1

AL D- 3 0 3 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- 2911

___________ C H A R L E S S L A U G H T E R , a/k/ a U m arM
. A l i khan, A ppel l ant

v . GR AC E RO GE RS, A dminis trator ; G EO RG E HAYMA N, Commis sio ner; B ERNARD G OO DWI

N, As st. Ad

min ist rator ; SG T. B RO WN; J OSEPH D' AMI CO, Commi sary Manag er; STUART RAB NER, Attor ne y General Stateof

New Je rs e y ; CAPT. W RI GHT, Ac ting Chief of Security for A.D .T.C.; NE WARK

TO B AC CO AND C ANDYCO

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D
. N
. J
. N o. 2- 07- cv- 02163) Di s t r i c tJ u d g e : Ho n o r a b l e Ga r r e t tE
. Br o wn

____________________________________ 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 Sept ember30, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , A M B R O and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: O ct ober14, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________A lth o u g h S lau g h ter d o e s n o t ex p re ss lyc h a llen g e th o se e a rlier o rd e rs in h is a p p e a l, i t 1 i s ourpr act i ce t o cons t rue a pro se n o ti ce o f a p p ea l l ibera ll yso as to inclu d e p ri o r ord ers and j udgm ent s t hats ubs t ant i al l yr el at e t o t he s peci fi c or deraddr es s ed. See G hana v. H ol l and, 226 F. 3d 175, 180 ( 3d C i r . 2000)
. H ow ever , ourr evi ew r evea l s no err or s i n t he re a so n in g o f

th e D istric t C o u rt. 2 P E R C UR I AM P roc ee d ing pro se , a p p e l l a n tCha r l e s Sl a u g h t e r( a l s o k n o wn a s Um a rM
. Al i k h a n)
a p p e a l s t h e o r d e rg r a n t i n g s u mma r yj u d g me n ti n f a v o ro f t h e d e f e n d a n t s . W e wi l l a f

f i r m. I. I n M ay2007, Sl aught er , an i nm at e of the A dul tD i agnos t i c and Tr ea tm entC ent er ( “A D T C ”) i n A venel , N ew J er s ey , fi l ed a compl ai ntunder42 U
. S. C
. § 1983, al l egi ng t hat th e d e f e n d a n ts— sta f

f a n d a d m in istra to rs o f th e A D T C

— v io late d h is righ ts un d e r th e F irst, E igh th, an d F o u rt ee n th A m en d m en ts to th e U n it ed S tat es C o n sti tuti o n . H e a ir ed tw o p ri m ary g rie v a n c e s. T h e f

irst w a s a f

a ilu re b yth e d e f

e n d a n ts to a d e q u a telya d d re ss h is e x p o su re to
e n v iro n m e n tal to b a c c o sm o k e (“ E T S ” ), alle g e d lylea d in g to a n u m b e r o f re sp ira to rya ilm e n ts
su ch as chest pain and recur rent asthm a. T he second w as an al l egati on t hat his l eg a l m a il
w as b eing o p en ed o u tsi d e o f h is prese n ce . S ev era l o th e r c la im s an d d ef en d an ts w ere di s m i s s ed byt he D i s t r i ctC our ti n M ay2008. 1 In Ju n e 2 0 1 0 , the D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted th e d ef en d an ts’ m o tion fo r sum m ary j udgm ent , concl udi ng t hat Sl aught er had fai l ed t o “di s cl os e m at er i al fac t s at i s s ue thatneed t o be r es o l v e d a t t r i a l ” a n d t h a t h i s a c t i o n was d e f i c i e n t a s a ma t t e r o f l a w. Sl aught er v. R o g ers, N o . 2 -07 -cv -02 1 6 3 , 2 0 1 0 U
. S
. D ist
. L E X IS 6 0 0 5 1 , at *2 2 (D
. N
. J. Ju n e 1 7 , 2 0 1 0 ).3

