NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FO R T HE THIRD C IRCUIT

___________

No. 1 9

- 1 5 8 6

__________

CARLOS ZUNIGA,

A ppellant

v.

CHAMBERLAIN, Case Manager ; LINCALIS, Unit Ma nager;

LT. SUDUL; SIS L T. LYONS; S IS LT. PRUTZMAN;

WARDEN SPAULDING; CMC GAINER

____________ __________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for th e M i d d l e District of P e n n s y l v a n i a

(D.C. Civil Action No. 3

- 1 7

- c v

- 0 0 7 9 2 )

District Judge: Ho norable R o b e r t D

. M a r i a n i

________ ____________________________

S ubmitted Pursuant to Third Ci rcuit LAR 34.1(a)

J u l y 2 0

, 2 0 2 0

Before: K R A U S E

, M A T E Y

, a n d R O T H

, Circuit Jud ges

(Opinion filed : July 21, 2020 )

___________

OPINION *

___________

PE R CURIAM

* This d isposition i s not an opin ion of the ful l C ourt and pursu ant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not

constitut e binding precedent.2 C a r l o s Z u n i g a a p p e a l s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s o r d e r s g r a n t i n g A p p e l l e e 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 a n d d e n y i n g h i s m o t i o n f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o F e d

. R

. C i v

. P

. 6 0 ( b )

. F o r

t h e r e a s o n s b e l o w

, 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

.

Z u n i g a

, a f e d e r a l p r i s o n e r

, a l l e g e d i n h i s c om p la i n t t h a t p r i s o n o f f

i c i a l s f a i l e d t o

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

. H e a s s e r t e d t h a t he i n f o r m e d h i s c a s e m a n a g e r a n d h i s u n i t

m a n a g e r i n J a n u a r y 2 0 1 5 o f t h r e a t s a n d e x t o r t i o n b y p r i s o n g a n g m e m b e r s

. Z u n i g a

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

i c i a l s d i s c l o s e d h i s a l l e g a t i o n s t o t w o o f th e g a n g m e m b e rs

,

C h a v e z a n d H e r n a n d e z

, w h o t h e n c h a r g e d Z u n i g a a h i g h e r m o n t h l y e x t o r t i o n f e e o f $ 5 0

.

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

o f f

i c i a l s ’ p u r p o r t e d d i s c l o s u r e o f h i s a l l e g a t i on s t o g a n g m e m b e r s

.

F o u r mon ths la te r, o n M a y 1 4

, 2 0 1 5

, C h a v e z a n d H e r n a n d e z p u r p o r t e d l y a s s a u l t e d

Z u n i g a

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

p r i s o n o f f

i c i a l s a b o u t t h e m

. O n M a y 2 5

, 2 0 1 5

, H e r n a n d e z a n d t h r e e o t h e r g a n g m e m b e r s

a d v i s e d Z u n i g a t o l e a v e t h a t p r i s o n

. Z u n i g a a l l e g e d t h a t h e t h e n w e n t t o a p r i s o n

o f f

i c i a l ’ s o f f

i c e a n d r e q u e s t e d p r o t e c t i o n

. W h e n Z u n i g a r e f u s e d t o l e a v e t h e o f f

i c i a l ’ s

o f f

i c e

, h e w a s e s c o r t e d t o t h e S p e c i a l H o u s i n g U n i t ( S H U )

. 1 H e a s s e r t e d t h a t u p o n h i s

1 Accordi ng to an inciden t rep or t Z uniga submitted in support of hi s complaint , he told

s taf f that he could no t return to his housing unit but would not say why ; ther e was no

men tio n of him requesti ng prote ction

.3 a r r i v a l t o t h e S H U

, a correcti onal o f f

i c e r n o t i c e d h i s b r u i s e s

, a n d Z u n i g a r e p o r t e d t h e

a s s a u l t

. 2

Zuni ga al l eged that two S p e c i a l I n v e s t i g a t i v e S u p e r v i s o r s (SIS ) int erviewed him

but f a i l e d t o m a k e a r e p o r t o r c h a r g e C h a v e z a n d H e r n a n d e z w i t h a s s a u l t

. 3 Z u n i g a a l s o

asserted t h a t h e w a s k e p t i n t h e S H U u n l a w f u l l y f o r s e v e n m o n t h s u n t i l h e w a s

t r a n s f e r r e d

.

A p p e l l e e s f i l e d a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s o r

, i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e

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

.

