NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COU RT OF APPEALS

FOR T HE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

N o. 1 9

- 3 6 1 3

________ _ _

ALIREZ A BAKHTIARI

, Appell a nt

v.

JASON MADRIGAL; PAUL POSLUZNY; JENNIFER RITCHEY;

THOMAS R. DECKER; FREDE RIC K J. KENT;

JOHN F. KELL Y, DHS Secretary; JOHN FRAWLEY, Corr. Sergeant;

FORSHE, Corr. Sergeant; MARTIN, Corr. Sergeant;

ELISE WENZEL, Corr. Adm inistrator; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

____________________________________

On Appeal from the U nited Sta tes District Court

f

or the M i d d l e Di stri c t o f P e n n s y l v a n i a

(D.C. Ci v il Action No. 3

- 18

- cv

- 00038 )

District Judge: Ho nora ble A. Richard Caputo

_________ ___________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

J u n e 1 6

, 2 0 2 0

B efore: K R A U S E

, M A T E Y

, a n d R O T H

, Circuit Judges

(Op inion filed : February 2, 202 1 )

___________

OPINION *

_________ __

PER CURIAM

* This d isp o sition i s n ot an opinion of t he full C o ur t and pur suant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not

cons ti tute binding pr e cedent.2 Pro se app ellant A l i r e z a B a k h t i a r i appeal s f r o m the judgment entered against him

by the District Court after a jury trial

. For the reasons d i s c u s s e d below, we will af firm

.

I

.

Because w e write pri marily for the parties, we will r ecite only the facts necessary

for our discussi on

. I n J a n u a r y 2 0 1 8

, B a k h t i a r i f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

,

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

C o r r e c t i o n a l F a c i l i t y ( “ P C C F ” ) i n 2 0 1 7

. Bakhtiari named v a r i o u s PCCF employees a n d

federal officials, and the United States, as def endants. A m o n g o t h e r t h i n g s

, B a k h t i a r i

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

c o n f i n e m e n t a n d w h e n h e w a s s e r v e d f o o d b y an inmate who h a d Hepatitis C

.

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

i c i a l s a n d t h e U n i t e d

S t a t e s

. 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 i n f a v o r o f t h e P C C F e m p l o y e e s

o n m a n y c l a i m s

. F o l l o w i n g a t r i a l

, t h e j u r y r e n d e r e d a v e r d i c t i n f a v o r o f t h e r e m a i n i n g

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

.

I n t h i s a p p e a l

, B a k h t i a r i c h a l l e n g e s o n l y t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s g r a n t o f s u m m a r y

j u d g m e n t o n : ( 1 ) h i s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 c l a i m s a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t W e n z e l b a s e d o n h i s

p l a c e m e n t i n s o l i t a r y c o n f i n e m e n t ; a n d ( 2 ) c e r t a i n § 1983 c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e P C C F

d e f e n d a n t s b a s e d o n h i s b e i n g s e r v e d f o o d b y t h e i n m a t e w h o had Hepatitis C

.

I I

.

We have jurisd iction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. W e exe rcis e plenar y review o ver

th e District Co ur t’s order granting summary judgment. See Kaucher v. County o f Buck s

,3 455 F.3 d 418

, 422 ( 3d C ir. 2006) . Su mma ry judgment is proper when, viewing the

e videnc e in t he light most favorable to the n onmoving part y and dra wing all inference s in

f

av or of tha t pa rty, there is no genuine dispute as to any materia l fact and t he mo ving

party is e nt itled to judgment as a mat ter of law. S e e Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Kauch er , 45 5

F.3d at 422

– 23

. A genuine disp ute of material fa ct ex ists if the evidence i s su fficient fo r

a reasonable factfinder to return a verdict for the no n

- moving pa r t y. S e e An derson v.

Li b ert y Lobby, Inc. , 47 7 U.S . 242, 248 (1986). W e m a y a f f

i r m o n a n y b a s i s s u p p o r t e d

b y t h e r e c o r d

. See Murray v. Bledsoe , 650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curia m).

