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 9-22-2008 

# Razzoli v . D ir B ur P ri sons 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 . 06-2181

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 " R az z o l i v . Dir B ur P ri s on s " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 511. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/511NOT 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 C as e N o: 06- 2181 K E V IN R A Z Z O L I, A ppel l ant v. D I RE CT O R, BU RE A U O F PRI SO N S; D I RE CT O R O F N . E. R. O . , BO P; W ARDEN, F CI ALL ENWO OD; U. S . P AROLE C OM M I S S I ONER; M R. W AGN ER; UNI T 3 - A CASE M ANA GER M R. DEWEY; UNI T 3 - A COUN S EL OR M R. BUCK

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 i s tr i ctC our tN o. 05- C R - 557 D istric t Ju d g e : T h e H o n o ra b le E d w in M . K o sik Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

Sept ember12, 2008 B e f o re : M C K E E , S M IT H , a n d W E IS , C i r cui tJudges ( Fi l ed: Sept ember22, 2008 ) OP I NI ON S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge . K evi n R azz ol i w as i m pr i s oned pur s uantt o a N aval C our tM art i al on D ece m ber1, 1 9 8 7 . H e h a s s in c e b e e n re lea se d o n p a ro le ( a n d re -p a ro le) a n d h a s v io late d h is p a ro le2

condi t i ons s ever al t i m es . Fol l ow i ng hi s l at es tvi ol at i on of par ol e, R azz ol i w as offe r ed, and ac cept ed, an expe di t ed r evoca t i on pr ocedur e w i th a r e- par ol e dat e of Sept ember28, 2 0 0 4 . O n e o f

th e c o n d iti o n s o f

h is re -p a ro le w a s th a t R a z z o li su b m it an a c c e p tab le re le a s e p la n . T h e a c tio n s th a t g iv e rise to th is a p p e a l o c c u rre d d u rin g th e p e rio d im m e d iate ly pr ece di ng R azz ol i ’ s Sept emberr e- par ol e dat e. A ccor di ng t o the r ecor d, on A ugus t10, 2004, R azz ol i m etw i th hi s cas e manager , K ei th D ew ey , t o di s cus s hi s r el eas e. D ew ey to ld R a z z o li th a t u n til h e p ro v id e d a re lea se a d d re ss , the re w a s littl e D e w e yc o u ld d o to faci l i t at e t he rel ease and that he had asked the P arol e C om m i ssi on t o ret ard the rel ease dat e by60 day s t o gi ve R azz ol i t i m e t o s ecur e a publ i c l aw r el eas e. D ew eyi ndi cat ed that R azz ol i then bec ame angry , poi nt ed hi s fi ngerathi m , and s cr eamed, “I am goi ng t o s ue y ou. I am goi ng t o m ake s ur e y ouras s et s ar e fr ozen. ” D ew eys ubs equent l yfi l ed an i nci dentr eportchar gi ng R azz ol i w i th: 1) thr eat eni ng anotherw i th bodi l yharm , 2) in te rf e ri n g w ith s ta f

f in p e rf o rm a n c e o f

d u tie s , a n d 3 ) i n s o le n c e to w a rd s a s ta f f m e m b e r. As a r e s u l to f

h i s c o n d u c t , Ra z z o l i wa s p l a c e d i n th e S p e c i a l Ho u s i n g Un i t( S HU) a n d c o n ten d s th a t th is, a n d th e in c id e n t re p o rt, w h ich h e a lleg e d w a s f a lse , w e re iss u e d in r et al i at i on fors eeki ng r el i ef thr ough the court s . R azz ol i w as gi ven a di s ci pl i naryhear i ng on Sept ember1, 2004, and found gui l tyof the pr ohi bi t ed ac tof i nt er fer i ng w i th a s t aff m emberi n per form ance of dut i es . H e w as s anct i oned as a r es ul t . O ne of the s anct i ons he r ece i ved w as for fei tur e of f i ft een da y s of s t atut orygood t i m e cr edi t . R azz ol i , pr ocee di ngR azz ol i actual l yfi l ed hi s compl ai ntal l egi ng a vi ol at i on of 42 U . S. C . § 1983; 1 how everthe D i s tr i ctC our tcons trued the compl ai ntas al l egi ng a B i vens act i on. T h e D istric t C o u rt h a d ju risd ictio n p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § § 1 3 3 1 , 1 3 4 6 . T h is 2 C o u rt ’s a p p e lla te ju ri s d ic tio n a ri s e s u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . 3 p ro se , the n f

iled th e in sta n t B i vens a c tio n a g a in st th e D ire c to r o f B u re a u o f

