2009 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 Third C ircuit 11-16-2009 

# Rob e rt S aunde rs v

. Paul H oward P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-1654

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://digit alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc ircuit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s by 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 Third C irc uit at V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Digit al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s by an authori z e d a dmini s trat or of V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Digit al Reposit ory

. F or more inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Ro be r t S aunde r s v

. P aul H oward " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 252. http://digit alc ommon s .l a

w . vill anova . e du/thirdc ircuit_2009/252A L D - 026 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. 09- 1654

___________ SHA M SI DI N A LI a/k/a R ob ertS aun ders,

A ppel l ant v . A dul tB ur eau Chi ef PA U L H O W A R D ; W ar den R I C K K E A R N E Y ; D eputyW ar den M I CHAEL DE LOY; Lt . EARL M ES S I CK; Lt . J OSE P H J OHN S ON; Cp l . F I S HER; T HOMAS CA RR OL L ; CO RR E CT I ONAL M E DI CA L S YS T E M S ; J ANE M OR GAN; ANT HONY J . RE NDI NA; Cap t . C. S E GAR S ; Co mm i s s i o n e rS T ANL E Y T AYL OR

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fo r th e D istri ct of

D elaw are ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 05- cv- 102) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Sue L. R obi ns on

____________________________________ S u b mi tt 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 O ct ober29, 2009 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: N ovember16, 2009 )

_________ OP I NI ON

_________2

P E R C UR I AM R ob ertS aun ders ( a/k/a Sham si din A l i ), a D el aw are s t at e i nm at e, app eal s pro se fro m o rde rs bythe D istri ct C o u rtg ran ti n g the d ef en d an ts’ m o ti o n s fo r sum m ary j udgm ent . B ecaus e the appe al i s l acki ng i n ar guabl e l egal m er i t , w e w i l l di s m i s s i tunder 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )( 2 )( B ). I . B efore revi ew i ng the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s orders , w e m ustfi rs tadd res s appell ees’ m ot i on t o vaca t e thi s C ourt ’ s or dergr ant i ng A l i i n form a paupe r i s s t atus . A ppel l ees m ove t o r evoke A l i ’ s i n form a paupe r i s s t atus byar gui ng thathe has thr ee s tr i kes under 28 U . S. C . § 1915( g) . I n turn, thi s C ourtdi r ect ed appe l l ees t o s uppl ementthei rm ot i on w i th copi es of anyor der s and/ oropi ni ons di s m i s s i ng A l i ’ s pr i orcompl ai nt s as fr i vol ous orforfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef c an be gr ant ed. A ppel l ees fi l ed a s uppl ementi dent i fy i ng tw o cas es i n w hi ch A l i ’ s ci vi l act i ons we r e d i s mi s s e d : Al i v . Ne a l , D. De l . Ci v . No . 9 1 - c v - 0 0 6 9 7 - L ON a n d Al i v . T a y l o r , D. D el . C i v. N o. 00 -cv- 00 80 4-R R M . W e agree w i th ap pell ees that each case con st i tutes a s tr i ke aga i ns tA l i forthe purpos e of § 1915( g) . A ppel l ees al s o ar gue thatSander s v. T a y l o r , C. A. 0 1 - 2 1 7 5 , i n wh i c h th i s Co u rta f f i rme d th e Di s tr i c tCo u rt ’ s d i s mi s s a l i n C. A. N o. 00- 804- R R M , s houl d countas a thi r d s tr i ke aga i ns tA l i . Pur s uantt o the l anguage of § 1915( g) , how ever , a pr i s oneri s barr ed fr om br i ngi ng “an a ct i on orappea l i n a courtof the U nit ed S t at es that w as dis m is s ed o n th e g ro u n d s th a t itis f riv o lo u s, m a licio u s, o r f a ilsA li a ls o a lle g e d v io la tio n s o f D e la w a re s ta te la w , b u t f a ile d to s p e c if

yw h ic h la w s . 1 3 to sta te a c laim u p o n w h ich re lief m a yb e g ra n ted .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (g ) (e m p h a sis added) . T he pl ai n l anguage of the s t atut e thus l i m i t s the appl i cat i on of a s tr i ke t o a d ism issal, n o t an a ff

irm an ce o f a d ism issal. S ee Jen n ing s v . N atron a C o u n tyD et. C tr . M ed. Faci l i ty , 175 F. 3d 775, 780 ( 10th C i r . 1999) . A ccor di ngl y , A l i m aynotbe c o n sid e re d a th ird -strik e r f o r th e p u rp o se s o f

