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 3-26-2009 

# J ohn Futch v

. K eith D ewey 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 . 08-3768

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 " J o hn Fut ch v

. Keith D ewey " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1673. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/16731

A L D - 106 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. 08- 3768

___________ J OHN R ANDAL L F UT CH , A ppel l ant v . K E IT H D E W E Y , C a s eM an a g e r @F C IA l l e nw o o d ; FED ER A L B U RE A U O F PRI SO N S; UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

____________________________________ 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- 01372) D i s tr i c tJ u d g e : H o n o r a b l e R i c h a r d P . C o n a b o y

____________________________________ 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 February20, 2009 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , FU E N T E S and J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ar ch 26, 2009)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AMB i vens v. Si x U nknow n A gent s of the Fed. B ur eau of N ar cot i cs , 403 U . S. 388 1 (19 7 1 ). 2 J ohn R andal l Fut ch appe al s fr om the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of hi s B i vens 1 act i on forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m forr el i ef pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) . T he D is tr ic t C o u rt a ls o d e n ie d F u tc h ’s m o tio n s f o r a n in ju n c tio n a n d to a m e n d h is c o m p la in t. A ppel l ees have f

i l ed a mot i on fors um m aryaff i r m ance . Forthe r eas ons pr ovi ded byt he Di s tr i c tCo u r t , we wi l l g r a n tth e mo t i o n a n d a f f i r m. O n J ul y21, 2008, Fut ch, a pr i s oneratthe Feder al C orr ect i onal I ns t i tut i on at A ll en w o o d (“F C I-A ll en w o o d ”), fil ed a c o m p lai n t aga inst K eith D ew ey , C ase M an ag er, th e F e d e ra l B u re a u o f

P ri s o n s , a n d th e U n ite d S ta te s o f A m e ri c a u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 . Fut ch al l eged thathe pr ovi ded a c onfi dent i al s t at ementt o D ew eyr egar di ng a fi ghtthat occurr ed betw een i nm at es i n N ovember2007, and thatD ew ey“mi s t akenl y ” publ i s hed thats t at ementt o the i nm at es w ho had bee n fi ght i ng. A s a r es ul t , Fut ch w as pl ace d i n the Speci al H ous i ng U ni t( “SH U ”) and then tr ans ferr ed t o FC I - For tD i x. A tFor tD i x, Fut ch a lle g e d th a t in m a te s le a rn e d o f h is s ta te m e n t a n d h e w a s p la c e d in p ro te c tiv e c u s to d y . Fut ch r eques t ed thatthe courttr ans ferhi m t o a “c amp, ” r es t or e hi s j ob, and pr ovi de compensa t i on forthe t i m e he s penti n SH U , as w el l as gr antanyotherr el i ef de emed nece s s ary . Fut ch al s o fi l ed a l ett erw i th the D i s tr i ctC our t , w hi ch i tcons trued as a mot i on f o r a n in ju n c tio n . B as ed on r ecomm endat i ons bythe M agi s tr at e J udge, the D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed3

F u tch’s a cti o n . T h e c o u rtfo u n d that the B o ard o f P ri so n s an d the U n it ed S tat es w ere i m m une fr om damages , thatD ew ey ’ s i nadvert entdi s cl os ur e of c onfi dent i al i nform at i on di d notcons t i tut e an Ei ghth A m endmentvi ol at i on, and thatthe pr i s on r es ponded re a s o n a b ly b yp la c in g F u tc h in p ro te c tiv e c u s to d ya n d tr a n s f e rr in g h im to a n o th e r f

a c ility. T he courtal s o found thatFut ch had no r i ghtt o be pl ace d i n a part i cul arpr i s on ort o have a p arti cu lar cu stod ystatu s. T h e c o u rtd ism issed F u tch’s re q u est fo r pre li m inary in ju n c tio n a n d d e n ied h im lea v e to a m e n d th e c o m p lain t. F u tch f iled th e in sta n t ap p e a l, alo n g w ith m o tio n s f o r a p p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n se l, t o s ta yth e a p p e a l, a n d a d o c u m e n t c o n s tru e d a s a m o tio n d e m o n s tr a tin g im m in e n t d a n g e r. Fut ch al s o fi l ed s ever al l ett er s w i th the C our ti n r es pons e t o A ppel l ee’ s m ot i on for s u mma rya f

