2008 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 8-7-2008 

# J ohnson v . T ownse nd 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 . 07-1324

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_2008

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 2008 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 s on v . T own s e nd " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 699. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/699NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL I N TH E 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 . 07- 1324

________________ DAVI D J OHNS ON,

A p p e llan t v. B E N JA M IN T O W N S E N D , C o rrecti o n s F o o d S erv ice S u p erv isor; FR A N K L I N T E N N I S, I ndi vi dual l y , and i n hi s offi ci al capa ci tyas Super i nt endentof SC I - R ockvi ew ; A L B E R T W I N K L E M A N , I ndi vi dual l y , and off i ci al capa ci tyas A s s i s t ant F o o d S erv ice M an ag er; G A R Y S O W A S H , Ind ividu all y , an d o ff ici al ca p ac ityas C o rr. Food Ser vi ce M anage r ; SH A R O N B U R K S, I ndi vi dual l y , and off i ci al capa ci tyas C hi ef G r i evanc e O ffi cer ; A N T H O N Y W . R U SS, I ndi vi dual l y , and off i ci al capa ci tyas M aj or O ffi cerof Pr ofes s i onal R es pons i bi l i ty ; J E FFR E Y A . R A C K O V A N , I ndi vi dual l y , and of fi c i a l c a pa c i tya s G r i e va nc e Coor di na t ora nd A s s t . Sup e r i nt e nd e nt ; D . LEA TH ER S, I n d i v i d u a l l y , a n d o f

f i c i a l c a p a c i ty , Ca p t . o f

S e c u r i ty ; RI CK HOO VER; SHA NN ON DU LAN EY

_______________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m 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. 03- cv- 02277) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le A . R ich a rd C a p u to

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 2, 2008 B efor e: R E N D E L L , J O R D A N and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: A ugus t7, 2008)

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________2

P E R C U R I A M, D avi d J ohns on, pr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or der s gr ant i ng d e f e n d a n t s ’ mo t i o n s t o d i s mi s s a n d f o rs u mma ryj u d g me n t . W e a f f i r m. I n D ece m ber2003, J ohns on fi l ed the under l y i ng ci vi l r i ght s act i on nami ng var i ous admi ni s tr at i ve off

i ci al s and corr ect i onal offi cer s fr om SC I - R ockvi ew . A ft erbei ng gr ant ed l eave , J ohns on fi l ed an a m ended c om pl ai nton M ar ch 3, 2004 and a s econd a m e n d e d c o m p lain t o n D e c e m b e r 2 1 , 2 0 0 4 a g a in st th e f o llo w in g d e f

e n d a n ts: B e n

jam in T ow ns end, Food Ser vi ce Supervi s or ; J eff r eyR ackova n, G r i evanc e C o- or di nat orand A ss ista n t S u p e rin ten d e n t; J. L e a th e rs, C a p tain o f S e c u rity ; F ra n k T e n n is, S u p e rin ten d e n t; Shar on B ur ks , C hi ef G r i evanc e O ffi cer ; A l bertW i nkl eman, A s s i s t antFood Ser vi ce M anage r ; G arySow as h, Food Ser vi ce M anage r ; R i ck H oover , C ouns el or ; and Shannon D ul aney , Psy chol ogi s t . J ohns on al l eged thathe had be en: ( 1) r et al i at ed aga i ns tfor e x e rc isin g h is F irst A m e n d m e n t rig h ts; (2 ) su b jec ted to e x c e ss iv e f

o rc e , d e lib e ra te in d if f e re n c e , an d c ru e l an d u n u su a l p u n ish m e n t in v io latio n o f th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t; ( 3) deni ed hi s r i ghtt o due pr oces s of l aw i n vi ol at i on of the Four t eenth A m endment ; and (4 ) su b jec ted to sta te la w to rts o f in ten tio n a l in f

lictio n o f e m o tio n a l d istre ss , as sa u lt, batt eryand negl i gence . B asica ll y , Jo h n so n asse rt ed that h e h ad b ee n assig n ed to w o rk in the p ri so n ’s k itch e n a s a c ler k b yd e f e n d a n ts T o w n se n d a n d S o w a sh in O c to b e r 2 0 0 1 . A c c o rd in g to J ohns on, underthr eatof m i s conductand i n vi ol at i on of D epart m entof C orr ect i ons3