th is a p p e a l. H o w e v e r, af

terre v iew in g A li’s liti g a tio n h isto rya n d c o n sid e rin g th e lac k o f m e rit i n the i ns t antappea l , w e w i l l di s m i s s the appe al under§ 1915( e) ( 2) . T hi s di s m i s s al co n sti tutes A li ’s th ir d str ike. A li ca n n o lon g er p roc ee d in a c ivil ac ti o n o r ap p ea l un d er § 1915 w i thoutpr epaym entof fe es unl es s he demonstr at es thathe i s underi m m i nent d a n g e r o f

s e ri o u s p h y s ic a l in

ju ry. 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (g ).

II. T u rn i n g t o th e me r i t s o f th e a p p e a l , Al i i n i t i a t e d th i s l a ws u i ti n F e b ru a ry2 0 0 5 . At this t i m e, A l i w as i ncarcerat ed at the S ussex C orr ect i on al Inst i tute ( “S C I”) , bu the w as su b seq u en tl ytr an sfe rred to D elaw are C o rrecti o n al C en ter (“D C C ”). T h e D istri ct C o u rt p e rm itt e d h im to f

ile tw o a m e n d e d c o m p lain ts to c lar if yth e c laim s ra ise d in h is c iv il r i ght s act i on fi l ed pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1983 foral l eged vi ol at i ons of the Fi r s t , E i ghth, and Fourt eenth A m endment s , as w el l as the A m er i cans w i th D i s abi l i t i es A ct( “A D A ”) , 42 U . S. C . § 12132, and the R ehabi l i t at i on A ct . H i s compl ai ntal l eges thatthes e vi ol at i ons 1 occu rr ed d uri ng his i ncarcerat i on atbo th p ri sons.A l i al s o al l eges thatpr i s on offi ci al s vi ol at ed hi s r i ght s byi gnor i ng hi s m edi cal 2 c o n d iti o n w h e n h e w a s re -c las sif ied a n d tra n sf

e rre d to D C C . T h e D istric t C o u rt c o rre c tly di s m i s s ed thi s cl ai m atan ea r l i erpoi nti n the l i t i gat i on. See e. g. , M oodyv. D aggett , 429 U . S. 78, 88 n. 9 ( 1976) ( D ue Pr oces s C l aus e noti m pl i cat ed bypr i s on offi ci al s ’ deci s i ons con cerni ng i nm at e cl assi fi cat i on s) ; M eachu m v. F ano , 42 7 U . S . 21 5, 22 4 (197 6). A l i al so admi tt ed athi s depos i t i on thatthi s new hous i ng as s i gnm entm ade one of hi s r eques t ed a c c o m m o d a tio n s u n n e c e ss a ry , an d th e re f o re , h is c laim is m o o t. 4 A l i di vi ded hi s A m ended Com pl ai nti nt o fourcount s . I n C ount s I and I I I , he a lleg e s th a t h e w a s s u b

jec ted to “ ill e g a l ce n so rin g o f leg a l an d p e rso n a l m a il” w h ile i ncarcerat ed at SC I. A ccordi ng t o A l i , as partof “a cam paign of i nfri ng em ent [of his ] F irst A m e n d m e n t rig h ts,” v a rio u s n a m e d d e f e n d a n ts h a v e o p e n e d , rea d , an d re -ta p e d a ll of hi s out goi ng and i ncomi ng m ai l out s i de of hi s pr es ence . A l i al s o s urm i s es thathe w as su b jected to retali atoryac ti o n s af ter fil ing co m p lai n ts r eg ard ing p ri so n co n d it ion s at S C I, i ncl udi ng r aci al di s par i t i es i n i nm at e tr eatm ent , r el i gi ous i s s ues , and medi cal car e. 2 I n C ountI I , A l i al l eges thathe i s a “qua l i fi ed i ndi vi dual w i th di s abi l i t i es ” under th e A D A , 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 2 1 3 2 , an d th e R e h a b ili tatio n A c t; y e t, pr iso n o f f icia ls re f u se d to pr ovi de hi m w i th r eas onabl e ac comm odat i ons . Forexampl e, A l i ci t es thathe has been d e p riv e d o f