P riso n s, K e ith D ew ey , and nu m erous ot her part i es. See Bi vens v. Si x U nknow n N

am ed Agent

s of Fed. 1 B ur eau of

N ar cot i cs , 4 0 3 U . S . 3 8 8 (19 7 1 ). T he D i stri ctC ou rtcon strued R azzoli ’s com plai nt as al l eging a clai m for Fir st A m en d m en t r etali ati o n . R az zo li fil ed a m o ti o n , an d b ri ef in su p p o rt , fo r sum m ary j udgm enton M ar ch 21, 2005, al ong w i th a s w orn “Suppor t i ng A ffi davi t ” att es t i ng t o t he tru th o f th e e v e n ts a s d e taile d in th e su p p o rtin g b rie f. O n M a y9 , 2 0 0 5 , the D e f e n d a n ts fi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s or , i n t he al t ernat i ve, fors um m aryj udgm ent . A n excha nge of fi l i ngs on the partof both part i es ens ued. O ne s uch fi l i ng pert i nentt o thi s appea l i s that o n Jan u ary6 , 2 0 0 6 , R az zo li fil ed a “ N o ti ce o f R etali atoryT ran sfe r [a n d ] ‘ R enewal ’ of R eques tforA ppoi nt m entof C ouns el . ” I n thi s N ot i ce, R azz ol i al l eged “ ‘ fur theract s ’ of r et al i at i on” and “ r enew ed” hi s r eques tforcouns el . T he D i s tr i ctC our ttr eat ed thi s m ot i on as one forcouns el and deni ed i ton M ar ch 26, 2006. I n the s ame or der , tr eat i ng the D efe ndant s ’ m ot i on as one fors um m aryj udgm ent , the D i s tr i ctC our ti s s ued a m e m o ra n d u m a n d o rd e r g ra n tin g th e D e f e n d a n ts’ m o tio n . R a z z o li t im e lya p p e a led to th is C o u rt. 2 T h e re a re f

o u r i s s u e s p re s e n te d in th is a p p e a l, th e f ir s t th re e a t th is C o u rt ’s re q u e s t.4

T h e iss u e s a re : 1 ) d id th e a p p e llan t h a v e a d e q u a te n o tice o f th e D istric t C o u rt’s in ten t to convertD efe ndant s ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s , oral t ernat i vel y , fors um m aryj udgm enti nt o a m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , pur s uantt o R o se v . B a rtle , 8 7 1 F . 2 d 3 3 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 9 ); 2) should t he D i stri ctC ou rthav e con strued plai nti ff’s not i ce of ret al i at orytransferas a m oti on t o am end the co m plai nt; 3) w hat effect , i f any , do es Heck v. H um phr ey , 51 2 U. S. 4 7 7 (1 9 9 4 ), h a v e o n th is m a tter; a n d 4 ) d id th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se its d isc re tio n in d e n y in g R a z z o li’s re q u e sts f o r a p p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n se l? I n R o se v . B a rtle , w e hel d t hatal l part i es m us tbe gi ven the opportuni tyt o pr es ent m at er i al t o t he courtw hen the courtconvert s a mot i on t o di s m i s s i nt o a mot i on for su m m a ryju d g m e n t. 87 1 F .2 d a t 3 4 0 . W e f u rth e r h e ld th a t “[ t]h e p a rties c a n e x e rc ise th is oppor tuni tyonl yi f theyhave not i ce of the conve r s i on. ” Id . W e fi nd thatR azz ol i had ad eq u ate n o ti ce that the C o u rtw o u ld co n v ert D ef en d an ts’ m o ti o n into o n e f o r sum m ary j udgm ent , as w el l as an ade quat e opportuni tyt o pr es entm at er i al t o the C our t . I n Hilf irty v. Shi pm an , w e det erm i ned thatthe pl ai nt i ff ha d adequa t e not i ce w her e “tw o of the fi ve m ot i ons t o di s m i s s w er e fr amed i n the al t ernat i ve as m ot i ons fors um m aryj udgm ent . ” 91 F. 3d 573, 578–79 ( 3d C i r . 1996) . I n Hilf irty , w e al s o cons i der ed thatthe pl ai nt i ff ha d an o p p o r tu n i tyt o r e s p o n d f o ro v e ra p e r i o d o f

