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 11-13-2009 

# Mich a el Au s t in v

. J eff rey B e ard 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 . 08-3405

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 " Mich a el Aus t in v

. J eff r ey Be ar d " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 262. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/2621 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- 3405

___________ M I CH AE L L E E AUS T I N, A ppel l ant

v. JE F F R E Y A . B E A R D ; F R A N K L IN J. T E N N IS ; M A R IR O S A L A M A S ; R. M CM I LLAN ; M ELI ND A A . SM I TH; KEV I N B UR KE; J OH N D . W ALM ER

____________________________________ 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 v. N o. 4: 07- cv- 01833) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le Jo h n E . Jo n es, II I

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember12, 2009 B efor e: SM I T H , FI SH E R and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: N ovember13, 2009)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM M i chae l L ee A us t i n, a s t at e pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s the or derof theA us t i n i s curr ent l yi ncar cer at ed atthe D O C ’ s St at e C orr ect i onal I ns t i tut i on at 1 C r es s on. 2 D i stri ctC ou rtgrant i ng A pp el l ees’ res pecti ve m oti on s t o d i sm i ss and de ny i ng his request t o equi t abl yt ol l the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons pendi ng the exha us t i on of hi s admi ni s tr at i ve r e me d i e s . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, we wi l l a f

f i r m. I. A us t i n i s a pr i s oneri n t he cus t odyof the Penns y l vani a D epart m entof C orr ect i ons ( “D O C ”) w ho, dur i ng the r el evantt i m e, w as i ncar cer at ed atthe St at e C orr ect i onal I ns t i tut i on atR ockvi ew ( “R ockvi ew ”) . I n O ct ober2007, he comm ence d thi s act i on by 1 fi l i ng a 42 U . S. C . § 1983 compl ai nti n the D i s tr i ctC our tagai ns tD O C Secr et aryJ eff r ey B e a rd a n d th e f

o llo w in g R o c k v iew o f

f icia ls: S u p e rin ten d e n t F ra n k lin T e n n is, D e p u ty Super i nt endent s M ar i r os a Lam as and R . M cM i l l an, C hi ef Ps y chol ogi s tD r . C har l es W alm er, Pro g ram M an ag er M eli n d a S m ith , an d p sy ch iatri st D r. K ev in B u rke . A u sti n ’s compl ai ntr ai s ed Fi r s t , E i ghth, and Four t eenth A m endmentcl ai m s , as w el l as a s t at e l aw cl ai m forbr eac h of the dutyof conf i dent i al i ty . O n the fi r s tpage of hi s compl ai nt , he a d m itt e d th a t h e h a d n o t co m p lete d th e p riso n ’s g rie v a n c e p ro c e ss w ith re sp e c t to h is cl ai m s , and the var i ous pr i s on document s he s ubm i t t ed w i th hi s compl ai ntr efl ect ed that i nco m plet eness. I n February2008, the def endant s m oved t o di s m i s s the compl ai ntpur s uantt o Fed. R . C i v. P. 12( b) ( 6) butdi d nots ubm i tan ac company i ng br i ef a tthatt i m e. A bouta w eekA l t hough an or derof di s m i s s al gener al l ym us tbe w i th pr ej udi ce t o be appe al abl e, 2 “a pl ai nt i ff c an appe al fr om a di s m i s s al w i thoutpr ej udi ce w hen he de cl ar es hi s i nt ent i on t o s t and on hi s compl ai ntorw hen he c annotcur e the def ecti n hi s compl ai nt . ” B ooth v. C hurner , 206 F. 3d 289, 293 n. 3 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . A s not ed bel ow , A us t i n cannotcur e the defe cti n hi s compl ai ntbeca us e the t i m e forexhaus t i ng hi s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es has 3 late r, D r. B u rk e , w h o h a d re tain e d se p a ra te c o u n se l, file d a n in d e p e n d e n t m o tio n to d ism iss a n d a n a c c o m p a n y in g b rie f. S h o rtlyth e re a f ter , the re m a in in g d e f

