A L D - 195 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- 1158 M I CH AE L L E E AUS T I N,

A ppel l ant v . F R A N K L IN J. T E N N IS , In H is In d iv id u a l C a p a c ityO n ly ; L IE U T E N A N T G R A S M IR R E ; C .O . L A C H A T ; C. O. S P OTT S ; KEVI N BURKE, I n Hi s I n d i v i d u a l Ca p a c i tyOn l y ; J OHN K. W ALM ER, I n Hi s I n d i v i d u a l Cap a c i tyOn l y ; P E NNS YL VANI A DE P AR T M E NT OF

C O R R E C T IO N S ; P R IS O N H E A L T H S E R V IC E S ; RI CH AR D E L L E RS ; I n Hi s I n d i v i d u a l Cap a c i tyOn l y ; J OE L DI CK S ON

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 A ct i on N o. 07- cv- 1693) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ohn E . J ones 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 M ay13, 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: M ay26, 2010)

OP I NI ON P E R C UR I AM Ap p e l l a n tM i c h a e l Le e Au s t i n , a s t a t e p r i s o n e rp r o c e e d i n g p r o s e , a p p e a l s f r o m aA us t i n i s curr ent l yi ncar cer at ed atthe St at e C orr ect i onal I ns t i tut i on atC r es s on. 1 2 j udgm entent er ed bythe D i s tr i ctC our ti n favorof the D efe ndant s . Forthe r eas ons s et f o rt h b e lo w , w e w ill s u m m a ri ly af f ir m . S e e I.O .P . 1 0 .6 . I . A us t i n i s a pr i s oneri n the cus t odyof the Penns y l vani a D epartm 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 ( “SC I - R ockvi ew ”) . I n M ar ch 2008, A us t i n fi l ed an a m ended 1 compl ai ntpur s uant42 U . S. C . §1983 agai ns tthe D O C ; Fr ankl i n T enni s , Super i nt endentat SC I - R ockvi ew ; R i char d E l l er s , M edi cal A dm i ni s tr at oratSC I - R ockvi ew ; D r . J ohn W a lm e r, p sy c h o lo g ist a t S C I-R o c k v iew ; C .O . R o b e rt G ra sm y e r; C .O . C h risto p h e r L a c h a t; C . O . M i chae l Spot t s , and J oel D i cks on, D eputySecr et aryforSecur i tyatSC I - R ockvi ew (“ th e C o m m o n w e a lth D e f e n d a n ts” ); P riso n H e a lth S e rv ice s, In c . (“P H S ” ); a n d D r. K e v in B u rk e , a n e m p lo y e e o f

M H M C o rr e c tio n a l S e rv ic e s , In c . I n hi s amended compl ai nt , A us t i n al l eged thatatvar i ous t i m es dur i ng 2006 and 2007, the D efe ndant s vi ol at ed s t at e l aw as w el l as hi s r i ght s underthe Ei ghth A m endment w hen they : ( 1) deni ed hi m m edi cal car e dur i ng a hungers tr i ke; ( 2) tr ans ferr ed hi m t o a “condui tcel l ” w i thoutr egar d t o hi s ps y chol ogi cal condi t i on; ( 3) empl oy ed exc es s i ve f o rc e d u rin g a c e ll ex tra c tio n ; an d 4 ) d e n ied h im a d v a n c e d m e d ica l tes tin g a f terh is al l eged exp osure t o asbest os. In M a rc h 2 0 0 9 , the D istric t C o u rt g ra n ted in p a rt a n d d e n ied in p a rt, a m o tio n to3

di s m i s s fi l ed bythe C om m onw eal th D efe ndant s . T he D i s tr i ctC ourtal s o gr ant ed a m ot i on t o di s m i s s fi l ed byPH S, butdeni ed D r . B urke’ s . Fol l ow i ng di s covery , the C om m onw eal th D efe ndant s as w el l as D r . B urke moved fors um m aryj udgm enton A u stin ’s r e m a in in g c laim s. In a D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 9 d e c isio n , the D istric t C o u rt g ra n ted b o th m o tio n s a n d e n ter e d f

