d m e n ts to th e U n ite dS ta te s C o n s titu tio n . H e a v e rre dth a t h is te n -y e a r se n ten c e , as so u g h t b yD istric t A tto rn e yK e v in D . G ill e sp ie and i m pos ed byJ udge Li nda Ludgat e, w as “cruel and unus ual puni s hm ent ” i n l i ghtof e rro rs a lleg e d lyc o m m itt e da t trial, w h ich in c lu d e da d e c isio n to p ro c e e dw ith a n a ll-w h ite ju rya n da f

a ilu re b yth e D istric t A tto rn e yto sig n th e c h a rg in g in stru m e n t. H e a c c u se dh is publ i c def

ender , K evi n M . B eal s , of i neff ect i venes s forfai l i ng t o as k fora change of v e n u e a n df

a i l i n g t o e x e r c i s e z e a l i n h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ; c l a i m e dth a to f f i c e rT h o m a s M. G aub y , S r. , had fai l ed to i nv est i gate ort ake a st at em ent i n an agg ravat ed assaultcase ste m m in g f

ro m e v e n ts o c c u rrin g in S e p tem b e r, 2 0 0 2 , w h ich ap p a re n tlyb lo c k e dD a v is f ro m “ p re ss [ in g ] c h a rg e s” o n th e p e rso n s w h o a ss a u lted h im ; and char ged the B erks 1 C ountypr i s on w i th “i l l egal [l y ] ” conf i ni ng hi m i n i t s r es tr i ct ed hous i ng uni t . B ym ot i on1. 2

T h is p e tit io n w a s d e n ied o n A u g u st 4 , 2 0 1 0 , an dD a v is h a s n o t p u rsu e dap p e llate reli ef in tha t acti o n . S ee g en era ll yD av is v. B ea rd, N o . 5 :09 -cv -05 0 7 8 (E . D . P a.). 1. 3 D i s tr i ctC ourtdocketentr i es #009 and #011 both r efl ectthe s ame “M ot i on forA ppeal D e c is io n ” f

ile do n A u g u s t 3 . 3 fi l ed Jul y26, 2010, D avi s as ked forcopi es of the tr ans cr i pt s fr om hi s cr i m i nal tr i al and re n e w e dh is re q u e st f

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

c o u n se l. B yo rd e r e n ter e dA u g u st 2 , 2 0 1 0 , the D istric t C o u rt g ra n ted D a v is’s m o tio n to pr ocee d in fo rm a p a u

p e ris , deni ed hi s m ot i on forappoi ntm entof couns el , and di s m i s s ed hi s cl ai m s w i thoutpr ej udi ce unde r28 U . S. C . §§ 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) and 1915A ( b) ( 1) for fai l i ng t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef c oul d be gr ant ed. Speci fi cal l y , the D i s tr i ct C ourtfound thatthe maj or i tyof D avi s ’ s al l egat i ons att acke d the ci r cumst ance s s urr oundi ng hi s tr i al and s ent enci ng, and thus s houl d have be en br oughti n a habe as pet i t i on under28 U . S. C . § 2254. I tal s o not ed thatD avi s had a habeas pet i t i on then p e n d in g in D istric t C o u rt. T he r es tof hi s cl ai m s , w hi ch r el at ed t o i nci dent s fr om 2002 2 o r 2 0 0 3 , w e re b a rr e da s u n tim e ly. D avi s fi l ed s ever al m ot i ons i n the w ake of the A ugus t2 or der . O n A ugus t3, 2010, D avis fi l ed a “M oti on for A pp eal D eci si on , ” w hich the D i stri ctC ou rtcon strued as a n o tice o f ap p e a l. T he nextday , he fi l ed a t i m el ym ot i on forr econs i der at i on, w hi ch the

3 c o u rt d e n ied o n A u g u st 1 0 , 2 0 1 0 . O n A u g u st 1 6 , D a v is f iled a n u n tit led d o c u m e n t in w hi ch he r epea t ed s ever al of hi s cl ai m s and r enew ed hi s r eques tforan att orney ; the1. 4