n e a r l ye i g h tmo n th s a n d s u b mi t t e d h e ro wn a f f id a v it w ith h e r o w n b ri e f. Id . at579. W hi l e w e r ecogni ze thatthe pl ai nt i ff i n Hilf irty w as r epr es ent ed bycouns el and thatR azz ol i pr ocee ded pr o s e, w e bel i eve thatundert he c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f

th is c a s e , Hilf

irty i s det erm i nat i ve. R azz ol i otherw i s e had not i ce of t heT h is la n g u a g e in c lu d e d : 3 I n 

### Celote

x [ Co rp . v. C

a trett , 477 U. S. 317, 324 ( 1986) ] , the C our thel d that “R ul e 56( e) . . . r equi r es [] the nonmovi ng partyt o go bey ond the pl eadi ngs a n d b yh e r o w n a f

f id a v its, o r b yth e “ d e p o sitio n s, a n sw e rs to i nt err ogat or i es , and admi s s i ons on fi l e, ” des i gnat e “s peci fi c fa ct s s how i ng thatther e i s a genui ne i s s ue fortr i al . ” Id . at324. A ddi t i onal l y , an oppos i ng part ym us tadduce m or e than a mer e s ci nt i l l a of e vi dence i n i t s favor , and c a n n o t sim p lyre a ss e rt f a c tu a llyu n su p p o rte d a lleg a tio n s c o n tain e d in its p le a d in g s . A nders on v. Li ber t y Lobby, I

nc. , 4 7 7 U .S . 2 4 2 (1 9 8 6 ); 

### Celote x , 477 U . S. at325. B ri ef in S u p p o rto f D ef

en d an ts’ M o ti o n to D ism iss or, in the A lt ern ati v e, fo r S u m m ary J udgm entat10, R azz ol i v. D i r ect or , B ur eau of Pr i s ons , etal . , N o. 04- 2492 ( M . D . Pa. J u n e 1 0 , 2 0 0 5 ). 5 r equi r ement s and cons equenc es of s um m aryj udgm ent , and the D efe ndant s ’ m ot i on i n the al t ernat i ve fors um m aryj udgm entpr ovi ded R azz ol i w i th adequa t e not i ce of the co n v ersion u n d er Hilf

irty . Fi r s t , the D efe ndant s ’ s br i ef i n s uppor tof thei rm ot i on s peci fi cal l ys t at es that “D efe ndant s ar e ent i t l ed ei thert o di s m i s s al ort o an entryof s um m aryj udgm entunder Fed. R . C i v. P. 56. ” The D efe ndant s then ci t ed t o Supr eme C our tcas e l aw expl ai ni ng t he s peci fi c r equi r ement s of the partyoppos i ng the mot i on. Second, the M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof 3 Penns y l vani a pr ovi des al l pr o s e i nm at es w i th not i ce of the cons equenc es of R ul e 56 s um m aryj udgm ent , as w el l as thei rr es pons i bi l i t i es pur s uantt o L ocal R ul es 7. 1– 7. 10, 26. 4, 56. 1 and Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 56. T hi s not i ce i s pr ovi ded cons i s t ent w i th a St andi ng O r derof the M i ddl e D i s tr i ct , and the r ecor d r efl ect s thatR azz ol i w as p ro v id e d w ith a c o p yo f th is d o c u m e n t a t le a s t th re e tim e s p ri o r t o th e in s ta n t C o m p la in t.W e r evi ew an or derdeny i ng a mot i on t o s uppl ementa compl ai ntforabus e of 4 d is c re tio n . Se e Kra nt