f i r ma n c e . W e 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. § 1291. O urs t andar d of r evi ew of the D i s tr i ctC ourt ' s di s m i s s al i s pl enary . A t ki ns on v. L aF ay ett e C o ll eg e, 46 0 F . 3 d 4 4 7 , 4 5 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). U n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ), an appe al m us tbe di s m i s s ed i f i thas no ar guabl e bas i s i n l aw orfac t . N ei t zke v. W i l l i ams, 490 U . S. 319, 325 ( 1989) . A l t ernat i vel y , w e maygr antappel l ee’ s m ot i on for s u mma rya f

f i r ma n c e i f

th e a p p e a l p r e s e n t s n o s u b s t a n t i a l q u e s t i o n . S e e 3 d Ci r . L. A. R. 2 7 .4 a n d 3 d C ir . I.O .P . 1 0 .6 . T he D i s tr i ctC our tcorr ect l ydi s m i s s ed the damages por t i on of Fut ch’ s B i vens c la im a g a in s t th e B o a rd o f P ri s o n s a n d th e U n ite d S ta te s b a s e d o n s o v e re ig n im m u n ity. F . D. I . C v . M e y e r , 5 1 0 U. S . 4 7 1 , 4 8 5 - 8 6 ( 1 9 9 4 ) ; 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) ( i i i ) ; 2 8 U. S . C.4

§ 1 9 1 5 A ( b ) ( 2 ) . W i th r e s p e c tt o F u t c h ’ s c l a i m th a tth e p r i s o n f a i l e d t o p r o t e c th i s s a f

e ty, Fut ch conc eded thatD ew ey ’ s di s cl os ur e of i nform at i on w as done “mi s t akenl y ” and

“ in a d v e rte n tly .” A s a re su lt, h e c a n n o t sh o w th a t D e w e yh a d a “ su f f icie n tlyc u lp a b le s tate of mi nd ” w he n h e r e l e a s e d Fu t c h’ s c on fi de nt i a l s t a t e ment . Fa r merv. Br e nn a n, 51 1 U. S. 8 2 5 , 8 3 3 (1 9 9 4 ) (c iti n g W ilso n v . S e iter, 5 0 1 U .S . 2 9 4 , 2 9 7 (1 9 9 1 )). B e sid e s, F u tch d id n o t alle g e a n ya c tu a l h a rm , an d th u s c a n n o t sh o w th a t th e p riso n v io late d h is cons t i tut i onal r i ght s byfai l i ng t o ens ur e hi s “r eas onabl e s afe ty . ” Farm er , 511 U . S. at834, 844- 45. Fur therm or e, pr i s on offi ci al s r eas onabl yr es ponded t o anyr i s k of harm by i m m edi at el ypl aci ng Fut ch i n pr ot ect i ve cus t odyand l at ertr ans ferr i ng hi m t o a di ffe r ent pr i s on w her e he w as al s o hous ed i n pr ot ect i ve cus t ody . B eca us e Fut ch ca nnots how t he pr i s on w as del i ber at el yi ndi ffe r entt o hi s s afe ty , the D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l ydi s m i s s ed F u tc h ’s E ig h th A m e n d m e n t c la im . Fi nal l y , forthe r eas ons gi ven bythe D i s tr i ctC our t , ther e w as no bas i s t o gr ant Fut ch’ s r eques tfori nj unct i ve r el i ef. A l though he des i r ed t o r emai n i n pr ot ect i ve cus t ody a n d so u g h t a p re lim in a ryin ju n c tio n to se c u re th is h o u sin g re q u e st, h e h a s n o t ad e q u a tely demonstr at ed the el ement s r equi r ed t o r ece i ve s uch r el i ef. M or eover , Fut ch does nothave a cons t i tut i onal l ypr ot ect ed l i bertyi nt er es ti n hi s pl ace of conf i nement , tr ans fer , or c l a s s i fi c a t i on . Sa nd i n v . Conne r , 51 5 U. S. 47 2, 48 3 ( 19 95 ) ; M e a c hu m v. Fa no , 42 7 U. S. 2 1 5 (19 7 6 ); M o o d yv . D ag g ett , 4 2 9 U . S . 7 8 , 8 8 n . 9 (19 7 6 ). T h ere fo re, as this ap p ea l prese n ts no su b stan ti al qu esti o n , w e w il l gran t app ell ee ’sm o tio n f

o r s u m m a ry a f

f ir m a n c e . S e e 3 d C ir . L .A .R . 2 7 .4 a n d 3 d C ir . I.O .P . 1 0 .6 . A p p e lla n t’ s m o tio n s f

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

c o u n s e l a n d to s ta yth e a p p e a l a re d e n ie d .

5