S lau g h ter f

iled a tim e lyn o tice o f

a p p e a l. II. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1291 ( 2006)
. O urr evi ew of an or der g ran ti n g su m m aryjud g m en t i s p lena ry an d u ti li ze s “the sam e stan d ard that the lo w er c o u rt sh o u ld h av e ap p li ed
. ” F arrell v . P lanters L ifesa v ers C o . , 2 0 6 F
. 3 d 2 7 1 , 2 7 8 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 0 ); see al so F ed. R
. C i v. P
. 56 (c) (2) (“Th e j ud gm ent soug ht shou l d be rendered i f t he p l eadings, t he di s coveryand di s cl o sur e mat er i al s on fi l e, and anyaff i davi t s s how t hatt her e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o any m at er i al fac t and t hat t he m ovant i s ent i t l ed t o j udgm ent as a mat t er of l aw . ”)
. W hi l e w e vi ew t he fac t s i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he nonmovi ng par t y , Shea
v. Sm i t h, 966 F. 2d 127, 128 ( 3d C i r . 1992) , w e ar e m i ndful t hats uffi ci entevi dence , and not
m e r e l y s o me color able evi den ce, i s r equ i red i f a cl ai m i s t o survi ve sum m aryj u d g m e n t. B o u ri e z v . C a rn e g ie M e llo n U n iv ., 5 8 5 F .3 d 7 6 5 , 7 7 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). O u rr e v i e w o f a n o r d e r g r a n t i n g d i s m i s s a l f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m i s a l s o p l e n a r y. G el m an v. St at e Far m M ut . A ut o. I ns . C o. , 583 F. 3d 187, 190 ( 3d C i r . 2009)
. I n anal y zi ng t he pr opr i etyof s uch an or der , w e must “ac cept al l fac tual al l egat i ons as t rue, cons t rue the compl ai nti n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he pl ai nt i ff, and det erm i ne w hether , underany
r eas onabl e r eadi ng of the comp lai n t, the pl ai nt i ff maybe ent i t l ed t o r el i ef. ” Phi l l i ps v. C ount yof A l l egheny , 515 F. 3d 224, 233 ( 3d C i r . 2008)
. H ow ever , t he com pl ai nt m us taver
m or e than a f

or m ul ai c recit ati on ornaked a s s er t i ons of gui l t , i ns t ead c ont ai ni ng s uffi ci ent f a c tu a l m a tter to “ a llo w [ ] th e c o u rt to d ra w th e re a so n a b le in f e re n c e th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t is4

l i abl e fort he mi s conductal l eged. ” A s hcr oftv. I qbal , 129 S. C t . 1937, 1940 ( 2009) ; Sher i dan
v . N G K M e ta ls C o rp ., 6 0 9 F .3 d 2 3 9 , 2 6 3 n .2 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 1 0 ). W e mays um m ar i l y aff

i r m i f t he appea l does notpr es ents ubs t ant i al ques t i ons . See L A R 2 7
. 4 ; I. O
. P
. 1 0
. 6 ; U n it ed S tat es v. B ap ti ste, 2 2 3 F
. 3 d 1 8 8 , 1 9 0 n . 3 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 0 ). In t aki ng s um m aryact i on, w e mayaff i r m on an y b asis t hatfi nds s uppor ti n t he r ecor d. See T o u r s c h e r v . M c Cu l l o u g h , 1 8 4 F
. 3 d 2 3 6 , 2 4 0 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 9 9 )
. F o rt h e f o l l o wi n g r e a s o n s , we
w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.

III
. Sl aught er al l eged t hat t he defenda nt s vi ol at ed hi s r i ght s undert he Ei ght h A m endment b yf a ili n g to c o rre c t r a m p a n t s m o k in g b y in m a tes a n d sta f f d e sp ite f a c ili typ o licie s a n d sta te la w . A n i nm at e al l egi ng an Ei ght h A m endmentvi ol at i on m us ts how t hatt he depr i vat i on
orhar m s uffe r ed w as s uffi ci ent l ys er i ous , deny i ng hi m t he “mi n im al c ivi 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 hapman, 452 U
. S. 337, 347 ( 1981) ) ; T i l l m an v. L ebanon Count yC or r ect i onal Faci l i t y , 221 F. 3d 410, 417–18 ( 3d Ci r . 2 0 0 0 )
. He mus t a l s o d e mon s t r a t e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s “ [ k n e w] o f

and di s r egar d[ed] an exc es s i ve r i s k t o i nm at e hea l t h ors afe t y . ” Farm erv. B r ennan, 511 U
. S. 825, 837 ( 1994) ; B eer s - C api t ol v. W het zel , 256 F. 3d 120, 125 ( 3d C i r . 2001)
. E T S expos ur e, as
a th re a t to b o th p r e s e n t a n d f u tu re h e a lth , ca n sta te a c a u se o f a c tio n u n d e r th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t , s o l o n g a s t h e s u b j e c t i v e a n d o b

j e c t i v e t e s t s a r e m e t . S e e H e l l i n g v . M c K i n n e y,5

5 0 9 U
. S
. 2 5 , 3 5 (19 9 3 ); A tkin s o n v . T ay lor, 3 1 6 F
. 3 d 2 5 7 , 2 6 2

– 6 3 , 2 6 6 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 3 ). Speci fi cal l y , t he i nm at e musts how 1) expos ur e t o “unr eas onabl y h igh ” level s of ET S t hat
w oul d vi ol at e cont empora r ys t andar ds of decenc y , and 2) del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence bypr i s on
a u th o ri tie s . H e llin g , 5 0 9 U .S . a t 3 5

