NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRC UIT

___________

No

. 2 0

- 1 8 5 0

__________

KHALIL K. HAMMOND

,

Appellan t

v.

ROBERT M. KRAK, D.M.D; SUPERINTENDENT LOUIS FOLIN O; IRMA

VIHLIDAL, Health Care Administrator; JOH N WE TZEL, Secretary of Correct i ons ;

DORINA VARNER, Chief Grievance Officer; DR. BALAS, D.M.D.; VICTORIA

ST ANISHEFSKI, Health Care Administr ator; BUREAU OF HEALTH CARE

SERVICES, through it s director John Doe

________ ____________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Co urt

for the W e s t e r n District of P e n n s y l v a n i a

( D.C. Civil Action No. 2

- 1 7

- cv

- 0 0 9 5 2 )

C h i e f M a g i s t r a t e Judge: Honorable C y n t h i a R

. E d d y ( b y c o n s e n t )

_____________ ______________ _________

Submitted Pursuant to Th ir d Circuit L

. A

. R

. 34.1(a)

A u g u s t 2 6

, 2 0 2 1

Before: J O R D A N

, M A T E Y a n d N Y G A A R D

, Circuit Jud ges

( Opinion filed : August 30, 2021 )

___________

OPINION *

___________

PER CURIA M

* This disposition is not an opini on of t he full C ourt and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not

cons titute binding preceden t.2

K h a l i l H a m m o n d a p p e a l s f r o m a n o r d e r o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e

W e s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f P e n n s y l v a n i a

, w h i c h g r a n t e d t h e D e f e n d a n t s ’ m o t i o n f

o r s u m m a r y

j u d g m e n t i n h i s c i v i l r i g h t s l a w s u i t

. W e w i l l a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s j u d g m e n t i n p a r t

,

v a c a t e t h e j u d g m e n t i n p a r t

, a n d r e m a n d t h e m a t t e r f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s

.

Hammond ’ s lawsuit in the Dis trict Co u rt complain e d a b o u t t h e dental care h e

r e c e i v e d i n t w o d i f

f e r e n t P e n n s y l v a n i a p rison s

. He argued that the Department o f

Corrections ’ d e n t i s t s h a d a p o l i c y o f pull i n g tee th instead of tr ying to s ave the teeth

through treatment. D k t

. # 3 5

.

The Def enda nts m oved to dismiss

. T he Dis trict Court grante d t he motio n in part

,

d i s m i s s i n g w i t h p r e

j u d i c e a l l c l a i m s f

o r m o n e t a r y d a m a g e s a g a i n s t i n d i v i d u a l d e f e n d a n t s

i n t h e i r o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t i e s

, b a s e d o n E l e v e n t h A m e n d m e n t i m m u n i t y

. D k t

. # 4 4 a t 1 7

.

T h e C o u r t a l s o g r a n t e d t h e D e f e n d a n t s ’ m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s a l l c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e B u r e a u

o f H e a l t h C a r e S e r v i c e s

, a g r e e i n g w i t h t h e D e f e n d a n t s t h a t t h e B u r e a u i s n o t a “ p e r s o n ”

f o r p u r p o s e s o f a c i v i l r i g h t s l a w s u i t u n d e r 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 1 9 8 3

, D k t

. # 4 4 a t 1 6

- 1 7

, a n d t h a t

t h e B u r e a u i s a l s o i m m u n e f r o m s u i t u n d e r t h e E l e v e n t h A m e n d m e n t

, D k t

. # 4 4 a t 1 7

- 1 8

.

T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d t h e D e f e n d a n t s ’ m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t i t

s o u g h t d i s m i s s a l o f c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e m i n t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t i e s

. D k t

. # 4 5 a t 2

. T h e

C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t f

u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n w a s n e c e s s a r y b e f o r e r u l i n g o n o n e o f t h e

D e f e n d a n t s ’ a r g u m e n t s

— t h a t res judicata b arred H a m m o n d ’ s s uit because t h e C o u r t o f

C o m m o n P l e a s o f G r e e n e C o u n t y

, P e n n s y l v a n i a

, had dismissed a nearly identical

compl a i nt b r o u g h t b y Hammond ( t h e “ Gree ne County ” case)

. Th e District Court d i r e c t e d3

t h e p a r t i e s t o e n g a g e i n discovery on t he r e s j u d i c a t a question and directed the

Defend ants to move for summary judgment on the issu e. D k t

. # 4 5 a t 2

.