in a l ju d g m e n t in th e c a se . A u stin f iled a tim e lya p p e a l. I I . W e have j ur i s di ct i on overthi s appea l pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. O urr evi ew of th e Di s tr i c tCo u r t ’ s d i s mi s s a l s f o rf a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m i s p l e n a ry . P o r tAu th . o f N. Y. a n d N . J. v . A rc a d ian C o rp ., 1 8 9 F .3 d 3 0 5 , 3 1 1 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 9 ). “T o su rv iv e a m o tio n to di s m i s s , a compl ai ntm us tcont ai n s uffi ci entfac tual m att er , acc ept ed as true, t o ‘ s t at e a cl ai m t o r el i ef thati s pl aus i bl e on i t s fac e. ’ ” A s hcr oftv. I qbal , 129 S. C t . 1937, 1949 ( 2009) ( quot i ng B el l A t l . C orp. v. T w om bl y , 550 U . S. 544, 570 ( 2007) ) . I n deci di ng a m ot i on t o di s m i s s , a courtm us tdet erm i ne w hetherthe compl ai nt“pl eads fac tual cont ent thatal l ow s the courtt o dr aw the r eas onabl e i nfer ence thatthe def endanti s l i abl e forthe m is c o n d u c t a lle g e d .” Id . W e re v iew a D istric t C o u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t d e n o v o . P e n n sy lv a n ia C oal A s s ’ n v. B abbi t t , 63 F. 3d 231, 236 ( 3d C i r . 1995) . Sum m aryj udgm enti s pr oper onl yi f i tappea r s “thatther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand thatthe m ovi ng partyi s ent i t l ed t o a j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” Fed. R . C i v. P. 56( c) ; C arr as ca v. Pom er oy , 313 F. 3d 828, 832- 33 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . I f a movi ng partydemonstr at es thatno4

g e n u in e iss u e o f

m a ter ial f

a c t ex ists, th e n o n -m o v in g p a rtym u st s e t f o rth sp e c if

ic f a c ts s how i ng a genui ne mat er i al i s s ue fortr i al and maynotr es tupon the mer e al l egat i ons or d e n ia ls o f

its p le a d in g s . C o n n o rs v . F a w n M in in g C o rp ., 3 0 F .3 d 4 8 3 , 4 8 9 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). W e mayaff

i rm on anygr ound s uppor t ed bythe r ecor d. See, e. g. , T our s cherv. M cC ul l ough, 184 F. 3d 236, 240 ( 3d C i r . 1999) . A ft err evi ew i ng the r ecor d on appea l and the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s thor ough deci s i ons , w e conc l ude thatthe D i s tr i ctC ourtcomm i t t ed no rever si ble errori n d i sposi ng of A ust i n’s cl ai m s. D efen dan t s’ M oti on s t o D i sm i ss Fi r s t , the D i s tr i ctC our tcorr ect l ydi s m i s s ed PH S as w el l as the D O C fr om the a c tio n . W ith re g a rd to th e D O C , the D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rlyd e ter m in e d th a t th e E lev e n th A m endmentbar s cl ai m s fordamages agai ns tthe D O C , a s t at e age ncythatdi d notw ai ve i t s s over ei gn i m m uni ty . See Edel m an v. J or dan, 415 U . S. 651, 663 ( 1974) . A l though C ongr es s can abr ogat e a s t at e’ s s over ei gn i m m uni ty , i tdi d notdo s o thr ough the en ac tm en t of