zv . Pr ude nt i al

I nvs . Fund

M gmt . LLC , 3 0 5 F . 3 d 1 4 0 , 1 4 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). 6 T hi r d, R azz ol i ’ s fi l i ngs w i th t he D i s tr i ctC our tevi dence an under s t andi ng of the Feder al R ul e. I ndeed, R azz ol i fi l ed hi s ow n m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , w hi ch i ncl uded a one par agr aph not ar i zed s w orn aff i davi tent i t l ed “Support i ng A ffi davi t . ” I n anotherfi l i ng b ef o re the C o u rt , R az zo li arg u ed that the D ef en d an ts did n o t t im elyfil e a b ri ef in su p p o rt o f th e irm o tio n f

o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t, th e re b ye v id e n c in g f a m ilia ri ty w ith th e lo c a l ru le s . G iven thes e f

ac tors, w e a re sa ti sfied that R az zo li h ad ad eq u ate n o ti ce u n d er R os e v. B a rtle . W ith re sp e c t to th e se c o n d iss u e b e f o re u s, th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its dis cret i on w hen i tfai l ed to con strue R azzoli ’s “N oti ce of R et al i at oryT ransfer ” as a m ot i on t o s uppl ementthe compl ai nt . W hi l e i ti s bey ond di s put e thata di s tr i ctcourthas 4 a n o b lig a tio n to c o n s tru e p ro s e p la in tif f s ’ p le a d in g s lib e ra lly, s ee, e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. Mi l l er , 1 9 7 F . 3 d 6 4 4 , 6 4 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ), an d a re aso n ab le co n stru cti o n o f R az zo li ’s s ubm i s s i on as s ert ed an a ddi t i onal cl ai m of r et al i at i on, i tw as notan abus e of di s cr et i on for the D i s tr i ctC our tt o nots o cons true i t . I ndeed, a D i s tr i ctC our ti s notunderan obl i gat i on t o r evi ew everypr i s onerfi l i ng t o det erm i ne i f i tr ai s es new cogni zabl e cl ai m s oradds addi t i onal fac t s t o a compl ai nt . T hi s i s part i cul ar l ytrue w her e, as her e, R azz ol i had p re v io u slyf

iled a m o tio n to a m e n d h is c o m p lain t an d a m o tio n to su p p lem e n t h is c o m p lain t, m a k in g th e D istric t C o u rt a w a re th a t if h e in ten d e d to su p p lem e n t h isT he Heck doctr i ne appl i es equal l yt o B i vens a c tio n s a n d § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n s . Lora- P ena 5 v. F. B . I. , 529 F. 3d 503, 506 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( “A l though Heck i nvol ved a § 1983 a ct i on by a s t at e pr i s oner , the r eas oni ng i n Heck h as b ee n ap p li ed to b ar B i vens c la im s .” ). See a l so C l em ent e v. A l l en , 1 2 0 F .3 d 7 0 3 , 7 0 5 (7 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ( c itin g c a s e s ). A s the D i s tr i ctC our tnot ed, R azz ol i does notappea rt o s eek the r es t or at i on of the 6 l os s of good t i m e cr edi t . A nys uch cha l l enge t o due pr oces s i n the cour s e of the di s ci pl i naryhear i ng and r es ul t i ng l os s of good t i m e cr edi tw i l l notl i e under§ 1983. T he Supr eme C our thas hel d t hata § 1983 ac t i on w i l l notl i e w hen a s t at e pr i s onerchal l enges “the fa ctordur at i on of hi s confi nement , ” and s eeks ei ther“i m m edi at e r el eas e fr om p ri s o n ,” o r t h e “ s h o rt e n in g ” o f h is te rm o f