They argued that Zuniga had not exhausted his admin istrati ve remedies a s re q uir ed by 42

U. S.C. § 1997e(a) a n d t h a t s o m e o f h i s a l l e g a t i o n s f a i l e d t o s t a t e a c l a i m

. I n M a r c h 2 0 1 8

,

t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t e d t h e A p p e l l e e 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 t d e t e r m i n e d

2 Acc ording to t he p rison ’ s i nve stigat ion , Zuniga did not report the assau lt up on being

se nt to the SHU o n Ma y 26 . Rather, he repor t ed it almost a week la ter on June 1. W h e n

h e w a s a s s e s s e d f o r i n j u r i e s

, o n l y m i n o r b r u i s i n g w a s n o t e d

.

3 Prison officials determined that Zu n iga ’ s all egations of assault were false after

wa tch in g foota ge from p riso n camer as : “ [Zuniga ] p rovided d ates a nd times of whe n he

wa s allegedly assaulted by ot he r [ m e m b e r s o f t h e i n m a t e g a n g ]

. The ti mes provided by

[ Zuniga] to the S IS Lieutena nt changed frequ entl y. The S IS Lieutena nt watched all times

and da t es via CC T V th at were identif ied by [Zun i ga] and f ound t hat all times a nd d ates

were false. ” The investiga tor also interviewed Zuniga a s well as se veral other in mates

. A c c o r d i n g t o t h e I n v e s t i g a t i v e R e p o r t

, Z u n i g a w a s c a u s i n g t e n s i o n b e t w e e n his g a n g a n d

a n o t h e r p r i s o n g a n g

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

. A c c o r d i n g t o t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r

, Z u n i g a s t a t e d t h a t h e w a n t e d t o a s s o c i a t e w i t h a n o t h e r

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

. H e a l l e g e d t h a t h e w a s

a s s a u l t e d b y C h a v e z a n d H e r n a n d e z ( m e m b e r s o f h i s f o r m e r g a n g ) i n M a y 2 0 1 5 b u t h e

d i d n o t s a y a n y t h i n g

. T h e i n v e s t i g a t o r d i d n o t r e p o r t a n y s t a t e m e n t s b y Z u n i g a t h a t

p r i s o n o f f

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

. Z u n i g a

d i d n o t a s s e r t

, a s h e d id i n h i s c o m p l a i n t

, t h a t C h a v e z a n d H e r n a n d e z t o l d h i m t h e y

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

i c i a l s a b o u t t h e m

.4 t h a t Z u n i g a f a i l e d t o e x h a u s t h i s administrative r e m e d i e s f o r h i s c l a i m t h a t p r i s o n

o f f

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

. I t a l s o c o n c l u d e d t h a t h i s a l l e g a t i o n s a g a i n s t o n e A p p e l l e e

f

a i l e d t o a l l e g e a n y p e r s o n a l i n v o l v e m e n t a n d t h a t A p p e l l e e s w e r e e n t i t l e d t o s u m m a r y

j u d g m e n t o n Z u n i g a ’ s a l l e g a t i o n s o f u n l a w f u l S H U c o n f i n e m e n t

. 4 Z u n i g a t h e n f i l e d a

t i m e l y m o t i o n f o r r e l i e f f r o m j u d g m e n t p u r s u a n t t o F e d

. R

. C i v

. P

. 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 )

. 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 R u l e 6 0 ( b ) m o t i o n

, a n d Z u n i g a f i l e d a t i m e l y n o t i c e o f a p p e a l

. W e h a v e

j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n t t o 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 9 1

.

I. E x h a u s t i o n

We exercise de novo review over t he District Court’s determinations that Zuni ga

fa iled to exhaust h is a dmini s trative remedies. Robin son v. Superintendent Rock view

SCI , 831 F.3d 148, 153 (3d Cir. 2016). A grant of summary j udgment will be a ffi rmed if

ou r review reveals that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the

movant is ent itle d to j udgment as a matter of l aw.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a ).

A prisoner ma y n ot file a B i v e n s a c t i o n until he has e x haus ted available

a dminis trative remedies. S e e 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 1 9 9 7 e ( a ) ; Nyhuis v. Reno , 204 F.3d 65, 68 (3d

Cir. 2000)

. “Proper exhaustion dem ands complia nce with an ag ency’s deadlines and

4 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 w i t h r e s p e c t t o Z u n i g a ’ s r e m a i n i n g c l a i m s

f

o r t h e r e a s o n s g i v e n b y t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

. These claims do not merit further discussion.