4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 , the f ed era l l aw u n d er w h ich A u sti n p roc ee d s. S ee Q u ern v . J o rd a n , 4 4 0 U .S . 3 3 2 , 3 4 5 (1 9 7 9 ). T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o pr oper l ydi s m i s s ed PH S fr om the ac t i on. I n hi s amended compl ai nt , A us t i n fai l ed t o al l ege thatPH S had anydi r ecti nvol vementi n the al l eged w ro n g f u l c o n d u c t. S e e R o d e v . D e lla rc ip re te , 8 4 5 F .2 d 1 1 9 5 , 1 2 0 7 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 8 ). T h e D istri ct C o u rtalso p rop erlyd ism issed A u sti n ’s claim that the D ef en d an ts w ere del i ber at el yi ndi ffe r entt o hi s need f oradvanc ed medi cal t es t i ng i n l i ghtof hi s al l eged5

expos ur e t o as bes t os . Speci fi cal l y , A us t i n al l eged thatar ound J ul y2006, aft erdevel opi ng “r es pi r at orypr obl ems, ” he r eques t ed medi cal t es t i ng t o s cr een hi m foras bes t os - r el at ed il lnes ses b ec au se h e b eli ev ed that h e h ad b ee n ex p o sed to as b esto s thro u g h the p ri so n ’s vent i l at i on s y s t em. ( A m . C om pl . at4- 5. ) I n the amended compl ai nt , A us t i n di d not pr ovi de a ba s i s forhi s bel i ef thathe had be en expos ed t o as bes t os nordi d he pl ead a ny fac t s s ugges t i ng thatthe D efe ndant s knew aboutthe exi s t ence of as bes t os i n the ar ea w her e he w as hous ed. P u rsu a n t to th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t’s p ro h ib iti o n o n c ru e l an d u n u su a l p u n ish m e n t, pr i s on offi ci al s ar e r equi r ed t o pr ovi de bas i c medi cal tr eatm entt o i nm at es . See R ous e v. Pl ant i er , 182 F. 3d 192, 197 ( 3d C i r . 1999) . I n or derfora pr i s onert o s t at e a c l ai m under se c tio n 1 9 8 3 f

o r m e d ica l m istre a tm e n t o r th e d e n ial o f m e d ica l ca re , h e m u st a lleg e “ a c ts orom i s s i ons s uffi ci ent l yharm ful t o evi dence del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence t o s er i ous m edi cal needs . ” Est el l e v. G ambl e, 429 U . S. 97, 106 ( 1976) . “C l ai m s of negl i gence orm edi cal m a lp ra c tice , w ith o u t so m e m o re c u lp a b le s tate o f m in d , d o n o t co n stitu te d e lib e ra te i n d i f f e r e n c e . ” Ro u s e , 1 8 2 F . 3 d a t1 9 7 . M o r e o v e r , “ [ w] h e r e a p r i s o n e rh a s r e c e i v e d s o me m ed ical att en ti o n an d the d ispu te i s o v er the ad eq u ac yo f th e treatm en t, fe d era l cou rt s are g e n e r a l l yr e l u c t a n tt o s e c o n d g u e s s me d i c a l j u d g me n t s a n d t o c o n s t i tu t i o n a l i z e c l a i ms w hi ch s ound i n s t at e t or tl aw . ” U ni t ed St at es ex r el . W al kerv. Fay ett e C ounty , 599 F. 2d 5 7 3 , 5 7 5 n . 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 7 9 ). A us t i n fai l ed t o al l ege a nys peci fi c ac t s of del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence on the partof theA u stin a ss e rte d th is c laim a g a in st D r. B u rk e a s w e ll as th e C o m m o n w e a lth 2 D efen dan t s. 6 D ef en d an ts. H e d id n o t cl aim that p ri so n o ff ici als ref u sed to tr ea t th e re sp ir atory pr obl ems thathe al l egedl ydevel oped i n 2006, onl ythattheydeni ed hi s r eques tfor addi t i onal t es t i ng foras bes t os expos ur e bas ed upon hi s uns ubs t ant i at ed bel i ef thathe had b e e n e x p o se d to a sb e sto s w h ile in h is c e ll. A s a re su lt, w e c o n c lu d e th a t A u stin sim p ly f a iled to a lleg e th a t p riso n o f f icia ls a c ted w ith a su f

f icie n tlyc u lp a b le s tate o f m in d to s u rv iv e D e f

e n d a n ts ’ m o tio n to d is m is s . D efe ndant s ’ M ot i ons forSum m aryJ udgm ent D el i ber at e I ndi ffe r ence t o A us t i n’ s Psy chol ogi cal N eed A s a re su lt o f