(“D O C ”) pol i cy , these de fend ants requi red hi m t o w ork nine and on e-hal f (91⁄2 ) hours a day , s even da y s a w eek w hi l e onl ypay i ng hi m fora 40- hourw or k w eek. O n M ay27, 2003, aft ercont act i ng then- D eputySuper i nt endentT enni s and the empl oym entoffi ce abouthi s s i tuat i on, J ohns on w as r emoved fr om hi s j ob i n the cul i narydepart m entand r eas s i gned t o t he t i n s hop. T he fol l ow i ng day , J ohns on fi l ed a gr i evanc e ( # 52784) compl ai ni ng about , i nt eral i a, hi s w or k s chedul e. A s econd gr i evanc e ( #55535) w as fi l ed on J une 28, 2003, w her ei n J ohns on al l eged thatT ow ns end had r et al i at ed aga i ns thi m for fil ing the f

ir st grieva n ce , an d that h e h ad b ee n threa tene d b yo ther inm ates w h o w ere inf o rm ed b yT o w n sen d that h e w as th e re aso n b eh ind n ew restri cti o n s p lace d o n w o rke rs i n the cul i narydepart m ent . J ohns on fur theras s ert ed that , due t o hi s fea rof harm fr om T ow ns end and otheri nm at es , he w entt o the cul i narybui l di ng onl yocca s i onal l yand, r es ul t ant l y , s uffe r ed w ei ghtl os s , l os s of s l eep, bl urr ed vi s i on and the r eocc urr ence of m i gr ai ne hea dache s . W i th r es pectt o defe ndant s D ul aneyand H oover , J ohns on cl ai m ed thatthes e def

endant s r et al i at ed aga i ns thi m forhi s gr i evanc es and forthe fi l i ng of the under l y i ng ci vi l act i on byr equi r i ng hi m t o r epea ts ex off endertr eatm entand pr ovi di ng h im w ith a n e g a tiv e re v ie w p ri o r t o h is a p p e a ra n c e b e f o re th e P a ro le B o a rd in J u n e 2 0 0 4 . T he ac t i ons of D ul aneyand H ooverform ed the bas es of gr i evanc e #80993. A f ter a p re lim in a rysc re e n in g o f Jo h n so n ’s a m e n d e d c o m p lain t b yth e M a g istra te Ju d g e to w h o m itw as re fe rred , the D istri ct C o u rtd ism issed Jo h n so n ’s claim fo r m o n etary d a m a g e s a g a in s t a ll d e f e n d a n ts in th e iro f

f ic ia l c a p a c itie s in a c c o rd a n c e w ith 2 8 U .S .C . §4

1 9 1 5 A (b)(2 ) on the b asis o f E leve n th A m en d m en t i m m u n ity . A d d it ion al claim s w ere di s pos ed of i n an or derent er ed on N ovember8, 2005, w her ei n the D i s tr i ctC our tadopt ed the M agi s tr at e J udge’ s R eportr ecomm endi ng thatthe def endant s ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s be gr ant ed i n partand deni ed i n part . I n part i cul ar , the fol l ow i ng cl ai m s w er e di s m i s s ed for f a ilu re to sta te a c laim : 1 ) a ll d u e p ro c e ss c laim s a g a in st th e d e f e n d a n ts w ith re sp e c t to J ohns on’ s al l egat i ons of bei ng r equi r ed t o w or k on hi s day s off a nd t o w or k w i thout compensa t i on; 2) J ohns on’ s E i ghth A m endmentcl ai m s agai ns tdefe ndantT ow ns end; 3) the due pr oces s and s t at e l aw cl ai m s agai ns tdefe ndant s Sow as h and W i nkl eman; and 4) hi s s t at e negl i gence cl ai m s agai ns tdefe ndant s L eather s , T enni s , Sow as h and W i nkl eman. D efe ndant s ther eaf