– 3 7
. W e a g ree w ith the D istri ct C o u rt that S laug h ter ha s, as a m att er o f law , fa ll en fa r sho rt of demonstr at i ng del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence on t he partof the def endant s . D efe ndant s pr ovi ded evi dence s how i ng t he exist en ce of an i ns t i tut i onal s m oki ng pol i cydat i ng fr om J ul y2001, i s s ued w i t h “part i cul arconce r n [t o] t he r i s ks pos ed t o nons m oker s bypas s i ve i nhal at i on of envi r onm ent al t obacc o s m oke. ” Izb icki D ecl
. E x. B
. T heyal s o furni s hed evi dence demonst r at i ng ci t at i ons forvi ol at i on of the poli cy , corr es pondence acknow l edgi ng r ece i pt and con si derat i on of S l aug hter ’s com plai nts , and m em oranda em ph asi zi ng t he seri ou sness of the pol i cyand pena l t i es for inf r act i ons . I d. atE x. D –G
. T hes e r es pons es bypr i s on author i t i es , i ndi cat i ng at t ent i venes s t o t he pol i cyand aw ar eness of and di s ci pl i ni ng of vi ol at or s
— i f not nece s s ar i l y t ot al s ucce s s i n enfor cement

— s ugges tt hatt he def endant s t ook Sl aught er ’ s compl ai nt s qui t e s er i ous l y , and Sl aught er has notpr ovi ded s uffi ci entevi dence t o di s put e thi s concl us i on. A c c o rd in g ly , S lau g h te r h a s n o t sh o w n th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts a c ted w ith d e lib e ra te i nd i fference. A s a r esul t , his E i gh t h A m end m ent cl ai m fai l s. I V. Sl aught eral s o al l eges a vi ol at i on of hi s Fi r s tand Four t eenth A m endmentr i ght s , bas ed6

o n d e f e n d a n t s ’ o p e n i n g o f h i s l e g a l ma i l o u t s i d e o f h i s p r e s e n c e . He a s s e r t s t h a tp r o b l e ms
w i t h l egal m ail co n ti n u ed w el l aft ert he i m pl ement at i on of cha nges t o fac i l i t ypol i cy ; t hat lega l m ail , sp ec ifi ca ll y m ail fro m the Intern al R ev en u e S erv ice, h ad b ee n o p e n e d b e fo re del i very ; t hat hi s l egal m ai l had been di s t r i but ed t hr oughout t he fac i l i t y and has been r ead by t hi r d par t i es ; and thatt he fa ci l i t yhad l os t or m i s pl ace d hi s l egal m ai l on atl eas tone occ as i on,
c a u s i n g h i m t o mi s s a s c h e d u l e d c o u r td a t e i n Un i o n Co u n t yo n a n u n r e l a t e d c i v i l s u i t . He f i l e d n u m e r o u s c o m p l a i n t s a d d r e s s i n g h i s g r i e v a n c e s w i t h l e g a l
- m a i l d e l i v e r y. T o the ext ent Sl aug hteri s cl ai m i ng den i al of h i s r i gh tof ac cess t o the cou rt s, he m ust
s how an ac tual i nj ur y , s uch as t he “l os s or r ej ect i on of a l egal cl ai m . ” O l i ver v. Fauver , 118 F .3 d 1 7 5 , 1 7 7 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). H e a lleg e s o n lyo n e su c h in ju ry : th e m iss e d c o u rt d a te in U ni on C ount y . B utas Sl aught eradmits , he s ucce s s ful l ycorr ect ed thi s err orand r eopene d h i s c a s e . He t h e r e f

o r e l a c k s a n i n

j u r ys u f f i c i e n tt o s u p p o r ta n a c c e s s - t o - t h e - c o u r t s c l a i m. T o the e xtent t hat S l aug hter i s clai m i ng den i al of h i s fr ee-s peech ri gh t s und er the F i rs t A m e n d m e n t, h e m u st s h o w a p a ttern o r p ra c tice re g a rd in g leg a l m a il th a t is n o t re late d to l egi t i m at e penol ogi cal i nt er es t s ; undert hi s anal y s i s , he nee d n o thave s uffe r ed anyactual i nj ur y . J ones v. B r ow n, 461 F. 3d 353, 359–60 ( 3d C i r . 2006)
. W e agr ee w it h the D i s t r i ct C our tt hatno “pol i cy ” of ope ni ng l egal m ai l w as i n pl ace dur i ng t he maj or i t yof the per i od
en co m p assi ng Sl aught er ’ s gr i evanc es , and thatt he s peci fi c i nci dent s t o w hi ch Sl aught er ob j e c t e d

— ma n yo f

whi c h a p p e a rt o b e o v e rwhe t h e rc o r r e s p o n d e n c e f r o m t h e I n t e r nal R evenue Ser vi ce qual i fi es as “l egal m ai l ”— do not r i s e t o t he l evel of bei ng t he “pa t t ern and7

p ra c tic e ” o f

F ir s t A m e n d m e n t v io la tio n s re q u ir e d b yJ o n e s . Sl aught erhas s how n n eit heran ac tual i nj ur ynoran i m per m i s s i bl e patt ern and pract i ce. A s a r esul t , his l egal- m ai l cl ai m fai l s. V
. B eca us e thi s appea l pr es ent s no s ubs t ant i ve l egal i s s ue, w e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff i r m t he D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t.