The District Court the n grante d the Defendants ’ summary judgment motion,

d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t H a m m o n d ’ s c l a i m s w e r e b a r r e d b y r e s j u d i c a t a

. D k t

. # 1 1 9 a t 5

.

H a m m o n d timely m oved f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n

. D k t

. # 1 2 9

. A f t e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d

t h a t m o t i o n b y t e x t

- o n l y o r d e r

, s e e D k t

. # 1 3 0

, Hamm ond t i m e l y appealed

, s e e D k t

. # 1 3 5

.

H a m m o n d a s k s u s t o r e v i e w t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s N o v e m b e r 8

, 2 0 1 8 o r d e r g r a n t i n g i n p a r t

t h e D e f e n d a n t s ’ m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s

, i t s M a r c h 3

, 2 0 2 0 o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e D e f e n d a n t s ’

s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t m o t i o n

, a n d i t s A p r i l 6

, 2 0 2 0 o r d e r d e n y i n g h i s m o t i o n f o r

reconsideration

. T h e c a s e i s b r i e f e d a n d r i p e f

o r d i s p o s i t i o n

. 1

W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 9 1

. We exerc ise plenary review over a

grant of summary judgment, applying the same standard that the Distri c t Court applies.

B arna v. Bd. of Sch. Dirs. of Panther Valley Sch. Dist. , 877 F.3d 136 , 141 (3d Cir. 2017)

.

Summary judgment is appropriate “if t he movant shows that there is no genuine dispute

as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgm e nt as a matter of law.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 56(a)

. We a l s o exercise de novo review of ord ers granting motions to dismiss

.

S ee Davis v. Samuels , 962 F.3d 105, 111 n.2 (3d Cir. 2020)

. A n d w e r e v i e w orders

denying motions for reconsideration f o r a n a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n

, b u t t o the extent t h a t the

1 Bef ore briefs were filed, the Clerk directed the par ties to address in their briefs “ (1)

whether the order of t h e Greene County Court of Common Pleas dismissing Hammond’s

prior complaint is a final judgment on the merits; i.e., whether the complaint w as

dismi ssed on procedural or substantive objections, see , e.g.

, Brown v. Cooney , 442 A.2d

32 4, 326 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1 9 82) ; and (2) if the Greene County court dismissed Hammond’s

complaint on a procedural basis, whether the dismissal precluded Hammond from filing4

denial is based on legal issues, we revie w that d etermination de novo a s w e l l

. S e e Gibson

v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 994 F.3d 182, 186 (3d Cir. 2021)

.

W e b e g i n b y e x a m i n i n g t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s N o v e m b e r 8

, 2 0 1 8 o r d e r

. T h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t p r o p e r l y d i s m i s s e d t h e B u r e a u o f H e a l t h C a r e S e r v i c e s a s a D e f e n d a n t

, a s a n y

c l a i m f o r d a m a g e s a g a i n s t t h e B u r e a u w a s b a r r e d b y t h e E l e v e n t h A m e n d m e n t

. S e e

E d e l m a n v

. J o r d a n

, 4 1 5 U

. S

. 6 5 1

, 6 6 3 ( 1 9 7 4 )

. W e a l s o a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s

d e c i s i o n t o d i s m i s s a l l c l a i m s f o r r e t r o a c t i v e r e l i e f a g a i n s t a l l o f t h e s t a t e o f f i c e r s

, a s s u c h

c l a i m s a r e a l s o b a r r e d b y t h e E l e v e n t h A m e n d m e n t

. S e e D o w n e y v

. P a

. D e p ’ t C o r r

. , 9 6 8

F

. 3 d 2 9 9

, 3 0 9

- 1 0 ( 3 d C i r

. 2 0 2 0 )

.

