2004 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 2-26-2004 

# B r i ght v . G i l li s P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-1118

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" B r i gh t v . G i l l i s " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 978. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/978* The Honorable Richar d D. Cudahy, Circuit Court Judge for

the Unite d States Court of Appeals for t

he Seventh Cir cuit, sitting by designation. REPORTED- NOT PRECEDE NTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT NO. 03-1118

________________ MICHAEL BRIGHT, Appellant

v. FR AN K D . GIL LIS , Sup erinten dent; K AN DIS K. D AS CA NI, M s.; GAUDREAU, Off

ic er ; S CI FRACKVILLE; NICHOLAS P . MULLER; KE SS LIN G, L ieute nan t; CE RE LL I, Sg t.; FU JI, M r.; ST UD LA CH , M r.; GR ISS M AN , M r.; FO X, M r.; K NO TT , M r.; TA YL OR , M r.; WEIKE L, Mr. ; HE ARTY, Mr. ; GA Y, Mr. ; T HE ENTI RE ADMI NIS TRATI VE STAF F/ PERS ONNEL OF THE PE NNSYLVANI A STAT E PRI SON SOC IE TY; JAM ES M OR GA N, S uper intend ent; G IL M AT HIS ; DO NA LD R. M OR DE R, D eputy Sup t. ; AN THONY BI VIANA; JOS EPH W. CHESNE Y, Sup er inte nde nt ; R OBERT D.

SH AN NO N; B RU CE K. S M ITH ; DA VID J. SE AR FO SS;

LT. KNE AL; DU RAN T, Captai n;

____________________________________ On A ppeal Fro m the U nited States D istrict Court For th e M iddle D istrict of P enns ylvania (M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 01-cv-01780) District Judge: H onorab le John E . Jones, III

_______________________________________ Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

December 19, 2003 Bef or e: ROTH, McKEE, an d CUDAHY, * Circuit Judges
. (Fil ed February

26, 2004)2 _______________________

OPI NION

_______________________ RO TH , Circu it Judge
. M ichae l Brigh t appe als fro m an adve rse jury ve rdict in th is prison er civil rig hts acti on pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Bright chall enges on appealthe Dist rict Court’s pretri al dis missalof seven of the named defendants a s well as an evident iary ruli ng rendered attria l. We wil l a ffirm. Because we write s olely for the parti es, we assume fami liarity with the hi story

of the case and the cl aims rai sed in Bri ght’s Amended Complaint ; we merely summarize t

he facts ne cessar

y t o our consi derati on of the i ssues on appea l. Bri ght, wit h the ass ist ance of court- appointe d counsel, file d his Amended Complaint a lleging that on August 14, 1995, defendants Kessling, Cerell i, and Fujimoto, all guards at SCI-Coal Township, be at and serio usly in

jure d B righ t and oth er in ma tes a nd t hen den ied a cce ss to me dica l assi stan ce. Defendants Tay lor and Weikel , al so guards at SCI-Coal Township, a llege dly threat ened to kill B right if h e me ntione d the b eating to anyon e. Af ter his tran sfer to SC I-Frac kville in D ecem ber 1 996 , defe ndan t Du rant, a p rison g uard , alleged ly threatene d B right w ith retal iati on if he complained about the SCI-Coal Township beat ing. I n January 1999, aft er Brig ht w as ap prov ed fo r paro le, defe ndan t Kn eal, a gu ard at S CI-F rackv ille, alleged ly issued a false mi sconduct charge in r etal iati on for Bright seeking t o rais e clai ms regardi ng the 1995 beat ing. Defendant Shannon, Deputy

Superint endent at

SCI-Frackvi lle, then3

alle gedly told Bri ght that

he could re main impri soned for t he fulldurati on of his se ntence if he cont inued to pur sue complai nts about the 1995 beat ing. The defe ndan ts mo ved to dism iss the A men ded C om plaint a s barre d by the s tatute of lim itatio ns a nd for f

ailur e to e xha ust a dm inistr ative rem edie s un der 42 U .S.C . § 1997e(a). On January14, 2002, t he Magistrat e Judge is sued a Report in which he rejected the statu te of lim itations d efen se bu t recom men ded th at “all of the cla ims w ith the exception of the August 14, 1995, beati ng clai m and threat s rel ating to the beat ing be dismis sed for fai lure t o exhaust admi nistrati ve remedies .” On February 28, 2002, t