t erfi l ed a mot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , i n w hi ch theyar gued, i nt eral i a, thatJ ohns on di d notpr es enthi s gr i evanc es thr ough fi nal r evi ew as r equi r ed by the D O C pr oces s and 42 U . S. C . § 1997e( a) . I n a thi r d R eporti s s ued on A ugus t22, 2006, the M agi s tr at e J udge r ecomm ended thats um m aryj udgm entbe gr ant ed i n favorof defe ndant s w i th r es pectt o t he Fi r s tA m endmentr et al i at i on cl ai m agai ns tdefe ndant T o w n se n d a lleg in g th a t h e c re a ted a p o ten tiallyh o stile e n v iro n m e n t. T h e M a g istra te J u d g e c o n c l u d e d th a t , b e c a u s e J o h n s o n f a i l e d t o a p p e a l g r i e v a n c e # 5 5 5 3 5 t o f i n a l r e v i e w, h e d id n o t ex h a u st h is a d m in istra tiv e re m e d ies a n d th e c laim w a s n o w p ro c e d u ra lly defa ul t ed. T he s ame concl us i on w as gi ven forthe r emai nderof J ohns on’ s cl ai m s , w hi ch, acc or di ng t o t he M agi s tr at e J udge, w er e ei thernotpr oper l yappea l ed thr ough the gr i evanc e s y s t em t o fi nal r evi ew ( e. g. , gr i evanc e #80993 r egar di ng the ac t i ons of D ul aney5

and H oo ver) , or not pr esent ed in anygri evan ce w hats oev er ( e. g. , the clai m s agai nst defe ndant s T enni s , B ur ks , and Leather s ) . G i ven thatal l the cl ai m s overw hi ch the D i s tr i ctC our thad or i gi nal j ur i s di ct i on w er e s ubj ectt o di s m i s s al , the M agi s tr at e J udge rec o m m en d ed that the c o u rtd ec li n e to e x erc ise su p p lem en tal juri sd ict ion o v er Jo h n so n ’s r emai ni ng s t at e l aw cl ai m s agai ns tT ow ns end. O verJ ohns on’ s obj ect i ons , the D i s tr i ct C our tadopt ed the M agi s tr at e J udge’ s R eportand R ecomm endat i on i n a M emora ndum O pi ni on and O r derent er ed on D ece m ber27, 2006, gr ant ed def endant s ’ m ot i on for s um m aryj udgm entw i th r es pectt o J ohns on’ s r emai ni ng fede r al l aw cl ai m s and di s m i s s ed the r emai ni ng s t at e l aw cl ai m s . T hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed. W e have j ur i s di ct i on overthe i ns t antappea l pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291, and exer ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or der s gr ant i ng a mot i on t o di s m i s s and fo r sum m aryjud g m en t. S ee D eb iec v . C ab o t C o rp., 3 5 2 F . 3 d 1 1 7 , 1 2 8 n . 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ); B r os el ow v. Fi s her , 319 F. 3d 605, 607 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . I n cons i der i ng a R ul e 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on, a courti s r equi r ed t o “ac ceptal l fac tual al l egat i ons as true, cons true the compl ai nti n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the pl ai nt i ff, and det erm i ne w hether , underany r eas onabl e r eadi ng of the compl ai nt , 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 ountyof A l l egheny , 515 F. 3d 224, 233 ( 3d C i r . 2008) , quot i ng Pi nkerv. R oche H ol di ngs L t d. , 292 F. 3d 361, 374 n. 7 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . See al s o B el l A t l ant i c C orp. v. T w om bl y , __ U . S. __, 127 S. C t . 1955, 1969 n. 8 ( 2007) . T he “[ f] actual al l egat i ons [of the compl ai nt ] m us tbe enough t o r ai s e a r i ghtt o r el i ef a bove the s pecul at i ve l evel . ”6