W e n e x t m o v e t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n t o g r a n t s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t f o r t h e

r e m a i n i n g D e f

e n d a n t s based on r e s j u d i c a t a

. “Re s judicata, also known as claim

preclusion, b ars a party from initiating a second suit against the same adversary based on

the same ‘cause of action’ as t he firs t sui t.” Duhaney v. Att ’ y Gen. , 621 F.3d 340, 347

(3d Cir. 2010) ( c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d )

. A party invok i n g res judicata must establish three

el ements: “(1) a final judgment on the merits in a prior suit involving (2) the same

parties or their privies and (3) a subsequent suit based on the same cause of action.”

Lubrizol Corp. v. Exxon C orp. , 929 F.2d 96 0, 963 (3d Cir. 1991)

. “The doctrine of re s

judicata bars not only claims that were brought in a previous action, but also claims that

could h a ve been brought

. ” In re Mullarkey , 536 F.3d 215, 225 (3d Cir. 2008)

.

T h e D e f e n d a n t s ( A p p e l l e e s h e r e ) h a v e c l a r i f i e d t h a t i n t h e G r e e n e C o u n t y c a s e

,

t h e y f i l e d p r e l i m i n a r y o b

j e c t i o n s b a s e d o n b o t h p r o c e d u r a l a n d s u b s t a n t i v e g r o u n d s

.

h is federal complaint. ” Clerk ’ s Order, App. Dkt. # 15.5

A p p e l l e e s ’ B r i e f a t 1 9

- 2 0

. T h e s t a t e c o u r t s u s t a i n e d a l l o f t h o s e p r e l i m i n a r y o b j e c t i o n s

a n d d i s m i s s e d H a m m o n d ’ s c o m p l a i n t w i t h p r e j u d i c e

. I d

. B e c a u s e s o m e o f t h e s u s t a i n e d

o b j e c t i o n s i n v o l v e d t h e m e r i t s o f t h e c a s e

, w e a r e s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n i n t h e G r e e n e

C o u n t y c a s e i s a n a d

j u d i c a t i o n o n t h e m e r i t s

. 2

T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t c a r e f

u l l y c o m p a r e d t h e G r e e n e C o u n t y a c t i o n w i t h t h e f e d e r a l

c o m p l a i n t

. W e a g r e e w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t h a t a l l o f H a m m o n d ’ s c l a i m s r e g a r d i n g h i s

d e n t a l t r e a t m e n t

, o r l a c k t h e r e o f

, a t S C I G r e e n e i n 2 0 1 3 w e r e r a i s e d

, o r c o u l d h a v e b e e n

r a i s e d i n t h e G r e e n e C o u n t y a c t i o n

. B u t w e p a r t c o m p a n y w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t over

H a m m o n d ’ s claims related to h i s d e n t a l c a r e i n 2 0 1 5 a t S C I F r a c k v i l l e

.

T h e D i s t r i c t Court determined that w h i l e t h e e v e n t s a t F r a c k v i l l e o c c u r r e d a f t e r

H a m m o n d f

i l e d t h e G r e e n e C o u n t y a c t i o n

, h e c o u l d h a v e a m e n d e d h i s s t a t e c o u r t

c o m p l a i n t t o i n c l u d e t h o s e e v e n t s

, a s t h e y o c c u r r e d b e f o r e t h e s t a t e c o u r t d e f

e n d a n t s

a n s w e r e d h i s c o m p l a i n t

. B u t b ecause plaintiffs have no duty t o amen d or sup plement

t heir pleadings, normally “res judicata does not bar claims that are predicated on events

that postdate the filing of the initial complaint. ” Morgan v. Covington Twp. , 648 F.3d

172, 178 (3d Cir. 2011)

.

2 We reject Hammond ’ s argument that the state court la c ked jur isdiction. The District

Court properly explained that state courts hav e concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts

over § 1983 act ions

. M em. Op., Dkt. #119 at 7 . And th e fact that Hammo nd mistaken ly

referenced 28 U.S.C. § 1391 in his state law c omplaint did not divest the st ate court of

jurisdiction. The District Cou rt thus did not abuse its discre tion in denying Hammond ’ s

motio n for reconsideration, which ra ised only the argu ment that the state court lacked

jurisdictio n. S ee Dkt. # 13 0 (text

- o nly order rejecti n g Hammond ’ s motion for

reconsideration ).6

A n d i m p o r t a n t l y

, a n a t t e m p t t o a m e n d t h e G r e e n e C o u n t y a c t i o n w o u l d h a v e b e e n

f u t i l e

, b e c a u s e H a m m o n d h a d n o t y e t e x h a u s t e d a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e m e d i e s r e g a r d i n g h i s

d e n t a l t r e a t m e n t a t S C I F r a c k v i l l e

. S e e M i n o r v

. K r a y n a k

, 1 5 5 A

. 3 d 1 1 4

, 1 2 4 ( P a

.