I I I

.

W e a n a l y z e B a k h t i a r i ’ s § 1983 claims challenging the conditions of his

confi nement u n d e r t h e D u e P r o c e s s C l a u s e o f t h e F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t

. S e e E. D. v.

Sharkey , 928 F.3d 299, 306

– 0 7 (3d Cir. 2019) ( d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t “ the legal rights of an

immi gration detainee [ a r e ] analogous to those of a pretrial detainee

, ” a n d e x p l a i n in g t h a t

“[ w ] hen pretrial detainee s challe nge their conditions of confinement, we must consider

whether there has been a vio lation of the Due Process Clause ” ) ( quotati on m a r k s a n d

c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) ; s e e a l s o Palakovic v. Wetzel , 854 F.3d 209, 222 (3d Cir. 2017) ( “ [ T ] he

Due Process Clause o f the Fourteenth Amendment provides pre

- trial detainees at least as

much protection for personal security as the level guaranteed to prisoners b y the Eighth

Amendment. ” )

. T o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r a c h a l l e n g e d c o n d i t i o n v i o l a t e s a d e t a i n e e ’ s

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s

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

p u n i s h m e n t o r w h e t h e r i t is reasonably related to a legitimate gov ernmental o bjectiv e

.4 S e e Hubbard v. Taylor , 399 F.3d 150, 15 8 (3d Cir. 2005) ; S h a r k e y

, 9 2 8 F

. 3 d a t 3 0 7

. A

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

f

a i l s t o “ a d e q u a t e l y r e s p o n d t o t h a t r i s k

. ” S h a r k e y

, 9 2 8 F

. 3 d a t 3 0 7 ( q u o t a t i o n m a r k s a n d

c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) ; s e e a l s o Bistrian v. Levi , 912 F.3d 79, 91 (3d Cir. 2018)

.

H e r e

, W e n z e l w a s 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 t h e § 1983 c l a i m s r e l a t e d t o

B a k h t i a r i ’ s p l a c e m e n t i n s o l i t a r y c o n f i n e m e n t

. T h e e v i d e n c e o f W e n z e l ’ s invo lvement i n

t h a t p l a c e m e n t w a s l i m i t e d

, e s s e n t i a l l y

, t o W e n z e l ’ s r e s p o n s e t o a g r i e v a n c e

. W e n z e l

e x p l a i n e d t h a t B a k h t i a r i w a s s e g r e g a t e d f r o m t h e g e n e r a l P C C F p o p u l a t i o n b e c a u s e h e

h a d e n g a g e d i n c o n d u c t t h a t v i o l a t e d P C C F r u l e s

. T h a t e v i d e n c e i s i n s u f f

i c i e n t f o r a

r e a s o n a b l e f a c t f i n d e r t o c o n c l u d e t h a t W e n z e l w a s p e r s o n a l l y i n v o l v e d i n t h e d e c i s i o n t o

p l a c e B a k h t i a r i i n s o l i t a r y c o n f i n e m e n t

, s e e Rode v. Dellarciprete , 845 F.2d 1195, 1207

(3rd Cir. 19 88)

, l e t a l o n e t h a t W e n z e l m a d e t h e p l a c e m e n t w i t h o u t a l e g i t i m a t e

g o v e r n m e n t a l i n t e r e s t o r t h a t s h e o t h e r w i s e v i o l a t e d B a k h t i a r i ’ s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s w i t h

t h e p l a c e m e n t

, s ee Hubbard , 399 F.3d a t 159 ; Mitchell v. Horn , 318 F.3d 523, 530 (3d

Cir. 2003)

.