D avi s has cont i nued t o fi l e mot i ons i n the D i s tr i ctC ourt . T hei rdi s pos i t i on i n the D is tr ic t C o u rtis n o t c u rr e n tly b e f o re u s . 4 D i s tr i ctC ourti nt erpr et ed thi s documentas anotherm ot i on forr econs i der at i on underFed. R . C i v. P. 59( e) and deni ed i ton Sept ember10, 2010. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under22 U . S. C . § 1291. See D eut s ch v. U ni t ed St at es , 67 F .3 d1 0 8 0 , 1 0 8 3 (3 dC ir. 1 9 9 5 ) (d ism iss a l u n d e r § 1 9 1 5 (e ) w ith o u t p re ju d ice is appea l abl e bec aus e “an i n form a p au peris pl ai nt i ff mustbe af for ded appe l l at e r evi ew of a d e term in a tio n th a t h e is re q u ire dto p a ya ll o r a p o rtio n o f th e c o u rt c o sts a n df

ili n g f e e s to fi l e a c l ai m . . . becaus e hi s compl ai nti s fr i vol ous ”) . T hi s appea l r i pened on Sept ember 10, 2010, upon the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s deni al of D avi s ’ m ot i on forr econs i der at i on. See Fed. R. Ap p . P . 4 ( a ) ( 4 ) ( B) ( i ) ; Carr a s c o s a v . M c Gu i r e , 5 2 0 F . 3 d2 4 9 , 2 5 3 ( 3 dCi r . 2 0 0 8 ) ( “ [ A] n o tice o f ap p e a l f iled b e f o re th e d isp o sitio n o f

. . . a m o tio n f

o r re c o n sid e ra tio n w ill become eff

ect i ve upon entryof the or derdi s pos i ng of the mot i on. ”) . A s D avi s di d not fil e a n ew o r am en d ed n o ti ce o f a p p ea l, as is req u ir ed b yF ed . R . A p p . P . 4 (a)(4)(B )(i i) , w e w i l l notaddr es s the pr opr i etyof the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s deni al of the mot i ons for r econs i der at i on. S e e U n ite dS ta te s v . M c G lo ry, 2 0 2 F .3 d6 6 4 , 6 6 8 (3 dC ir . 2 0 0 0 ). 4 O ur r eview of a D i stri ctC ou rt ’s su a sp o n te d ism iss a l f o r f a ilu re to sta te a c laim is p le n a ry, re q u ir in g u s to d ra w a ll r e a s o n ab le in f e re n c e s th e re f

ro m in th e p la in tif

f’s f a v o r. A l l ah v. Sei ver l i ng, 229 F. 3d 220, 223 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . W e mays um m ar i l yaff i rm the j udgm entof the D i s tr i ctC ourti f the appe al does notpr es ents ubs t ant i al ques t i ons , s ee L A R 2 7 .4 ; I .O .P . 1 0 .6 ; U n ite dS ta te s v . B ap tis te , 2 2 3 F .3 d1 8 8 , 1 9 0 n .3 (3 dC ir . 2 0 0 0 ),5

and maydo s o on anybas i s s upport ed bythe r ecor d, s ee Tour s cherv. M cC ul l ough, 184 F. 3d 236, 240 ( 3d C i r . 1999) . W e r evi ew a deni al of a mot i on forappoi ntm entof couns el forabus e of di s cr et i on. Parham v. J ohns on, 126 F. 3d 454, 457 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ; T abr on v. G rac e, 6 F . 3 d1 4 7 , 1 5 5 n . 4 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). W e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC ourtthatthe maj or i tyof D avi s ’ s al l egat i ons i nvol ve m att er s i nappr opr i at e fordi s pos i t i on under42 U . S. C . § 1983. I ti s w el l es t abl i s hed that “habe as corpus i s the appr opr i at e r emedyfors t at e pr i s oner s att acki ng the val i di tyof the f a c t o r l e n g th o f

th e irc o n f

in e m e n t.” P re is e r v . R o d ri g u e z , 4 1 1 U .S . 4 7 5 , 4 9 0 (1 9 7 3 ). C hal l enges t o m att er s w i thi n the cor e of habeas , “how everdenomi nat ed and r egar dl es s of th e re lie f s o u g h t, m u stb e b rou g h t byw ayo f a h ab ea s co rpu s p eti ti o n . ” T o rres v . F au v er, 292 F. 3d 141, 143 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( emphasi s added) . T he port i ons of D avi s ’ s compl ai nt th a t alle g e m a lf

e a sa n c e b yth e p ro se c u to r a n dtrial ju d g e , ch a rg e h is a tto rn e yw ith c o n stitu tio n a llyin a d e q u a te r e p re se n tatio n , an dc h a llen g e h is s e n ten c e f a ll sq u a re lyw ith in Pr ei s erand cannotbe br oughtunder§ 1983. T hatl eave s D avi s ’ s vague and uns peci fi c al l egat i ons of as s aul t , abus e, and obs truct i on. W e agr ee thatm os tof thes e cl ai m s , w hi ch appe art o dat e fr om 2002 and 2003, ar e barr ed bythe s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . See Pa. C ons . St at . § 5524 ( pr ovi di ng a tw o- y earl i m i t at i ons per i od forper s onal i nj uryact i ons ) ; G arvi n v. C i tyof Phi l adelphi a, 3 5 4 F . 3 d2 1 5 , 2 2 0 ( 3 dCi r . 2 0 0 3 ) ( c l a i ms u n d e r§ 1 9 8 3 a r e g o v e rn e db ys t a t e t i me lim itatio n s o n p e rso n a l-in ju rya c tio n s). T h e in