C o m m w

. C t

. 2 0 1 7 ) ( explaining t h a t a p r i s o n e r w h o r a i s e s f e d e r a l claims related to p r i s o n

c o n d i t i o n s must f

i r s t exhaust a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e m e d i e s ) ( c i t i n g 4 2 C o n s

. S t a t

. A n n

.

§ 6 6 0 3 ( a ) ; 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 1 9 9 7 e ( a ) )

. B e c a u s e H a m m o n d ’ s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e m e d i e s

r e g a r d i n g h i s d e n t a l t r e a t m e n t a t F r a c k v i l l e S C I w e r e n o t e x h a u s t e d u n t i l O c t o b e r 2 0 1 5

,

s e v e r a l m o n t h s a f

t e r t h e G r e e n e C o u n t y a c t i o n w a s d i s m i s s e d

, H a m m o n d c o u l d n o t b r i n g

h i s F r a c k v i l l e

- b a s e d c l a i m s i n t h e G r e e n e C o u n t y a c t i o n

. S e e Booth v. Churner , 532 U.S.

731, 738 (2001) ( n o t i n g t h a t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e e x h a u s t i o n m u s t t a k e p l a c e b e f o r e a

c o m p l a i n t i s f

i l e d ) ; s e e a l s o W i s n i e w s k i v

. F i s h e r

, 8 5 7 F

. 3 d 1 5 2

, 1 5 8 ( 3 d C i r

. 2 0 1 7 )

( n o t i n g t h a t b e c a u s e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e e x h a u s t i o n i s m a n d a t o r y

, t h e § 1 9 8 3 p e r i o d o f

l i m i t a t i o n s s h o u l d b e t o l l e d d u r i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i v e e x h a u s t i o n )

. T h u s

, w e c o n c l u d e t h a t

t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n d i s m i s s i n g H a m m o n d ’ s F r a c k v i l l e

- b a s e d c l a i m s o n t h e b a s i s o f

r e s j u d i c a t a

. 3

F o r t h e s e r e a s o n s

, w e w i l l a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s j u d g m e n t t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t i t

d i s m i s s e d a s D e f

e n d a n t s t h e B u r e a u o f H e a l t h C a r e S e r v i c e s

, a n d t h e o t h e r s t a t e o f f i c i a l s

i n t h e i r o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t i e s

. W e a l s o w i l l a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s j u d g m e n t t o t h e e x t e n t

3 In 2014, Hammond was housed at SCI Albion for some time. Although hi s compla int

states that he expe rienced unnecessary pain t here, it does not appear that the claims of his

complaint ar e based o n his time at SCI Albion

, and in any event, it does not appear that

he exhausted any administrative remedie s concerning his den tal issues at that institution

. W e thus do no t c onsider tho se allegations further.7

t h a t i t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t r e s j u d i c a t a b a r r e d H a m m o n d ’ s c l a i m s r e g a r d i n g h i s d e n t a l

t r e a t m e n t

, o r l a c k t h e r e o f

, a t S C I G r e e n e i n 2 0 1 3

. W e w i l l v a c a t e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s

j u d g m e n t t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t i t d e n i e d H a m m o n d ’ s claims related to h i s d e n t a l t r e a t m e n t

, o r

l a c k t h e r e o f

, a t S C I F r a c k v i l l e

, a n d w i l l r e m a n d t h e m a t t e r f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s

. 4 W e

e x p r e s s n o opinion on t h e m e r i t o f t h o s e c l a i m s

.

4 Hammond ’ s motion s to present oral argument are denied. We al so deny his motion to

accept his reply brief out of time, a s the Court has not received a reply brief.