e n d a n ts ( her ei naft ercol l ect i vel yr efe r r ed t o as “the D O C O ffi ci al s ”) fi l ed a br i ef i n s uppor tof th e ir F e b ru a ry2 0 0 8 m o tio n to d ism iss , arg u in g , inte r a lia, th a t A u stin h a d f a iled to exhaus thi s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es w i th r es pectt o hi s fede r al cl ai m s as r equi r ed byt he Pr i s on L i t i gat i on R eform A ctof 1995 ( “PL R A ”) , 42 U . S. C . § 1997e( a) . D r . B ur ke had notr ai s ed thi s ar gum enti n hi s br i ef. A us t i n s ubs equent l yfi l ed a “ M ot i on forthe A l l ow ance of Equi t abl e Tol l i ng and t o E xpendi t e [s i c] the A dm i ni s tr at i ve G r i evanc e P ro c e ss ,” a p p a re n tlyse e k in g to e q u itab lyto ll th e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s w h ile h e “ e x h a u sts and then r e- fi l e[s ] [hi s ] cas e . . . undera new ci vi l act i on [num ber ] . . . . ” I n J une 2008, the M agi s tr at e J udge i s s ued a r eportr ecomm endi ng that , i n l i ghtof A u stin ’s f

a ilu re to e x h a u st h is a d m in istra tiv e re m e d ies , the c o u rt g ra n t b o th m o tio n s to d ism iss a n d d e n yA u stin ’s m o tio n . In Ju ly2 0 0 8 , the D istric t C o u rt a d o p ted th e re p o rt, deni ed A us t i n’ s m ot i on, and di s m i s s ed the compl ai ntw i thoutpr ej udi ce. A us t i n now a p p e a ls th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t to th is C o u rt. II. W e hav e j uri sdi ct i on ov er this app eal pu rs uan tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. W e exerci se 2l on g si nce p assed. A ccordi ng l y , this app eal i s properl ybefo re us. 4 pl enaryr evi ew overa di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on t o gr anta mot i on t o di s m i s s . See Fel l nerv. T ri -U n io n S e a f

o o d s , L .L .C ., 5 3 9 F .3 d 2 3 7 , 2 4 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). U nderthe PL R A , a pr i s onerm us texhaus tal l avai l abl e admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es b e f o re ra is in g c la im s u n d e r § 1 9 8 3 c o n c e rn in g p ri s o n c o n d itio n s . S e e 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 9 7 e (a ). T o m e e t th is re q u ire m e n t, a p riso n e r m u st p ro p e rly e x h a u st h is admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es . W oodfor d v. N go, 548 U . S. 81, 93 ( 2006) . “Pr operexhaus t i on demands c om pl i ance w i th an age ncy ’ s deadl i nes and othercr i t i cal pr ocedur al rul es . . . . ” I d. at90- 91. A pr i s oner ’ s fai l ur e t o exhaus ti s an af fi r m at i ve def