A u stin ’s m e n tal s tate o n M a rc h 5 , 2 0 0 7 , p riso n o f f icia ls p lac e d h im i n an obs ervat i on cel l . A us t i n cl ai m s thatthe part i cul arobs ervat i on cel l w her e he w as hous ed cont ai ned a da nger ous “condui tpol e. ” ( A m . C om pl . at5. ) A ts om e poi ntdur i ng thatday , A us t i n form ed a noos e w i th a s heetand att empt ed t o att ach the noos e t o the c o n d u it p o le. P riso n sta f f o b se rv e d , v ia c a m e ra , A u stin ’s a c tio n s a n d im m e d iate ly re m o v e d h im f

ro m th e c e ll. A u stin a lleg e s th a t th e d e c isio n to p lac e h im in a c e ll w ith s uch a c ondui tpol e, des pi t e bei ng aw ar e of hi s det er i or at ed ment al s t at e, s ugges t s thatthe D efe ndant s w er e del i ber at el yi ndi ffe r entt o hi s s er i ous ps y chol ogi cal condi t i on. 2 T h e re c o rd re f

lec ts, h o w e v e r, th a t A u stin w a s p lac e d in th e o b se rv a tio n c e ll beca use of hi s m ent al s t at e. H e w as obs erved atal l t i m es bypr i s on offi ci al s and r emovedW ith re g a rd to D r. B u rk e , the re is n o e v id e n c e th a t h e e v e n h a d th e a u th o rityto 3 a u th o riz e A u stin ’s p lac e m e n t in th a t p a rticu larc e ll. 7 fr om the ce l l w hen he w as obs erved try i ng t o t i e the s heett o the pol e. T he r ecor d further re f lec ts th a t ev e n th o u g h p riso n o f f icia ls d e e m e d th e c e ll sa f e b e c a u se o f

th e ir a b ili tyto o b se rv e a n in m a te o c c u p y in g th a t ce ll v ia c a m e ra , a p lan w a s n e v e rth e les s d e v e lo p e d to r e- cons tructthe ce l l s o thatthe condui tpol e w oul d no l ongerbe expos ed. I n l i ghtof thes e fa ct s , w e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC ourtthatther e i s an i ns uffi ci ent evi dent i arybas i s upon w hi ch a r eas onabl e j urycoul d concl ude thatthe D efe ndant s act ed w ith d e lib e ra te in d if

f e re n c e to A u stin ’s p sy c h o lo g ica l co n d iti o n . A s a re su lt o f h is 3 c o n d iti o n o n M a rc h 5 , A u stin w a s p lac e d in a c e ll i n a w h ich w a s m o n ito re d in o rd e r to th en su re h is safe ty . B ec au se o f th e e ff ec ti v en ess o f th e m o n it o ri n g , p ri so n o ff ici als w ere i m m edi at el yabl e t o thw artA us t i n’ s att emptt o harm hi m s el f. Sum m aryj udgm entw as th e re f o re a p p ro p ri a te . D eni al of M edi cal C ar e D ur i ng A us t i n’ s H ungerSt r i ke T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o pr oper l ygr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enton A us t i n’ s cl ai m that th e C o m m o n w e a lth D e f e n d a n ts d e n ied h im p ro p e r m e d ica l ca re d u rin g a h u n g e r strik e , in vi ol at i on of hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . T he r ecor d r evea l s thatA us t i n began r efus i ng food on M ar ch 7, 2007 and cont i nued t o do s o thr ough M ar ch 14, 2007. T he r ecor d further re f lec ts th a t d u rin g th a t ti m e A u stin w a s o f f e re d th re e m e a ls a d a ya n d th a t o f f icia ls obs erved hi m i n hi s cel l . Fr om M ar ch 8 thr ough M ar ch 10 , A us t i n r efus ed anym edi cal th th8