Phi l l i ps , 515 F. 3d at234, ( quot i ng T w om bl y , 127 S. C t . at1965) . W i th r es pectt o a gr ant of s um m aryj udgm ent , w e mustaff i r m i f ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tand the m ovi ng partyi s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . See C el ot ex C orp. v. C atr ett , 477 U . S. 317, 322- 23 ( 1986) . Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 56( e) , conce rni ng the r equi r ement s foroppos i ng a mot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , pr ovi des thatJ ohns on, as an adver s e party , “maynotr es tupon the mer e al l egat i ons ordeni al s of [hi s ] pl eadi ng, but [ h is] re sp o n se , b ya f

f id a v its o r a s o th e rw ise p ro v id e d in th is ru le, m u st s e t f o rth sp e c if

ic fac t s s how i ng thatther e i s a genui ne i s s ue fortr i al . ” H avi ng car eful l yr evi ew ed the re c o rd a n d th e p a rties ’ su b m iss io n s, w e c o n c lu d e th a t ju d g m e n t w a s p ro p e rlye n ter e d in f a v o r o f d e f e n d a n ts f o r e ss e n tiallyth e re a so n s g iv e n b yth e D istric t C o u rt. J ohns on r ai s es s ever al cont ent i ons on appea l . M anyof them can be di s pos ed of w i th li t t l e dis cussi on . W e fi nd no err or w i th the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s decis i on t o d i sm i ss J o h n s o n ’s s ta te la w c la im s a g a in s t d e f e n d a n ts S o w a s h , W in k e lm a n , T e n n is a n d L e a th e rs . T he doctr i ne of s over ei gn i m m uni ty , codi fi ed at1 Pa. C . S. § 2310, pr ot ect s the C om m onw eal th and i t s empl oy ees fr om s uch a s ui tform onet arydamages unl es s the caus e of a ct i on fal l s w i thi n one of s ever al s t atut oryexce pt i ons noti m pl i cat ed her e, s ee 42 P a.C . S . A . § 8 5 2 2 , o r th e ind ividu al’s co n d u ct fa ll s o u tsi d e the sco p e o f th e e m p loy ee ’s em p loym en t. A s w e n o ted in B rum field v . S an d ers, 23 2 F . 3 d 3 7 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ), Penns y l vani a has acc ept ed the R es t at ement( Second) of A gency ’ s defi ni t i on of conduc t “w i thi n the s cope of

empl oym ent . ” “A ccor di ng t o the R es t at ement , ‘ conducti s w i thi n t he7

sc o p e o f e m p lo ym e n t if, b u t o n lyif: (a ) it is th e k in d [ th e e m p lo y e e ] is e m p lo y e d to p e rf o rm ; (b ) it o c c u rs s u b sta n tiallyw ith in th e a u th o riz e d tim e a n d sp a c e lim its [ a n d ] (c ) it i s actuat ed, atl eas ti n part , bya purpos e t o s erve the mast er . . . . ’ ” I d. at380, quot i ng R e sta tem e n t (S e c o n d ) A g e n c y§ 2 2 8 . W h ile J o h n so n m a ytak e iss u e w ith th e m a n n e r in w h ich th e yp e rf

o rm e d th e ir d u ties , w e a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t d e f e n d a n ts S o w a sh , W in k e lm a n , T e n n is a n d L e a th e rs w e re a c tin g w ith in th e sc o p e o f th e ir em ploym ent w hen han dli ng his gri evan ces and w ork assi gn m ents . J ohns on’ s due pr oces s and Ei ghth A m endmentcl ai m s r el at i ng t o the numberof day s and h ou rs he w as r equ i red t o w ork fare no b et t er. John son b asi cal l ycl ai m s a pr ot ect ed l i bertyi nt er es ti n day s off f r om w or k, hour s w or ked i n anygi ven dayand adeq uate com pen sat i on . A prot ect ed l i berty i nter estcan ari se ei ther from the D ue P rocess C l aus e i t s el f orfr om s t at e l aw . A s qui th v. D ep’ tof C orr ect i ons , 186 F. 3d 407, 409 ( 3d C ir. 1 9 9 9 ) (c itatio n o m itt e d ). A s h a s p re v io u slyb e e n d e ter m in e d , h o w e v e r, “[ n ]o lib e rty i nt er es ttr ace d fr om the D ue Pr oces s C l aus e i s i m pl i cat ed i f ‘ the condi t i ons ordegr ee of c o n f i n e me n tt o wh i c h a p r i s o n e ri s s u b j e c t e d [ a r e ] wi th i n th e s e n t e n c e i mp o s e d u p o n h i m’ and do notot herw i s e vi ol at e the C ons t i tut i on. ” Torr es v. Fauver , 292 F. 3d 141, 150 ( 3d C i r . 2002) , quot i ng Fr ai s e v. T erhune, 283 F. 3d 506, 522 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . W e i ni t i al l ynot e, as di d the D i s tr i ctC our t , that i nm at es have no f