he Distri ct Court a dopted the recommendation “ in tot o.” The matter proceeded thr ough discover y and was se t for a pr e-trial c onference on No vem ber 1 , 2002 . On Oc tober 1 6, 200 2, cou nsel fo r the de fend ants w rote the cour t to advis e of a dispu te betw een th e partie s as to th e num ber o f defenda nts w ho re main ed in the ca se fo llow ing the Distric t Cou rt’s Feb ruary 28 , 2002 , Ord er ado pting th e M agistrate Judge’s Report

and Recommendation. In parti cular, Bright argued that none of the fi fteen
nam ed de fend ants w ere dis misse d fro m the action wh ile the d efen dants argu ed tha t only Kessling, Cerell i, and Fujimoto, the al leged per petrators of the beati ng, remai ned. The Distri ct Court referred t he matter

to the Magist

rate J udge, who iss ued a Report i n which he clar ifie d that t

he only remaini ng defendants are the eight ( Kessling, Cerell i, Fuj imoto, Taylor, W eikel, D uran t, Kne al, and Sha nno n) w ho alle gedly be at Brig ht and mad e threa ts relat ed to his discl osure of t he beati ng. On October 24, 2002, the Distri ct Court i ssued an4

ord er ex pre ssly dis mis sing the s eve n ot her defend ants . Af ter a five- day tria l, a jur y rend ered a ve rdic t in fa vor of th e eig ht d efe nda nts. During the t

rialBright s ought to introduce e vidence of i njuri es suffer ed by ot her inmat es on th e date of h is allege d bea ting, arg uing that it w as ad missib le to sho w “ the m ental sta te of the guar ds when they came in there and assaul ted the se people, including Mr. Bright. ” The Distri ct Court e xcluded the evidence a s unduly prejudi cialto the de fendants and imp rop er u nde r Fe der al R ule o f E vid enc e 40 4(b ). We have juris dicti on pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 over thi s ti mely f iled a ppeal fro m th e D istrict Co urt’s fina l jud gm ent. Bright first c ontends t

hat the Distri ct Court e rred i n dismis sing the seven defe ndan ts prior to trial beca use h e claim s that all f ifteen defe ndan ts we re alleg ed, in paragraph 32 of t

he Amended Com plaint , to have parti cipat ed in the beati ng at SCI-Coal Tow nship . The record is clear, h ow ever, th at Brig ht stated an ex cessiv e forc e claim only as to defe ndants Kessl ing, Cer elli , and Fujimoto as all eged in par agraph 30 of the Amended Com plaint . Paragr aph 32 of the Amended Complaint mer ely alle ged that Bright “ha s good reason to belie ve that some or allof the defendant s who worked at S.C.I. Coa l Tow nship as w ell as some o r all of the defen dants w ho w orked at S .C.I. Frackvil le during the rel evant t ime peri od parti cipat ed in the beati ngs and refus al of medical care,” a

clai m which he believe d “is l ikely to have good evi dentiarysupport a fter a reasonabl e opportuni ty for furt her dis covery

and investigati on.”5

A plainti ff is r equired to give fai r noti ce of a claim and cite t he grounds upon wh ich it rests . Fed . R. C iv. P. 8(a )(2); Swi erki ewi cz v. Sor emaN. A. , 534 U.S. 506, 514 (200 2); see also Me nkow itz v. Pottsdow n M em’l M ed. Ctr. , 154 F.3d 113, 124 (3d Cir. 1998) (expl aining t

hat pla inti ff must ple ad inter alia “the m aterial po ints nec essary to
sus tain r eco ver y”). Bright gave no fair notice that any defendant ot

her than Kess ling, Cere lli, and F ujimo to partic ipated in the a lleged beatin g. H is susp icion th at “som e or all” of the re maining defendants might have part icipated fai led to arti culat e a viabl e clai m and certa inly was insuffi cient

to warrant

a jury tri al on the excessi ve force i ssue as t o any other def endant. If Bright

had lear ned through di scovery , as he t hought he might , that anoth er defenda nt partic ipated in the b eating , he co uld h ave s oug ht to am end h is pleadi ngs appropri atel y. But Bright a pparently gat

hered no such evi dence thr ough discover y, and as the r ecord st ood, the Distri ct Court properly dismis sed the s uggesti on of an excessive force claim as to the other defendants. Bright next

clai ms that t

he defendants “waived” their contention that the Dist rict Co urt d ism issed all de fen dan ts oth er th an th ose wh o alle ged ly bea t and thre aten ed B righ t. In part icular, Bri ght conte nds that the defendant s’ fai lure t o file timel y obj ecti ons to the January 14, 2002, Repor