a c a n e f o r w a lk in g , se rv e d c o ld f o o d th re e tim e s a d a y , w a s f o rc e d to w a lk dis t ances eq uival ent t o a cityblock, and shackled for vis i t s and int ervi ew s. A l i al so al l eges thathi s s i ck ca l l r eques t s and emer gencygr i evanc es r egar di ng hi s m edi cal condi t i ons w er e i gnor ed. I n addi t i on t o vi ol at i ons of the A D A , he al l eges thatpr i s on offi ci al s ’ conductr i s es t o an Ei ghth A m endmentvi ol at i on. Fi nal l y , i n C ountI V , A l i al l eges thatdefe ndant s fai l ed t o addr es s hi s m edi calA l i i m pr oper l yi dent i fi ed C M S as C orr ect i onal M edi cal Sy s t ems i n hi s A m ended 3 C o m p lain t. A l i named defenda ntSegar s w ho w as neverpr oper l ys erved w i th the compl ai nt , and 4 th e re f o re , the D istric t C o u rt d id n o t in c lu d e h im a s a p a rtyo r a s p a rt o f th e “ S tate D efe ndant s . ” I n addi t i on, al though A l i or i gi nal l ys oughtdamages fr om “D epartm entof C orr ect i ons , ” he vol unt ar i l yfi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s D O C as a def endant , w hi ch the c o u rtg r a n t e d . Al i a l s o a tt e mp t e d t o a d d c l a i ms a g a i n s ttwo n e w d e f e n d a n t s , I h u e ma C huks and C ry s t al A us t i n, butthe D i s tr i ctC ourtdi d notgr antl eave t o add thes e new p a rt ie s . 5 needs , al s o amount i ng t o E i ghth A m endmentvi ol at i ons . Speci fi cal l y , A l i al l eges that d e f e n d a n ts ig n o re d h is m e d ica l ap p o in tm e n ts, f a iled to a d d re ss c o ld d iets , an d f a iled to cons i derhi s hous i ng as s i gnm enti n l i ghtof hi s phy s i cal di s abi l i t i es . A ddi t i onal l y , he a lleg e d th a t C o rre c tio n a l M e d ica l S e rv ice s, In c . (“C M S ” ) f a iled to a d d re ss h is s ick -c a ll 3 r eques t s and mi s tr eat ed a c ondi t i on w hi ch he be l i eved w as the i ni t i al s t ages of M ethi ci l l i n- R es i s t antSt aphy l ococc us A uerus ( “M R SA ”) i nfec t i on. A l i not es thathe r ece i ved medi cal tr eatm ent , w as s een byvar i ous phy s i ci ans , and r ece i ved medi cat i on. D efe ndantC M S m oved fors um m aryj udgm ent , ar gui ng, i nt eral i a, thatA l i fai l ed t o demonstr at e del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence underthe Ei ghth A m endmentand thata § 1983 cl ai m cannotbe mai nt ai ned undera theoryof r es pondeats uper i or . T he r emai ni ng d ef en d an ts, co ll ec ti v elyiden ti fied as “ S tat e D ef en d an ts, ” a lso m o v ed fo r sum m ary ju d g m e n t b a se d o n a n u m b e r o f a rg u m e n ts, in c lu d in g q u a lifie d im m u n itya n d th a t A li fai l s t o demonstr at e thatanyof hi s al l egat i ons amountt o vi ol at i ons of fe der al or c o n s t i tu t i o n a l l a w. 4 T h e M a g istra te J u d g e re c o m m e n d e d g ra n tin g su m m a ryju d g m e n t in f a v o r o f a ll6

defe ndant s . T he D i s tr i ctC ourtagr eed, adopt ed the r eportas the opi ni on of the court , and d e n ie d A li r e lie f

, a s w e ll a s a ll o th e r p e n d in g m o tio n s . A li tim e ly ap p e a le d . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 . Be c a u s e Al i i s p r o c e e d i n g i n f o rma p a u p e ris, w e m u st d ism iss th e a p p e a l u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )(2 )(B ) if it i s la c k in g in a rg u a b le m e rit. S e e N e itzk e v . W ill iam s, 4 9 0 U .S . 3 1 9 , 3 2 5 (1 9 8 9 ). O u r re v iew is p lena ry . S ee K au ch er v . C o u n tyo f B u ck s, 4 5 5 F . 3 d 4 1 8 , 4 2 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). S u m m ary j udgm enti s pr operi f the r ecor d demonstr at es thatther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o any mat e r i a l fa c ta nd the mova nti s e nt i t l e d t o j ud gmen ta s a matt e rof l a w . Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 5 6 (c ). III . T he Supr eme C ourthas r ecogni zed thatpr i s oner s have pr ot ect ed Fi r s tA m endment i nt er es t s i n both s endi ng and r ece i vi ng m ai l . See Thornbur gh v. A bbott , 490 U . S. 401 ( 1989) ; T urnerv. Safl ey , 482 U . S. 78 ( 1987) . H ow ever , the r i ght s of pr i s oner s “mustbe ex erc ised w ith d u e re g ard fo r th e ‘ino rdin atelyd ifficu ltu n d ertak ing ’ th at i s m o d ern p ri s o n a d m in is tr a tio n .” T h o rn b u rg h , 4 9 0 U .S . a t 4 0 7 (q u o tin g T u rn e r, 4 8 2 U .S . a t 8 5 ). A s the D i s tr i ctC ourtfound, A l i expl ai ned thathi s di s s at i s fac t i on w i th the pr i s on m a ilro o m ste m m e d f