eder al l ypr ot ect ed r i ghtnott o w or k w hi l e i m pr i s oned af t erconvi ct i on, s ee A l i v. J ohns on, 259 F. 3d 317, 317 - 318 ( 5th 2001) ; T our s cherv. M cC ul l ough, 1848

F3d 236, 240 ( 3d C i r . 1999) , nordo theyhave a cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o compensa t i on. See M u rr a yv . M is s is s ip p i D e p t. o f C o rr e c tio n s , 9 1 1 F .2 d 1 1 6 7 , 1 1 6 7 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ). M or eover , w hi l e ther e appe ar s t o be no ques t i on thatJ ohns on – w ho w as compensa t ed for hi s r egul arhour s as w el l as a l ar ge port i on of hi s exce s s hour s – w as r equi r ed t o carryout hi s dut i es as a cl erk i n t he cul i narydepart m enton a w or k s chedul e unmat ched bym os tof the p ri so n p o p u lat ion , w e a re n o t prep are d to h o ld tha t th e a m o u n t of h is w o rkin g h o u rs al one exc eede d hi s s ent ence “i n s uch an une xpect ed manneras t o gi ve r i s e t o pr ot ect i on bythe D ue Pr oces s C l aus e of i t s ow n for ce” and vi ol at ed s om e othercons t i tut i onal p rov isi o n . S an d in v . C o n n er, 51 5 U . S . 4 7 2 , 4 8 4 (19 9 5 ). W e furtheragr ee w i th t he D i s tr i ctC our tthatJ ohns on w as notdepr i ved of a ny s t at e- cr eat ed l i berty i nt er es t . A s the D i s tr i ctC our tcorr ect l yconcl uded, even a s s um i ng ar guendo thatD C - A D M 816 – the D O C pol i cygoverni ng i nm at e empl oym entand co m p en sati o n – cre ated a li b ertyinterest i n Jo h n so n ’s co m p en sati o n an d d ay s o ff o r ho u rs w or ked, the w or k s i tuat i on thatJ ohns on found hi m s el f i n fora 20 mont h per i od does not amount t o an “a typi cal and s i gni fi canthar ds hi p. ” See I d. ; s ee a l s o G r i ffi n v. V aughn, 112 F. 3d 703, 706 ( 3d C i r . 1997) . L i kew i s e, J ohns on’ s compl ai nt s of m ent al and phy s i cal e x h a u stio n a re in su f

f icie n t to b rin g h is w o rk a ss ig n m e n t in th e c u lin a ryd e p a rtm e n t w ith in the Ei ghth A m endment ’ s pr ohi bi t i on agai ns tcruel and unus ual puni s hm entabs entany in d ica tio n th a t h e w a s c o m p e lled to p e rf o rm p h y sic a l lab o r w h ich w a s b e y o n d h is s tr ength, endange r ed hi s l i fe orheal th, orcaus ed undue pa i n, orw her e ther e i s no9