c o n f in e m e n t. W

i lki ns on v. D ot

s on , 54 4 U. S. 74, 79 ( 2005) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . “B eca us e an a ct i on forr es t or at i on of g o o d -tim e c re d its in e f

f e c t d e m a n d s im m e d iate re lea se o r a sh o rte r p e rio d o f d e ten tio n , it att acks “the verydur at i on of . . . phy s i cal confi nement , ” and thus l i es at“the cor e of habea s corpus . ” Id . (c ita tio n s o m itte d ). 7 c o mp l a i n ta n a d d i t i o n a l t i me , h e h a d th e k n o wl e d g e a n d a b i l i tyt o d o s o . As s u c h , we c o n c lu d e th a t th e D is tr ic t C o u rt d id n o t a b u s e its d is c re tio n . T h ir d , w e c o n s id e r w h a t e f f e c t, if a n y , Heck

v. H um phr ey , 5 1 2 U . S . 4 7 7 (19 9 4 ), has on thi s m att er . W e conc l ude thatR azz ol i ’ s cl ai m thathi s di s ci pl i naryi nfr act i on w as 5 p re tex t f o r re talia tio n is b a rre d a s a m a tter o f law , b e c a u se h is c laim is in e f f e c t a c o llate ra l atta c k o n th e d u ra tio n o f h is c o n f in e m e n t. 6 I n H eck , the Supr eme C our ti m pos ed a f avor abl e t erm i nat i on r equi r ementupon p riso n e r p lain tiff

s s e e k in g re lief

u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 . T h e C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t a l i t i gantcoul d notpr ocee d w i th hi s § 1983 damages act i on w hen the cons t i tut i onal ques t i ons i n t hats ui t , i f r es ol ved fa vor abl yt o the cl ai m ant , w oul d nece s s ar i l yunderm i ne the v ali d ityo f h is prior co n v ict ion . A fter Heck , the C our taddr es s ed the ques t i on of w hether“a c l ai m fordamages and dec l ar at oryr el i ef br oughtbya s t at e pr i s onerW e as s um e, w i thoutdeci di ng, thatR azz ol i ’ s thr eatt o s ue D ew eycons t i tut es 7 c o n s titu tio n a lly “ p ro te c te d a c tiv ity.” 8 c h a llen g in g th e v a lid ityo f th e p ro c e d u re s u se d to d e p riv e h im o f g o o d -tim e c re d its is cogni zabl e under§ 1983. ” E dw ar ds v. B al is ok , 5 2 0 U .S . 6 4 1 , 6 4 3 (1 9 9 7 ). I n th a t c a s e , a p ri s o n e r w a s c h a rg e d w ith , a n d f o u n d g u ilty o f

, f o u r p ri s o n in f

ra c tio n s . Id . H e w as s e n te n c e d to , in tera lia , depr i vat i on of 30 day s good- t i m e cr edi the had pr evi ous l yearned to w a rd h is re le a s e . Id . T he pr i s onercl ai m ed thathi s hear i ng offi cerconce al ed excul pat oryw i tnes s s t at ement s and r efus ed t o as k s peci fi ed ques t i ons of r eques t ed w itn e s s e s . Id . at644. T he C our tfound thatthi s “pr i nci pal pr ocedur al defe ctcompl ai ned of byr es pondentw oul d, i f es t abl i s hed, nece s s ar i l yi m pl ythe i nval i di tyof the depr i vat i on o f h is g o o d -t im e c re d its .” Id . at646. A s a re su lt, it co n c lu d e d th a t th e p riso n e r’s c laim fordecl ar at oryr el i ef a nd m oneydamages w as notcogni zabl e under§ 1983, beca us e i f the a lleg a tio n s o f