S e e Sandin v. Conner , 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995) (liberty interests requiri ng procedural

due process limited to f re edom fr om restraints that impose “atypical and significant

hardship” as compared to ordinary prison life) ; Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 675

- 76

(2009)

.5 other critical proc edural rules because no ad jud icative system can functio n effectively

witho ut imposing some order l y st ruc ture on the course of its proceedings.” Woodford v.

Ngo , 548 U.S. 81, 90

- 91 (2006). Failure to exhaust is a n a ffirmative defense for the

d efendants to plead a nd prove. Jones v. Bock , 549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007 ).

U n d er t h e B O P ’ s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e g r i e v a n c e p r o c e d u r e s

, a n i n m a t e mus t f i r s t t r y t o

r e s o l v e h i s i s s u e i n f o r m a l l y w i t h s t a f f

. 2 8 C

. F

. R

. § 5 4 2

. 1 3

. Z u n i g a s a t i s f i e d t h i s f i r s t

s t e p w h e n o n O c t o b e r 2 0

, 2 0 1 5

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

, a l l e g i n g t h a t s t a f f

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

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

. 5 O n O c t o b e r 2 9

, 2 0 1 5

, a s t a f f m e m b e r s t a t e d t h a t

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

- 9 f o r m t o f i l e a n i n i t i a l

g r i e v a n c e

.

I f t h e i n m a t e c a n n o t r e s o l v e t h e i s s u e i n f o r m a l l y

, h e m a y f i l e a w r i t t e n c o m p l a i n t

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

. I d

.

§ 5 4 2

. 1 4 ( a )

. A n e x t e n s i o n o f t h e t w e n t y

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

“ d e m o n s t r a t e s a v a l i d reason f o r d e l a y

. ” I d

. § 5 4 2

. 1 4 ( b )

. O n O c t o b e r 3 0

, 2 0 1 5

, n i n e

m o n t h s a f t e r he s p o k e w i t h h i s c a s e m a n a g e r a n d u n i t m a n a g e r a n d f i v e months a f t e r t h e

5 Z u n i g a s t a t e d i n h i s i n f o r m a l g r i e v a n c e : “ c o n c e r n i n g s a f e t y i s s u e a d u t y u p o n p r i s o n o f f

.

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

t o a n i n m a t e s t a f f m e m b e r s a r e i n v i o l a t i o n o f p r o g r a m s t a t e m e n t 3 4 2 0

. 0 9 s t a n d a r d e t h i c

c o n d u c t f o r e m p l o y e e s f o r [ f a i l u r e ] t o r e p o r t t o S I S o r p r o t e c t i n m a t e Z u n i g a f r o m h a r m a

s u b s t a n t i a l r i s k w h e n Z u n i g a r e p o r t t h e C h a v e z a n d H e r n a n d e z t h r e a t e n s a n d a b u s e s

h a r a s s e s u s [ f a i l u r e ] Z u n i g a w a s [ a s s a u l t e d ]

. C h a r g e i n m a t e ’ s C h a v e z a n d H e r n a n d e z

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

. ”6 a l l e g e d a s s a u l t

, Z u n i g a f i l e d t h e B P

- 9 f o r m

. H i s g r i e v a n c e d i d n o t r e q u e s t a n e x t e n s i o n

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

. H e s t a t e d that the staff memb ers failed

t o re port hi s concerns to the S IS an d failed to protect him from physica l assault :

I d i d n o t a g r e e w i t h t h e c o u n s e l o r ’ s r e s p o n s e

. W h e n I f i r s t r e p o r t t h e

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

. [ F a i l u r e ]

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

C h a v e z a n d H e r n a n d e z

. C o n c e r n i n g s a f e t y i s s u e s

, i t ’ s a p r i s o n o f f

i c i a l s j o b

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

. S t a f f

m e m b e r s a r e i n v i o l a t i o n o f p r o g r a m s t a t e m e n t 3 4 2 0

. 0 9

, s t a n d a r d s o f

e m p l o y e e c o n d u c t f o r [ f a i l u r e ] t o r e p o r t t o S

. I

. S

. o r p r o t e c t i n mate Z u n i g a

f

r o m a n y h a r m

. W h e n Z u n i g a r e p o r t e d C h a v e z a n d H e r n a n d e z w r o n g

d o i n g i t s e e m s t h e p r i s o n o f f

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

Z u n i g a f r o m p h y s i c a l a s s a u l t

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

I w a n t inmate C h a v e z a n d H e r n a n d e z c h a r g e d w i t h a s s a u l t o f i n m a t e

Z u n i g a o n o r a b o u t t h e m o n t h o f M a y

.