ro m “ a b o u t f

iv e o r six ” lette rs th a t w e re o p e n e d o u tsid e o f h is pr e s e nc e . A thi s de po s i t i on , A l i s t a t e d tha tthe l e tt e r s w e r e fr om tw o s e na t or s a nd a U . S. R epr es ent at i ve, w hi ch do notcons t i tut e l egal m ai l and ar e nototherw i s e des ervi ng of g re a te r c o n s titu tio n a l p ro te c tio n . S e e F o n tr o yv . B e a rd , 5 5 9 F .3 d 1 7 3 , 1 7 4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ).A thi s depos i t i on, A l i s t at ed thatone l ett erhe had w r i tt en t o a l aw y erw as opened but 5 th a t th e p ri s o n s ta te d th a t it w a s o p e n e d b ym is ta k e . 7 F u rth e rm o re , d e f

e n d a n ts s e t f

o rth a re a so n a b le ju stif

ica tio n f o r tra c k in g A li’s m a il: A li v io late d th e m a il p o licyb yse n d in g c o rre sp o n d e n c e to a n o th e r in m a te. D e f e n d a n ts n o te th a t th e p riso n a d v ise d h im th a t h is m a il w o u ld b e se a rc h e d , as lo n g a s it w a s n o t cle a rly m arked “Legal M ai l . ” A l i pr ovi des no evi dence t o s upportthatthe al l egedl y“fi ve ors i x” op ened l et t ers w ere m arked as l egal m ai l , and therefore, he can no test abli sh a F i rs t 5 A m en d m en t violati o n . S u m m aryjud g m en t w as p rop er. A li’ s c la im s in v o lv in g re ta lia tio n a re a ls o w ith o u t m e ri t. T o s h o w re ta lia tio n , a pr i s onerm us tdemonstr at e thathe w as engage d i n cons t i tut i onal l ypr ot ect ed conduc t , that th e p riso n o f

f icia ls c a u se d h im to su f f e r “ a d v e rse a c tio n ,” a n d th a t h is c o n stitu tio n a lly p ro te c te d c o n d u c t w a s a m o tiv a tin g f a c to r i n th e o f

f ic ia ls ’ d e c is io n to d is c ip lin e h im . C art erv. M cG r ady , 292 F. 3d 152, 157- 58 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( ci t i ng R aus erv. H orn, 241 F. 3d 330, 333 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ) . H ow ever , pr i s on offi ci al s m ays t i l l pr evai l bypr ovi ng thatthey w o u ld h a v e m a d e th e sa m e d e c isio n e v e n if th e p riso n e r w e re n o t en g a g in g in cons t i tut i onal l ypr ot ect ed conduc t . R aus er , 241 F. 3d at334. H er e, A l i cannots how thatpr i s on offi ci al s w oul d nothave ope ned hi s m ai l i f he h a d n o tf i l e d g r i e v a n c e s o rc o mp l a i n t s r e g a r d i n g p r i s o n c o n d i t i o n s . As d e f e n d a n t s s h o w, A l i ’ s m ai l w as opened ba s ed on hi s vi ol at i on of the pr i s on m ai l pol i cy . T o the ext entthat he ar gues thathi s tr ans ferfr om SC I t o D C C cons t i tut ed r et al i at i on, defe ndant s not e that8