al l egat i on thatthe w or k as s i gnm entw as puni t i ve i n natur e. B erryv. B unnel l , 39 F. 3d 1056, 1056- 57 ( 9th C i r . 1994) , ci t i ng H ow ar d v. K i ng, 707 F. 2d 215, 219 ( 5th C i r . 1983) (Eight h A m end m ent cl ai m st at ed w here i nm at e requi red t o w ork i n ex cess of 56 ho urs a w eek i n a fi el d forovera y earcaus ed cont i nual exhaus t i on and phy s i cal br eakdow n) ; R ay v . M ab ry , 5 5 6 F . 2 d 8 8 1 , 8 8 2 (8th C ir . 1 9 7 7 ) (sam e f o r disab led p ri so n er m ad e to p erf o rm m anual l aborfor90- 120 hour s perw eek) ; W ool s eyv. B et o, 450 F. 2d 321 ( 5th C i r . 1971) (sam e w h ere p u n it ive w o rk a ssign m en ts give n to an inm ate su ff ering fro m tub erc u losis). F in a lly , Jo h n so n c h a llen g e s th e D istric t C o u rt’s c o n c lu sio n s th a t h e f a iled to exhaus thi s E i ghth A m endmentr et al i at i on cl ai m agai ns tdefe ndantT ow ns end, as w el l as his cl ai m s agai nstdefe nd ants T enn i s, B urks, and L eat hers. A n inm at e m ustexh aust admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1997e( a) pr i ort o br i ngi ng s ui t . See B o o th v . C h u rn e r, 5 3 2 U .S . 7 3 1 (2 0 0 1 ). T h is “ e x h a u stio n re q u ire m e n t ap p lies to a ll i nm at e s ui t s aboutpr i s on l i fe, w hethertheyi nvol ve gene r al ci r cumst ance s orpart i cul ar epi s odes , and w hethertheyal l ege e xces s i ve for ce ors om e otherw r ong. ” Por t erv. N ussl e, 53 4 U . S . 51 6, 53 2 (200 2). T he thr ee st eps i n the Pen nsy l van i a gri evan ce process ar e: ( 1) I ni t i al R evi ew pur s uantt o D C - A D M - 804 Par tV I . B of the i nm at e’ s fi l ed gr i evanc e; ( 2) the fi r s tappea l fr om the I ni t i al R evi ew , orA ppeal t o Faci l i tyM anage r p u rsua n t t o D C -A D M -80 4 P art V I. C ; and (3) a fin al ap p ea l, the A p p ea l t o the S ec retary ’s O f f ice o f In m a te G rie v a n c e s a n d A p p e a ls p u rsu a n t to D C -A D M -8 0 4 P a rt V I.D . S p ru ill v . G ill is, 3 7 2 F .3 d 2 1 8 , 2 3 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). A n in m a te’ s f a ilu re to su b sta n tiallyc o m p ly10

w i th the pr ocedur al r equi r ement s of the pr i s on’ s gr i evanc e s y s t em w i l l r es ul ti n a p ro c e d u ra l d e f

a u lt o f th e iss u e a n d e f

f e c tiv e lyb a r th e in m a te f ro m b rin g in g h is c laim in fede r al court . I d. at231. A s e x p lain e d b yth e M a g istra te J u d g e , the re c o rd e v id e n c e sh o w s th a t th e o n ly g rie v a n c e Jo h n so n f

iled a n d e x h a u ste d th ro u g h th e f in a l lev e l o f

re v iew w a s th e c laim agai ns tT ow ns end s etfor th i n gr i evanc e #52784, w hi ch conc erned J ohns on’ s al l egat i on thathe w as bei ng overw or ked and unde rpai d. J ohns on cont ends , how ever , thathe combi ned gr i evanc e #55535, al l egi ng r et al i at i on byT ow ns end, w i th gr i evanc e #52784, a n d th e r e f