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

, A p p e l l e e s a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e i n i t i a l g r i e v a n c e

w a s r e j e c t e d a s u n t i m e l y a n d s u b m i t t e d a p r i s o n g r i e v a n c e r e p o r t l i s t i n g a l l o f Z u n i g a ’ s

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

. T h e r e p o r t i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e i n i t i a l g r i e v a n c e h a d

b e e n gi v e n t h e n u m b e r # 8 4 1 0 6 3

- F 1 a n d w a s r e j e c t e d a s u n t i m e l y o n N o v e m b er 3 , 2015

.

In his objec tions to Appellees’ statem ent o f material facts, Zuniga respond ed general ly

that he had tim ely followed the steps of the gr ievance process b ut that the Appellees

obstr ucted the process by sending his grievances back to him. He did not speci fically

respond to the Appellees’ asserti on th at the initial grievance was rej ected as u ntimely.

He did n ot acknowledge the first grievan ce or supply a co py of the p rison officials’

response to that first grievance. H e d i d n o t c l a i m a n y e x c e p t i o n t o t h e d e a d l i n e f o r i n i t i a l

g r i e v a n c e s

.7 O n N o v e m b e r 9

, 2 0 1 5

, Z u n i g a r e s u b m i t t e d t h e g r i e v a n c e w h i c h w a s g i ve n t he

n u m b e r # 8 4 1 0 6 3

- F 2

. 6 The Warden r e s p o n d e d t h a t h e un derstoo d Zuniga to be c laiming

he had been a s saulted and was requesting more investigation. The Warden noted th at an

extensive SIS invest igati on w as conducted and the investi gators had conc luded that

Zu niga’s allegations were not reli able and unfounde d. H e n o t e d t h a t t h e r e s p o n s e w a s f o r

i n f o r m a t i o n a l p u r p o s e s o n l y

.

II. S u m m ar y J u dg m e n t

U p o n i n i t i a l r e v i e w o f t h e a p p e a l

, t h e Cl e rk in s t r u c t e d th e p a rt i e s to b r i e f s e v e r al

i ss u es

, i n c l u di ng w h et he r th e p rison m ailbox rule applies to the BOP ’ s grie vance system

. 7

O n a p p e a l

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

m a i l b o x r u l e a p p l i e s t o g r i e v a n c e a p p e a l s bec ause t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t

Z u n i g a ’ s i n itial g r i e v a n c e w a s u n t i m e l y

. T h u s

, t h e y a r g u e

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s o r d e r m a y

b e a f f

i r m e d o n t h a t g r o u n d

. Z u n i g a d i d n o t r e s p o n d t o A p p e l l e e s ’ a r g u m e n t i n h i s r e p l y

b r i e f

.

6 The copy of the grieva nce Zuniga submitted reflects that it was received on No v ember

3, 2015

, and re

- received o n November 9 , 2015. The number of the gr ievance was

originally 841063

- F 1 but the 1 was crossed o ut and replaced by a “ 2

, ” pre sumably when

it was resubmitted.

7 Zuniga ’ s appeal of t he reject ion of his gr ievance was eventua l ly reject ed as untimely

. He argues that the appeal was timely filed u n der the prison mailbox rule o f H o u s t o n v

. L a c k

, 4 8 7 U

. S

. 2 6 6 ( 1 9 8 8 )

.8 W e a g r e e t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s o r d e r m a y b e a f f

i r m e d o n th e g r o u n d t h a t

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

, h e d i d n o t p r o p er l y e x h a u s t h i s

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e m e d i e s

. A s d e s c r i b e d a b o v e

, Z u n i g a d i d n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y d i s p u t e

A p p e l l e e s ’ a s s e r t io n t h a t h i s f i r s t g r i e v a n c e w a s r e j e c t e d a s u n t i m e l y o r c l a i m a n y

e x c e p t i o n t o t h e g r i e v a n c e d e a d l i n e

. He did n ot acknow ledge the first g rievance or

supply a co py of t he p rison officials’ response to that first grievance. B a s e d on the r e c o r d

b e f o r e i t

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n g r a n t i n g s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t a s t h e r e w a s n o

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

w e r e e n t i t l e d t o s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t on the g r o u n d t h a t Z u n i g a f a i l e d t o p r o p e r l y e x h a u s t

h i s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e m e d i e s

. 8

8 In his reply brief, Zuniga a rgues that his allegations s tate a claim under the Eig hth

Amendmen t. However, e ven i f the alle gations of the initial grievance wer e considered

p r o p e r l y exh austed

, thos e a llegations do not l i k e l y state a plausible cla im for failure to

protect

. To do so, an inmate must allege facts that demonstr ate that “ (1) he was

incarcerated under condi t ions p osi ng a substan tial risk of serious harm , (2) the official

w as d eliberate ly indifferent to that substantial risk to his hea lt h a nd safety, and (3) the

official’ s deliberate indifference caused him harm. ” Bistrian v. Lev i , 696 F.3d 352, 367

(3d Cir. 2012). N ot ev ery inj ury infli cted by one inma te on anot her create s a

c onstitut ional liability fo r prison officials. Far mer v. B re nnan , 511 U.S. 82 5, 834 (1994).