h e re q u ested this tran sfe r, an d thu s, ca n n o t be c o n side red an “a d v erse ac ti o n . ” C arter, 292 F. 3d at157- 58. I n addi t i on, atD C C he cont i nues t o exer ci s e hi s Fi r s tA m endment ri g h ts in s u b s ta n tia lly th e s a m e w a ya s h e d id a t S C I. I n addi t i on, the D i s tr i ctC ourtbr oadl ycons trued A l i ’ s al l egat i on thatpr i s on offi ci al s w er e enga ged i n a “c ampai gn of i nfr i ngement ” t o fi nd thatA l i pl ed a c ons pi r acy c la im . T h e s e b a re c o n c lu s o ry a lle g a tio n s a re in s u f f ic ie n t to s u s ta in a c o n s p ir a c yc la im . See D . R . byL . R . v. M i ddl e B ucks A r ea V ocat i onal T echni cal Sch. , 972 F. 2d 1364, 1377 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) (“[m ]ere c o n clus o ryall eg ati o n s o f d ep ri v ati o n s o f c o n sti tuti o n al ri g h ts” are i ns uffi ci entt o s t at e a c ons pi r acycl ai m ( ci t at i on om i tt ed) ) ; R os e v. B art l e, 871 F. 2d 331, 366 ( 3d C i r . 1989) ( al l egat i ons s upport i ng a cons pi r acycl ai m underci vi l R I C O m us tbe su ff ici en tl ysp ec ifi c). M o reo v er, de fe n d an ts ha d legiti m ate rea so n s fo r op en ing A li ’s p e rso n a l m a il. I V. A l though A l i as s ert s thathe i s a “qua l i fi ed i ndi vi dual ” underthe A D A and the R ehab i l i t at i on A ct , he h as provi ded no evidence to supp ortthe clai m that he has a

“ d is a b ility” a s d e f

in e d b ye ith e r s ta tu te . S e e 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 2 1 0 2 ; 2 9 U .S .C . § 7 0 5 (2 0 ). D u ri n g h is d e p o s itio n , A li te s tif ie d th a t h e is a b le to w a lk w ith o u t th e a s s is ta n c e o f a c a n e . A d d iti o n a lly , co ld f

o o d o r th e o c c a sio n a l d e p riv a tio n o f c o f f e e d o e s n o t co n stitu te d isc rim in a tio n b a se d o n d isa b ili ty , as d iss a tisf a c tio n w ith p riso n c o n d iti o n s d o e s n o t sta te a vi ol at i on underei therthe A D A orR ehabi l i t at i on A ct . A l i al s o fai l ed t o poi ntt o any9

s peci fi c j obs orpr ogr ams thathe had appl i ed forand w as excl uded fr om ordi s cr i m i nat ed agai ns ton the bas i s of hi s di s abi l i ty . T ay l orv. Phoeni xvi l l e Sch. D i s t . , 184 F. 3d 296, 306 ( 3d C i r . 1999) . H i s expec t at i on of bei ng fr ee f r om w ai s tchai ns and s hackl es dur i ng m ovementaboutthe fa ci l i tydoes nots t at e a c l ai m underthe A D A orthe R ehabi l i t at i on A c t. V . Fi nal l y , t o s how a vi ol at i on underthe Ei ghth A m endment , A l i m us ts how “( 1) that the d efen dan t s w ere del i berat el yi nd i fferentt o thei r m edical need s and (2) that tho se n e e d s w e re se rio u s.” R o u se v . P lan tier, 1 8 2 F .3 d 1 9 2 , 1 9 7 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 9 ) (c iti n g E ste lle v. G ambl e, 429 U . S. 97, 106 ( 1976) ) . T hi s r equi r es A l i t o demonstr at e thatpr i s on offi ci al s had a “ s uffi ci ent l ycul pabl e s t at e of mi nd. ” Farm erv. B r ennan, 511 U . S. 825, 8 3 4 (1 9 9 4 ). S p e c if

ica lly , d e lib e ra te in d if

f e re n c e re q u ire s A li t o sh o w th a t p riso n o f f icia ls k n e w o f a n e x c e s s iv e ri s k to h is h e a lth o r s a f e ty an d a f

f irm a tiv e ly d is re g a rd e d th a t r is k . Id . a t 8 3 7 -3 8 . A s the D i s tr i ctC ourtpr oper l yfound, the r ecor d demonstr at es thatA l i r ece i ved ongoi ng tr eatm entforhi s m edi cal condi t i ons . A l i even a dm i tt ed i n hi s A m ended C o m p l a i n ta n d a td e p o s i t i o n th a th e r e c e i v e d m e d i c a l a tt e n t i o n , i n c l u d i n g tr e a tm e n tb y a d e rm a to lo g ist a n d m e d ica tio n s to tre a t h is s k in c o n d iti o n . R a th e r, th e d isp u te b e tw e e n A li and def endant s i nvol ves the ext entand cour s e of hi s tr eatm ent , w hi ch does nots t at e a cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on underthe Ei ghth A m endment . Sprui l l v. G i l l i s , 372 F. 3d 218, 23510