o r e e x h a u s t e d b o th g r i e v a n c e s . Al th o u g h J o h n s o n c o rr e c t l yn o t e s th a tth e DOC perm i t s gr i evanc es t o be combi ned w hen “ne ces s aryt o . . . s uppor tthe cl ai m , ” s ee D C -A D M -8 0 4 P a rt V I.A .1 1 , w e a re n o t p e rsu a d e d th a t Jo h n so n p ro p e rlyin v o k e d th is exce pt i on i n t he i ns t antcas e. W hi l e J ohns on m ent i ons a gene r al fea rof furtherabus e and aggr es s i on fr om T ow ns end and otheri nm at es i n gr i evanc e #52784, hi s s peci fi c cl ai m of r et al i at i on byT ow ns end forfi l i ng the i ni t i al gr i evanc e i s the bas i s of gr i evanc e #55535. M o re o v e r, Jo h n so n ’s c o n ten tio n th a t h e c o m b in e d th e tw o g rie v a n c e s is b e lied b yh is act i ons thr oughoutthe gr i evanc e pr oces s . I n part i cul ar , i n hi s appea l t o fi nal r evi ew of g rie v a n c e # 5 2 7 8 4 , Jo h n so n re f e rre d to th e c laim a t issu e a s th a t p re se n ted in a sin g le “gr i evanc e” a nd, i n fac t , he not i fi ed the C hi ef G r i evanc e O ffi certhathe w as pur s ui ng t he re ta lia tio n c la im in a s e p a ra te g ri e v a n c e . S e e E x h ib it A , p a g e 1 4 a tta c h e d to A p lt’ s B ri e f. A d d itio n a lly, Jo h n s o n f ile d h is s e c o n d -s te p re v ie w o f g ri e v a n c e # 5 5 5 3 5 o n J u ly 1 4 , 2 0 0 3 .11

S e e id . at p a g e 1 0 . T h is a p p e a l w o u ld h a v e b e e n u n n e c e ss a ryif Jo h n so n h a d a c tu a lly combi ned the tw o gr i evanc es as hi s appea l of gr i evanc e #52784 t o fi nal r evi ew w as fi l ed the verynextdayon J ul y15, 2003. See i d. atpage 14. F in a lly , w e d o n o t re a d th e lan g u a g e o f th e g rie v a n c e o f

f ice rs in th e ir re sp o n se s to the appe al s of gr i evanc e #52784 as excus i ng anypr ocedur al defa ul tthatJ ohns on comm i t t ed w i th r es pectt o gr i evanc e #55535. C f. Sprui l l , 372 F. 3d at234. A ct i ng Super i nt endentT enni s m er el yr es ponded t o J ohns on’ s al l egat i on of a ge ner al fea rof “furtherabus e and a ggr es s i on” fr om T ow ns end and otheri nm at es s etfor th i n gr i evanc e #52784 bynot i ng thatJ ohns on’ s “r eas s i gn[m ent ] fr om Food Ser vi ce . . . s houl d m i ni m i ze a n yc o n tac t [ h e h a s] w ith F o o d S e rv ice sta f f o r in m a tes .” S e e id . at p a g e 6 . L ik e w ise , in addi t i on t o r efe r enci ng onl ygr i evanc e #52784, C hi ef G r i evanc e O ffi cerB ur ks not ed her deci s i on on fi nal r evi ew as one uphol di ng the “r es pons es pr ovi ded bys t aff atthe i ns t i tut i onal l evel ” t o J ohns on’ s “r eques tforas s i s t ance . ” See i d. atpage 16. H erdeci s i on focus ed on the i s s ue of c om pens at i on gi ven J ohns on’ s al l egat i ons of bei ng overw or ked and underpai d. T her e s i m pl yi s no i ndi cat i on thats he al s o s peci fi cal l ycons i der ed the s epar at e i s s ue of r et al i at i on byT ow ns end. Jo h n so n ’s a rg u m e n t th a t h is p ro c e d u ra l d e f a u lt fo r f a ili n g to n a m e d e f

e n d a n ts L e a th e rs , T e n n is a n d B u rk s in a n yg ri e v a n c e w a s a ls o e x c u s e d is e q u a lly u n c o n v in c in g . “[T] he PL R A exhaus t i on r equi r ementr equi r es pr operexhaus t i on. ” W oodfor d v. N go, 548 U . S. 81, __, 126 S. C t . 2378, 2387 ( 2006) . W hi l e the Supr eme C our thas not ed that12