ju rie s h e a lleg e s a re o f

th e so rt th a t w o u ld have be en appar entt o hi m atthe t i m e theyw er e comm i tt ed. See Samer i c C orp. v. C i tyof1. 5A s the compl ai nthas no l egalm er i t , the D i s tr i ctC ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on

i n decl i ni ng t o appoi ntan att orneyt o r epr es entD avi s . See M ont gom eryv. Pi nchak, 294 F .3 d4 9 2 , 4 9 9 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (e sta b lish in g “ a rg u ab le m e rit in f a c t an dlaw ” a s th re sh o ld fo r ap p o intm en t of

co u n sel u n d er § 1 9 1 5 ). 6 Phi l adelphi a, 142 F. 3d 582, 599 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( “A s ect i on 1983 caus e of a ct i on acc rues w h e n th e p lain tiff

k n e w o r sh o u ldh a v e k n o w n o f th e in ju ryu p o n w h ich its a c tio n is b a s e d .” ). A lth o u g h th e s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s is a n a f

f irm a tiv e d e f

e n s e , su a sp o n te di s m i s s al i s appr opr i at e w hen “the def ens e i s obvi ous fr om the fa ce of the compl ai ntand no furtherfac tual r ecor d i s r equi r ed t o be deve l oped. ” Fogl e v. Pi er s on, 435 F. 3d 1252, 1258 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( ci t at i ons om i tt ed) ; E r i l i ne C o. S. A . v. J ohns on, 440 F. 3d 648, 65 5– 56 (4th C i r. 20 06 ). T o the ext ent that D avis i s cl ai m i ng that hi s curr ent p lac e m e n t in the R es tr i ct ed H ous i ng U ni tvi ol at es hi s r i ghtof ac ces s t o the court s , he has notpl ed the “ac tual i nj ury ” r equi r ed t o s us t ai n the cl ai m , s ee O l i verv. Fauver , 118 F. 3d 175, 177 ( 3d C ir. 1 9 9 7 ); to th e e x ten t th a t h e a lleg e s th a t h is s e g re g a tio n a m o u n ts to a n E ig h th A m endmentvi ol at i on, he has nots how n depr i vat i on of “mi ni m al ci vi l i zed meas ur e of l i fe’ s nece s s i t i es . ” W i l s on v. Sei t er , 501 U . S. 294, 298 ( 1991) ( quot i ng R hodes v. C h ap m a n , 4 5 2 U . S . 3 3 7 , 3 4 7 ( 1 9 8 1 ) ) ; T i l l m a n v . L e b a n o n C o u n ty C o rr e c t i o n a l F a c i l i ty, 221 F. 3d 410, 417–18 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . A ccor di ngl y , w e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC ourtthat D avi s has fai l ed t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef c oul d be gr ant ed. 5 O rd in a rily , a D istric t C o u rt sh o u ldn o t su a sp o n te di s m i s s a compl ai ntpur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m w i thoutpr ovi di ng the pl ai nt i ff a n o p p o rtu n i tyt o a me n dh i s c o mp l a i n t . As i tap p e a r s th a ta me n d me n two u l db e f u t i l e , we7

c o n c lu d e th a t th e D is tr ic t C o u rtd id n o t e rrin d e c lin in g to a f f o rd D a v is le a v e to a m e n d . See G r ay s on v. M ayvi ew St at e H os p. , 293 F. 3d 103, 114 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ; s ee a l s o G arvi n, 35 4 F . 3d at22 2 (“[A ]nyam end m ent of [the] com plai nt w ou l d h ave b een f uti l e beca use the amended compl ai ntcoul d nothave w i ths t ood a mot i on t o di s m i s s on the bas i s of the statu te of li m it ati o n s. ”). A s the appe al pr es ent s no s ubs t ant i al i s s ues , w e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff i rm the ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt. T o th e e x ten t th a t th e tw o m o tio n s f iled b yD a v is in th is C ourt , s ty l ed as a “M ot i on forR evi ew i ng L ow erC ourtD eci s i on on A ct i on 10- 3165” and “M o ti o n to S u p p o rtM yA rgu m en t, ” re q u est ad d it ion al reli ef , theyare d en ied. D av is’ s m o tio n f o r a p p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n s e l is a ls o d e n ie d .