(3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (“ m e re d isa g re e m e n t as to th e p ro p e r m e d ica l trea tm e n t” is in su f f icie n t to s t at e a c ons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on) . N ot abl y , defe ndant s pr ovi de evi dence thatA l i admi tt ed athi s depos i t i on thatno doct orhas everdi agnos ed hi m w i th M R SA . M or eover , the r ecor d s how s thatA l i r ece i ved tr eatm entbyempl oy ees of C M S betw een 2005 a nd 2007, w hi ch i ncl uded derm at ol ogi cal di agnos i s and tr eatm ent . T o the ext entthatA l i al l eges thatdefe ndant s w er e negl i genti n notr es pondi ng s oonert o hi s m edi cal needs , he does not s t at e a c l ai m forr el i ef. See M onm outh C ountyC orr . I ns t i tut i onal I nm at es v. L anza r o, 8 3 4 F .2 d 3 2 6 , 3 4 6 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 7 ) (c iti n g E ste lle, 4 2 9 U .S . at 1 0 6 & n .1 4 ). A li also f a ils to pr ovi de evi dence s how i ng thatdefe ndant s act ed w i th “s uffi ci ent l ycul pabl e s t at e of m i nd. ” Farm er , 511 U . S. at834. Fi nal l y , t o the ext entthatA l i r ai s es addi t i onal m edi cal condi t i ons i nvol vi ng hi s hi gh bl ood pr es s ur e, he ca nnotes t abl i s h an Ei ghth A m endment cl ai m agai ns tdefe ndant s , as the r ecor d confi rm s thathe r ece i ved tr eatm entand m ed icati o n s. S u m m aryjud g m en t w as p rop er. V I. F in a lly , the M a g istra te J u d g e d e ter m in e d th a t A li i n ten d e d to su e S tate D e f e n d a n ts i n both thei ri ndi vi dual and off i ci al capa ci t i es bas ed on how he l i s t ed mostof the i nd i vidual defe nd ants bynam e and j ob t i t l e, and soug ht punit i ve d am ages from these d e f e n d a n ts in th e A m e n d e d C o m p lain t. Q u a lifie d im m u n itysh ield s th e se d e f e n d a n ts in th e ir in d iv id u a l ca p a c iti e s f ro m d a m a g e s s u its so lo n g a s th e ir c o n d u c t d o e s “ n o t v io late c lea rlye sta b lish e d sta tu to ryo r c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts o f w h ich a re a so n a b le p e rso n w o u ldhave know n. ” H ar l ow v. Fi t zger al d, 457 U . S. 800, 818 ( 1982) ; s ee a l s o R i dgew ood B d.

of Educ. v. N . E . ex r el . M . E . , 172 F. 3d 238, 254 ( 3d C i r . 1999) . W e agr ee, bas ed on the d isc u ss io n a b o v e , tha t th e sta te d e f e n d a n ts a re e n tit led to q u a lifie d im m u n ityb e c a u se th e ir conductdi d notr i s e t o cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i ons . See Pear s on v. C al l ahan, 129 S. C t . 808 (20 0 9 ). F u rth e rm o re , as th e M a g istra te J u d g e f o u n d , the sta te d e f

e n d a n ts a re e n tit led to su m m a ryju d g m e n t f

ro m liab ili tyin th e ir o f

f icia l ca p a c iti e s b a se d o n E lev e n th A m endmenti m m uni ty . A s the St at e of D el aw ar e di d notw ai ve i t s E l eventh A m endment im m u n ity , w e a g ree that A li ’s § 1 9 8 3 claim s ag ains t def en d an ts fo r m o n etaryd am ag es a re b arred . W il l v. M ich. D ep ’to f S tat e P o li ce , 4 9 1 U . S . 5 8 , 7 1 (19 8 9 ). V II. A l i ’ s appea l i s l acki ng i n ar guabl e l egal m er i t , and w e w i l l di s m i s s i tunder28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) . A l i ’ s m ot i on forappoi ntm entof couns el i s deni ed as m oot , and hi s m ot i on demonstr at i ng i m m i nentdangeri s deni ed as unnece s s ary . A ppel l ees ’ m ot i on t o r evoke A l i ’ s i n form a paupe r i s s t atus i s deni ed.

1 1