ens e, J ones v. B ock, 549 U . S. 199, 216 ( 2007) , and a de fenda ntm ay , “i n appr opr i at e ca s es , ” move t o di s m i s s t he co m p lai n t on that b asis. B row n v . C roa k , 3 1 2 F . 3 d 1 0 9 , 1 1 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). U nderthe D O C ’ s gr i evanc e pr ocedur e, an i nm at e mustfi l e a gr i evanc e w i th the Faci l i tyG r i evanc e C oor di nat orw i thi n fi ft een w or ki ng day s of the al l eged e vent ( s ) at i s s ue. See Pa. D ep’ tof C orr . Pol i cySt at ement , D C - A D M 804, Par tV I . A . 8. O nce a d ec isi o n is i ssu ed , the in m ate g en era ll yh as ten w o rkin g d ay s to a p p ea l t o the p ri so n ’s Faci l i tyM anage r . See i d. atPar tV I . C . 1, 2. A ft erthe Faci l i tyM anage ri s s ues a dec i s i on, the i nm at e gene r al l yhas fi ft een w or ki ng day s t o fi l e a f i nal appea l w i th the O ffi ce of In m a te G ri e v a n c e s a n d A p p e a ls . S e e id . a t P a rt V I.D .1 . I n thi s cas e, A us t i n hi m s el f ac know l edged thathe had f ai l ed t o compl et e the D O C ’ s gr i evanc e pr oces s , and the pr i s on document s s ubm i t t ed w i th hi s compl ai ntI tappea r s thatA us t i n now des cr i bes hi s m ot i on forequi t abl e t ol l i ng as a mot i on 3 t o s t aythe D i s tr i ctC our tpr ocee di ng pendi ng the exha us t i on of hi s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es . E ven i f ( 1) A us t i n’ s m ot i on coul d be i nt erpr et ed as s eeki ng a s t ayand ( 2) he co u ld g o b ac k an d ex h au st his rem ed ies – the tim e f o r do ing so , h o w ev er, pa ssed m o re than tw o y ear s ago – s uch a mot i on w oul d s t i l l l ack mer i t . See J ohns on v. J ones , 340 F. 3d 624, 627- 28 ( 8th C i r . 2003) ( r ecogni zi ng that“manyof ours i s t erci r cui t s [have hel d] thatperm i t t i ng exhaus t i on [w hi l e the l aw s ui ti s pendi ng] . . . underm i nes the obj ect i ves of s ect i on 1997e( a) and thatthe [s t atut e] . . . cl ear l ycont empl at es exhaus t i on pr i ort o the comm ence m entof the ac t i on . . . , thus r equi r i ng an outr i ghtdi s m i s s al of s uch ac t i ons ra th e r th a n is s u in g c o n tin u a n c e s s o th a t e x h a u s tio n m a y o c c u r” ). 5 c o n f irm h is f a ilu re to p ro p e rlye x h a u st h is re m e d ies . In d e e d , A u stin so u g h t eq u itab le t ol l i ng s o thathe coul d exhaus thi s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es . A ccor di ngl y , the D i s tr i ct C our tcorr ect l ydi s m i s s ed A us t i n’ s fede r al cl ai m s agai ns tthe D O C O ffi ci al s . A l though D r . B ur ke di d notr ai s e the i s s ue of e xhaus t i on i n hi s s epar at e mot i on t o di s m i s s , the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d noterri n di s m i s s i ng the fe der al cl ai m s agai ns thi m beca us e i tw as cl ear f ro m th e c o m p la in t a n d a c c o m p a n y in g d o c u m e n ts th a t th o s e c la im s w e re u n e x h a u s te d . C f. R ayv. K ert es , 285 F. 3d 287, 293 n. 5 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( not i ng thata di s tr i ctcourtm ay

“ d is m is s s u a s p o n te a c o m p la in t w h ic h f a c ia lly v io la te s a b a r t o s u it” ). H a v in g d ism iss e d A u stin ’s f e d e ra l cla im s, th e c o u rt a c ted w ith in its d isc re tio n in d e c lin in g to e x e rc is e s u p p le m e n ta l ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r h is s ta te la w c la im . S e e 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 6 7 (c )( 3 ); F ig u e ro a v . B u c c a n e e r H o te l I n c ., 1 8 8 F .3 d 1 7 2 , 1 8 1 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). M or eover , the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d noterri n deny i ng A us t i n’ s r eques tforequi t abl e t ol l i ng, forhe fa i l ed t o demonstr at e thats uch extr aor di naryr el i ef i s w arr ant ed her e. See Sant os v. U ni t ed St at es , 559 F. 3d 189, 197 ( 3d C i r . 2009) . Fi nal l y , w e have cons i der ed the 36

re m a in in g a rg u m e n ts A u s tin ra is e s in h is b ri e f a n d c o n c lu d e th a t th e ya re w ith o u t m e ri t. In l i gh tof the abo ve, w e w i l l affirm the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s order grant i ng A pp el l ees’ resp ec ti v e m o ti o n s to d ism iss an d d en y ing A u sti n ’s m o ti o n fo r eq u it ab le t o ll ing . A u sti n ’s r eques tforappoi nt m entof couns el i s deni ed.