It is not enough for a plaintiff to offer only conclusory alle gations or a si mple reci tal o f

the e lem e nts of a c laim. Bell Atl

. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U. S. 54 4, 5 55 (2007).

Zuniga asserted in his gri evance that h e reported an undescribed in ciden t to

unnamed s taff mem bers who failed to refer the matter for investigati on or protect him

from harm. Important ly, he did n ot claim , as he did in his complaint, that p rison officials

told the gang members that he had reported their b ehavi or

. A griev ance must, at a

minimum, alert prison officials to “the nature of the wrong for which redress is sought.”

M ack v. Wa rden Loretto FCI , 839 F.3 d 286, 295 (3d Cir. 2016) (quoting Strong v. David

, 297 F.3d 646, 650 ( 7th Cir. 2002) ) . Exhausti on requires that prisoners “provide enough

information about the conduct of which they complain to allow prison officials to take9 III. R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) m o t i o n

A f t e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t gr a n t e d s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t

, Z u n i g a f i l e d a m o t i o n

p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 )

. F o r th e f i r s t t i m e

, h e a l l e g e d t h a t h e w a s t o l d b y a p r is on

o f f

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

. Zuniga d id n o t sta te

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

. H e d i d n o t a l l e g e t h a t h e

i n f o r m e d p r i s o n o f f

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

i n i t i a l g r ie v a n c e w a s r e j ec t ed a s u n t i me l y

. N o r d o e s h e e x p l a i n why he did not timely fi l e

a g r i e v a n c e w h e n the priso n official s allegedl y inform ed C hav ez a nd H ern andez i n

J a n u a r y 2 0 1 5 of his a lle ga tions again st him

— t he act that purportedly cau sed Zuniga t o be

in danger.

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

t h e W a r d e n r e s p o n d e d t o t h e g r i e v a n c e

. H o w e v e r

, t h e W a r d e n r e s p o n d ed t o # 8 4 1 0 6 3

- F 2

,

appropriate responsive measures.” Id. at 296 (quoting Johnson v. Testman, 380 f.3d 691,

697 (2d Cir. 2004) )

. The al l egation s of his grieva nc e do not plead condi tions posing a substantial risk

of s erious harm, that the prison officials were indifferent to that ri sk to his safet y, or that

any deliberate indiff erence caused the harm. In Bistrian , the detainee al le ged in o ne

inci de nt that jail of ficials were de liber ately indifferent when the y placed h im in a locked

rec reation pen with an inmat e with a history of vio len t assaults a gains t other inmates.

This Cour t held that the risk that “an inmate with a history o f violenc e might at tack

another in mate for an unk nown reason” was too speculativ e to state a claim of delibe rate

indifference by pris on officials. Bistrian , 6 96 F.3d at 3 71. Here, the generalized

alleg ations in Zuniga’s initial grievance that staff faile d to prot e ct him li kewise do not

a ppear to state a claim.10 t h e r e s u b m i t t e d g r i e v a n c e

. M o r e o v e r

, t h e W a r d e n s t a t e d t h a t t h e r e s p o n s e w a s f o r

i n f o r m a t i o n a l p u r p o s e s o n l y

.

A li tigant must show “e xtr aordina ry circumstances” to justify reopening a final

judgment p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 )

. Gonzalez v. C rosby , 545 U.S. 524, 535 (2005)

.

Z u n i g a ’ s f a i l u r e t o m a k e t h i s i m p o r t a n t a s s e r t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e t i m e l i n e s s o f h i s f i r s t

g r i e v a n c e b e f o r e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t e d s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t d o e s n o t c o n s t i t u t e a n

e x t r a o r d i n a r y c i r c u m s t a n c e s u p p o r t i n g t h e r e o p e n i n g o f 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 h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n d e n y i n g t h e R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) m o t i o n

.

IV. C o n c l u s i o n

F o r t h e a b o v 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

.