d e c e it an d b ias o n th e p a rt o f th e d e c isio n m a k e r w e re tru e , the yw o u ld n e c e s s a ri ly im p ly th e in v a lid ity o f th e p u n is h m e n t im p o s e d . Id . at648. L ik e w ise , if R azz ol i s ucce s s ful l ydemonstr at ed thathi s s anct i ons w er e the r es ul tof r et al i at i on for engagi ng i n cons t i tut i onal l ypr ot ect ed ac t i vi ty , hi s s ucce s s w oul d “nec es s ar i l yi m pl yt he 7 i nval i di tyof the puni s hm enti m pos ed. ” See W i lki ns on v. D ot

s on , 5 4 4 U .S . 7 4 , 8 1 (2 0 0 5 ). R azz ol i qui t e corr ect l ypoi nt s outthat§ 1983 r emai ns avai l abl e forpr ocedur al chal l enges w her e s ucce s s i n t he ac t i on w oul d notnece s s ar i l ys pel l i m m edi at e ors peedi er re le a s e f o r t h e p ri s o n e r. Id . ( ci t i ng W o lff v . M cD o n n e ll , 4 1 8 U . S . 5 3 9 , 5 5 4 (19 7 4 )). In9

W i lki ns on , p ri s o n e rs c h a lle n g e d th e s ta te p ro c e d u re s u s e d to d e n yp a ro le e lig ib ility. Id . T he S up rem e C ou rtcon cl ud ed thatthe co re of hab eas r el i ef w as not i m pli cat ed b ecause the conne ct i on betw een the cons t i tut i onal i tyof the pr i s oner s ’ par ol e pr ocee di ngs and re le a s e f ro m c o n f in e m e n t w a s to o te n u o u s . Id . at82. A favor abl e j udgm entforthe p ri s o n e rs d id n o t n e c e s s a ri ly im p ly th a t th e d e n ia l o f th e irp a ro le w a s in v a lid . Id . ( “ [ A] favor abl e j udgm entw i l l not‘ nece s s ar i l yi m pl ythe i nval i di tyof [thei r ] convi ct i on[s ] or se n ten c e [ s].’” ). S u c c e ss f o r th e p riso n e r p lain tiff s m e a n t n o th in g m o re th a n a n e w p a ro le hear i ng atw hi ch the par ol e author i t i es coul d cont i nue t o decl i ne t o s hor t en thei rpr i s on te rm s . Id . ( “Succe s s . . . m eans atm os ta new par ol e hea r i ng. ”) . W hi l e i ti s true that R a z z o li w a s re q u ire d to su b m it an a c c e p tab le r e lea se p lan p rio r to b e in g p a ro led , this argum ent i s a r ed h err i ng . T he fa ctthat R azzoli ’s ow n co nd uct ( or l ack thereof) w as a cons tr ai nton hi s r el eas e does notnegat e the r eal i tythati f he pr evai l ed on hi s cl ai m of unl aw ful r et al i at i on, thatvi ct oryw oul d nece s s ar i l yi m pl ythe unl aw ful nes s of the sa n c tio n s im p o se d . T h e d ire c t an d n a tu ra l co n se q u e n c e o f re sc in d in g th e sa n c tio n s w o u ld b e a re s to ra tio n o f

g o o d tim e c re d its th a t b yth e irv e ry n a tu re d ic ta te a s p e e d ie r r e le a s e . A s s uch, w e conc l ude thatthe Heck b a ra p p l i e s t o Ra z z o l i ’ s c l a i m. F inally , the D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t abu se it s d iscreti o n w h en itd en ied R az zo li ’s req u ests fo r co u n sel. W h il e w e a g ree that the D istri ct C o u rtco u ld h av e b ee n m o re thor ough i n r evi ew i ng the fa ct or s art i cul at ed i n Tabron v . G r ace , 6 F . 3 d 1 4 7 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ), th e C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in lig h t o f R a z z o li’s d e m o n stra ted a b ili tyto10

presenthis ow n case an d the factthat the D efen dan t s w ere ent i t l ed to j ud gm ent as a m a tte r o f la w . A lb e it o n d if

f e re n t g ro u n d s , w e h a v e c o n c lu d e d th e s a m e . A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill a f f irm th e 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 in f a v o r o f th e D e f e n d a n ts .