tr eatm ent . O n M ar ch 11 , A us t i n acc ept ed medi cal tr eatm ent . T he fol l ow i ng day , pr i s on th o f f icia ls re m o v e d A u stin f ro m h is c e ll, a llo w e d h im to b e c h e c k e d b ym e d ica l p e rso n n e l, a n d p l a c e d h i m i n a n o b s e rv a t i o n u n i t . Wh e n h e r e f u s e d me a l s o n M a r c h 1 4 , th e DOC th O ffi ce of C hi ef Counsel fi l ed a c om pl ai ntand mot i on forpr el i m i naryi nj unct i on i n the C our tof C om m on Pl eas i n C entr e C ounty , Penns y l vani a r eques t i ng thatthe D O C be al l ow ed t o i nvol unt ar i l yexami ne A us t i n, per form di agnos t i c t es t s , and admi ni s t er ps y chol ogi cal tr eatm entas nece s s ary . T hats ame day , the courts i gned the or der , w hi ch w a s s u b se q u e n tlyre a d to A u stin . T h e re a f ter , A u stin a te a f

u ll m e a l, an d h e b e g a n to cons um e food r egul ar l yagai n. B a se d o n th o se f

a c ts, w e a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t th e re w a s n o b a sis to co n clud e tha t th e C o m m o n w ea lth D ef en d an ts w ere d eli b era tel yind iffe ren t t o A u sti n ’s m edi cal needs thr oughoutthe cour s e of hi s s el f- i m pos ed hungers tr i ke. A us t i n w as r epea t edl yoffe r ed meal s and r efus ed them. H e w as addi t i onal l ym oni t or ed and pr i s on o f f icia ls p e tit io n e d a c o u rt to e x ten siv e lytre a t A u stin , w ith o u t h is c o n se n t, on c e h is h u n g e r s tr ik e b e c a m e p ro lo n g e d .

E xces s i ve U s e of For ce L as t l y , A us t i n cl ai m ed thatdur i ng hi s cel l extr act i on on M ar ch 12, 2007 ( dur i ng th e p e rio d o f

h is h u n g e r strik e ), p riso n o f f icia ls u se d u n n e c e ss a ryf o rc e to e f

f e c tu a te h is re m o v a l. T h e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t p ro h ib its p riso n o f f icia ls f ro m u n n e c e ss a rilya n d w a n to n ly9

i nfl i ct i ng pai n i n a mannerthatoffe nds cont empora rys t andar ds of dec ency . See H uds on v. M cM i l l i an, 503 U . S. 1, 8 ( 1992) . W hen r evi ew i ng E i ghth A m endmentexce s s i ve for ce c laim s, w e m u st d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e “ f o rc e w a s a p p lied in a g o o d -f a ith e f f o rt to m ai nt ai n orr es t or e di s ci pl i ne, orm al i ci ous l yand s adi s t i cal l yt o caus e harm . ” I d. at7. W hetherthe fo rce appli ed w as excessi ve requ i res the ex am i nati on of sev eral fact ors, i ncl udi ng: ( 1) the nee d forthe appl i cat i on of for ce; ( 2) the r el at i ons hi p betw een the nee d and the amountof for ce thatw as us ed; ( 3) the ext entof i nj uryi nfl i ct ed; ( 4) the ext entof th e th re a t to th e sa f