“ n o th in g in th e [ P L R A ] i m p o s e s a ‘n a m e a ll d e f e n d a n ts ’ r e q u ir e m e n t,” J o n e s v . B o c k , 127 S. C t . 910, 923 ( 2007) , i thas al s o r ecogni zed that“[t ] he l evel of det ai l nece s s aryi n a gr i evanc e t o compl yw i th t he gr i evanc e pr ocedur es w i l l varyfr om s y s t em t o s y s t em and cl ai m t o cl ai m , buti ti s the pr i s on’ s r equi r ement s and notthe PL R A , thatdefi ne the boundar i es of pr operexhaus t i on . ” U nderD C - A D M 804. V I . A . 1. g, J ohns on w as r equi r ed t o i dent i fy“per s ons w ho m ayhave i nform at i on thatcoul d be hel pful i n r es ol vi ng the gr i evanc e. ” Sprui l l , 372 F. 3d at234. W hi l e w e have hel d thatthe pr i s on can e xcus e an i nm at e’ s pr ocedur al defa ul tby“i dent i fy i ng the uni dent i fi ed per s on and ac know l edgi ng thattheyw er e fa i r l yw i thi n t he compas s of the pr i s oner ’ s gr i evanc e, ” i d. , s uch i s nott he s i tuat i on i n t he pr es entcas e w her e def endantL eather s ’ r es pons e t o J ohns on’ s i ni t i al g ri ev an ce w as b asica ll yli m it ed to ad d ressing Jo h n so n ’s co m p lai n ts r eg ard ing h is w o rk hour s and compens at i on i s s ues . D efe ndantL eather s i nform ed J ohns on on J une 11, 2003 thatthe i nm at es w oul d no l ongerbe perm i t t ed t o w or k on thei rday s off, thatcal cul at i ons foraddi t i onal hour s he w or ked w er e bei ng m ade, and thatther e w as no need f orhi m t o be c o n c e rn e d a b o u t re talia tio n b ya n ysta f f m e m b e r f

o r th e f ili n g o f a g rie v a n c e . S e e E x h ib it A t o A pl t ’ s I nform al B r i ef a t3. Si m i l ar l y , thos e s ame i s s ues w er e the foc us of def endant T enni s ’ r es pons e w hi ch di s pos ed of J ohns on’ s s econd- s t ep appe al . I d. at6. T o t he ext entthatJ ohns on r ai s ed al l egat i ons agai ns tthes e def endant s thats ur vi ve the due pr oces s and Ei ghth A m endmentanal y s i s s etfor th pr evi ous l y , thos e al l egat i ons w er e notpr oper l yr ai s ed i n t he fi l i ng of gr i evanc e #52784 i n M ay2003 ori n the i ni t i al13

appea l fi l ed a mont h l at er , and, i n fac t , theypert ai n m or e t o the al l egat i ons i n gr i evanc e # 5 5 5 3 5 f iled o n Ju n e 2 8 , 2 0 0 3 . M a n yo f th e a lleg a tio n s in v o lv in g th e se n a m e d d e f e n d a n ts d id n o t eve n arise u n ti l w ell af ter griev an ce # 5 2 7 8 4 w as d ispo sed o f. S ee , e.g., Jo h n so n ’s A m ended Com pl ai ntat¶ 57 and 68, r epr oduced i n A pl es . ’ Supp. A px. at11 and 13, re f e re n c in g in c id e n ts in v o lv in g d e f e n d a n t L e a th e rs in S e p te m b e r 2 0 0 3 a n d J a n u a ry 2 0 0 4 . T he i ni t i al gr i evanc e mayhave a l ert ed off i ci al s t o a pot ent i al pr obl em re gar di ng Jo h n so n ’s w o rk sc h e d u le a n d c o m p e n sa tio n c laim a n d th e e n su in g a p p e a ls o f h is d isa g re e m e n t w ith th e g rie v a n c e o f f ice rs’ re v iew , b u t itd id n o t ale rt th e m to th e sp e c if ic act s of uncons t i tut i onal conducttheyal l egedl ycomm i t t ed. U nl i ke the s i tuat i on pr es ent ed i n W i l l i ams v. B ear d, 482 F. 3d 637, 640 ( 3d C i r . 2007) , i ti s notatal l cl earfr om the g ri ev an ce resp o n ses th at ea ch an d ev eryo n e o f th ese o ther n am ed d ef en d an ts w h o w ere i nvol ved i n t he r evi ew pr oces s w er e “f ai r l yw i thi n the compas s ” of gr i evanc e #52784 its e lf. A ccor di ngl y , forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entof the D i s tr i ct C o u rt.