T h e P C C F d e f e n d a n t 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 t h e § 1983 c l a i m s

b a s e d o n B a k h t i a r i ’ s e x p o s u r e t o a n i n m a t e w i t h H e p a t i t i s C

. T h e u n d i s p u t e d f a c t s i n t h e

r e c o r d s h o w e d t h a t

, a f t e r B a k h t i a r i l e a r n e d t h a t a n i n m a t e w i t h H e p a t i t i s C w a s s e r v i n g

f

o o d

, B a k h t i a r i e x p e r i e n c e d a n x i e t y a n d f e a r t h a t h e w o u l d c o n t r a c t H e p a t i t i s C

. H e

c o m p l a i n e d t o d e f e n d a n t s M a r t i n a n d F r a w l e y

, a n d h e f i l e d a g r i e v a n c e

. A s h i f t

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

, e x p l a i n i n g t h a t t h e i n m a t e i n q u e s t i o n w a s5 c l e a r e d b y t h e m e d i c a l d e p a r t m e n t t o w o r k a s a u n i t o r d e r l y a n d t o s e r v e f o o d

, a n d t h a t

M a r t i n a n d F r a w l e y h a d c o n f e r r e d w i t h t h e m e d i c a l d e p a r t m e n t a n d w e r e t o l d t h a t

B a k h t i a r i ’ s c o n c e r n s w e r e u n f o u n d e d

. I n a n y e v e n t

, after Bakhtiari complained

, o f f

i c i a l s

a t P C C F r e c o n s i d e r e d t h e s i t u a t i o n a n d r e m o v e d t h e i n m a t e f r o m h i s p o s i t i o n

. B a k h t i a r i

t e s t e d n e g a t i v e f o r H e p a t i t i s C w h e n h e w a s r e l e a s e d f r o m P C C F

.

T h a t e v i d e n c e i s i n s u f f

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

d e f e n d a n t s ’ p u r p o s e w a s t o p u n i s h B a k h t i a r i

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

n e e d s

, w h e n t h e y p e r m i t t e d t h e i n m a t e w i t h H e p a t i t i s C t o s e r v e B a k h t i a r i ’ s f o o d

. N o r i s

t h e r e su f f

i c i e n t e v i d e n c e f o r a r e a s o n a b l e j u r o r t o c o n c l u d e t h a t t he defendants ’ response

w a s deliberately indifferent t o B a k h t i a r i ’ s s e r i o u s m e d i c a l n e e d s

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

b e l o w t h e m i n i m a l c i v i l i z e d m e a s u r e o f l i f e ’ s n e c e s s i t i e s

. E ven assuming that there was

a risk t o B a k h t i a r i ’ s h e a l t h (despite the fact that he never contracted Hepatit is C ), t h e

d e f e n d a n t s

— w h o a r e n o n

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

— r e s p o n d e d t o t h e r i s k b y c o n s u l t i n g

w i t h t h e m e d i c a l d e p a r t m e n t

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

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

, f o r so m e t i m e

, t h a t B a k h t i a r i ’ s c o n c e r n s w e r e u n f o u n d e d

.

C f

. Pearso n v. Prison Health Serv. , 850 F.3d 526, 5 4 3 (3 d Cir. 2017 )

. T h u s

, t h e

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

. 1

1 For si milar reasons, the defendants were entitle d to summary judgment on Bakhtiari ’ s

substantive due process and state

- created danger claim s based on his exposure to

Hepatitis C , as the re is no evidence of conduct that “ shock s the con science. ” S e e

Kaucher

, 455 F.3d at 425 (3d Cir. 2006) ; Bright v. West moreland C o u n t y , 443 F. 3d 276,

281 (3 d Cir. 2006)

. Ba kh tiari has waived his remaining claims based on his exposure to

Hepatitis C , including hi s equal protection claims. See Uni ted Sta te s v. Pelull o , 399 F.3d6 A c c o r d i n g l y

, w e w i l l a f f

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

.

197 , 222 (3d Cir. 2005) ( “ [A] n appellant’s fa ilure to identi fy or argue an issue i n his

opening brief const itutes waiver of that issue on appeal.”)

.