e tyo f sta f f a n d in m a tes , as re a so n a b lyp e rc e iv e d b yre sp o n sib le offi ci al s on the bas i s of the fa ct s know n t o them; and ( 5) anyeff ort s m ade t o t emperthe s ever i tyof a f

or cef ul r es pons e. B r ooks v. K y l er , 204 F. 3d 102, 106 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( quot i ng W hi t l eyv. A l ber s , 465 U . S. 312, 321 ( 1986) ) . A l though the ext entof an i nm at e’ s i nj ur i es i s r el evantt o an Ei ghth A m endmentanal y s i s , “ther e i s no fi xed m i ni m um quantum of i nj urythata pr i s onerm us tpr ove thathe s uffe r ed thr ough obj ect i ve ori ndepende ntevi dence i n or dert o s t at e a c l ai m forw ant on and exc es s i ve for ce. ” I d. at 1 0 4 . A u stin a lleg e d in h is a m e n d e d c o m p lain t th a t o n M a rc h 1 2 th D e f e n d a n ts L a c h a t, Spot t s and G r as m y er“benthi m dow n i n an 90 degr ee a ngl e, w her e [hi s ] head w as l i t er al l yi n hi s ‘ geni t al i a, ’ w her e ea ch off i cerhad a gr i p on an arm and the bac k of pl ai nt i ff’ s j um ps ui t . ” ( A m . C om pl . at9- 10. ) H e addi t i onal l yal l eged thathe w as for ced to w alk a lon g d ist an ce w h il e in leg ir o n s an d cu ff s an d that h e w en t un co n scio u s b ef o reW e al s o concl ude thatthe D i s tr i ctC ourtact ed w i thi n i t s di s cr et i on i n r efr ai ni ng fr om 4 e x e rc is in g s u p p le m e n ta l ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r A u s tin ’s s ta te la w c la im s . S e e 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 6 7 (c) (“ T h e d istri ct co u rt s m ayd ec li n e to e x erc ise su p p lem en tal juri sd ict ion o v er a [s t at e l aw ] cl ai m . . . i f the di s tr i ctcourthas di s m i s s ed al l cl ai m s overw hi ch i thas or i gi nal j ur i s di ct i on. ”) 10 ent er i ng the tr eatm entbui l di ng, butthatupon arr i val , a nur s e pr ovi ded hi m w i th an am m o n ia saltp ac k et t o inh ale. ( Id.) A u sti n d id n o t al lege that h e su ff ere d an yinjury dur i ng the extr act i on orthathe w as r efus ed medi cal tr eatm ent . A s m ent i oned, the purpos e of the ce l l extr act i on w as t o eval uat e A us t i n as a r es ul tof hi s s el f- i m pos ed hungers tr i ke. W e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthatA us t i n fai l ed t o al l ege a nyfac t s , orpr es ent anyevi dence , thatw oul d es t abl i s h thatthe D efe ndant s us ed exc es s i ve for ce i n r emovi ng hi m fr om the ce l l . Speci fi cal l y , he di d notoffe ranyevi dence contr adi ct i ng the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s vi ew i ng of the vi deo of the ce l l extr act i on, pr ovi ded bythe D O C , w hi ch s how ed thatA us t i n w as non- combat i ve and thatthe D efe ndant s us ed onl ythe amountof for ce nece s s aryt o tr ans por tA us t i n t o a tr eatm entbui l di ng foreval uat i on. B eca us e ther e w as no bas i s upon w hi ch a r eas onabl e j urycoul d concl ude thatD efe ndant s us ed exc es s i ve fo rce in rem o v ing A u sti n fro m h is cell , w e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s su m m ary j udgm entrul i ng. 4 A s A u s tin ’s a p p e a l p re s e n ts n o s u b s ta n tia l q u e s tio n , w e w ill s u m m a ri ly af f ir m . S e e T h ird C ir. L A R 2 7 .4 ; I.O .P . 1 0 .6 . A u stin ’s m o tio n f o r a p p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n se l is deni ed.