t and Recommendation cons tit uted a waiver

of the cl aim that

any defend ant w as d ism issed fro m th e ac tion . Th is arg um ent find s no sup por t in th e rec ord
. Clearl y, the Dist

rict Court int ended with i ts February28, 2002, Order to adopt t

he Magistrat e Judge’s r ecommendation t hat al l cla ims “with t

he excepti on of the August 14,6

1995, beat ing cla im and thre ats r elat ing to t he beati ng” be dismis sed. For reasons unk now n, the D istrict Co urt did n ot iden tify specif ically wh ich of

the m any defenda nts were d ismissed by its ruling, and thus it is unsu rprising that clarification of the Cou rt’s orde r beca me w arrante d. Th e defenda nts, ho we ver, w ere un der n o ob ligation to file object ions t o the Januar y 14, 2002, Report

and Recommendation in order to pr eserve t he right to seek a c lari ficat ion once i t became cl ear that the parti es disputed which defend ants rem aine d. T hus , we find no “ wa iver ” by th e de fen dan ts. Brig ht also c om plains th at he w as de prived of “d ue pr oces s” by the m anne r in which the Dist

rict Court is sued it s October 24, 2002, Order. He suggests t hat he was not given a rea sonable o pportunity to express h is view as to w hich defe ndants, if any, were dismissed. T he record indicates that both the Ma gistrate Judge an d the D istrict Court were made fully

aware of Bright ’s vie w that none of t he fift een defendants had been dismis sed. Bri ght has made no showing on t his appealof any argument or posi tion t hat he was denied a fair opport unity to pres ent. We discern no proc edural unf airnes s or due process vi olati on. Finally, Bright cha llenge s the Dist rict Court’s refusal to permit e vidence at tri al of the specific inj uries ( e.g. , a broken rib) t hat othe r inmate s in hi s housing uni t suffer ed on the dat e of the al leged ass ault upon Bri ght. Bri ght conte nds that this evidence was admissible and warranted “t o show the mentalstat e of the gr oup of 10 to 15 guards that [sic] atta cked plai ntiff

and other prisoner s” and “to c ounter t he affir mative defe nse of7

good faith immunity

that de fendants ha d rais ed.” We revie w the admissibili ty of evid enc e fo r an abu se o f dis creti on. Coleman v. Home Depot, Inc. , 306 F.3d 1333, 1341 (3d Cir . 200 2). Bright cl early

overst ates t

he importance of his e vidence of i njuri es suffer ed by other inmates in e stabl ishi ng his Eight h Amendment claim. I ndeed, even had he been permitted to te ll t

he jury that another inmate suffer ed a broken rib at the hands of the guards who conducted t he search of Bri ght’s hous ing unit , that evide nce was by no means
com pelling , dispo sitive, or e ven n ecess arily relevan t on the ques tion w hethe r the sp ecific guards who used force on Bright ac ted with mal ice. As we have noted, a number of factor s bear on an exc essive force det erminat ion, including: “(1) t he need for t

he applic ation of

force; (2) the relations hip between t he need and the amount of force t hat was used; (3) the ext ent of the injur y i nflic ted; ( 4) the ext ent of the threat to t he safety of staff a nd in mate s, as rea sona bly perce ived b y respon sible officials o n the b asis of facts known to them; and ( 5) any efforts made to temper t he severi ty

of the forc eful re sponse. ” Brooks v. Kyl er , 204 F.3d 102, 106 (3d Cir. 2000) (ci ting Wh itley v. Albers , 475 U. S. 312, 327 (1986)). Ev en if Brigh t’s evidence h ad been admitted (an d the D istrict Court found that

it s hould not be a dmitt ed given that it would be prejudi cialto the de fendants– a ruli ng we find support ed by t he record) , it

is cl ear that the e vidence would not have, as Bright s uggests, “destr oyed defe ndants’ clai m that not hing improper

had happened.” Moreover, the limi ted trial t ranscr ipt bef

ore thi s Court re flect s that Bright pr esented t

he8

jury with tes timony

from other inmates that could have support ed an infer ence that the gua rds a cted wit h m alice in th eir u se o f fo rce, a nd t he ju ry sim ply reje cted that e vid enc e. On this r eco rd, w e fin d no rev ersib le err or in the D istrict Co urt’s evid entia ry rulin g. For th e reaso ns state d, w e w ill affirm the D istrict Co urt’s jud gm ent.