2007 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 9-26-2007 

# S cott v . Quigley 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 . 05-3330

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_2007

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 2007 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 " S c ott v . Qui gley " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 376. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/3761 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. 05- 3330

____________ RO NA LD K . SCOTT,

A ppel l ant vs. KEI TH B. QUI GLE Y, Ho n o r a b l e J u d g e ; J OSE P H REHKAM P , Ho n o r a b l e J u d g e ; R. SCOTT CR AM ER, Di s tr i c tAt t o r n e y ; CH AD CH ENO T, Di s tr i c tAt t o rn e y ; S. C. W ALZ, I I I , Pu b l i c Def

e n d e r ; BREN DA ALB RI GH T, Cl e r k o f Cou r t s ; ELI ZAB ETH F RO WNF E T T E R, Di s tr i c tJ u s t i c e ; J AM E S M OYE R, J R. , Di s tr i c tJ u s t i c e ; J E F F RE Y A. B E A R D , C o m m iss io n e r, P A D O C ; R A Y J. S O B IN A , S u p e rin ten d e n t, S C I S o m e rse t;

PER RY CO U N TY , PA ; PA D EPT O F CO RR EC TI O N S.

____________ APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT F O R T H E M ID D L E D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

(D . C . C iv. N o . 0 3 -C V -00 7 6 8 ) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le A . R ich a rd C a p u to

____________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

Sept ember18, 2007 B efore: S L O V ITE R , S M ITH and W E IS, C i rcui tJudg es.

Fi l ed Sept ember26, 2007

____________ OP I NI ON2

W E I S, C i r cui tJ udge.

Pl ai nt i ff i n thi s act i on w as convi ct ed of r obberyi n s t at e courton A pr i l 17, 2000, and bega n t o s erve hi s s ent ence . T he courtgr ant ed bai l , w hi ch pl ai nt i ff pos t ed on February13, 2002. A tthatt i m e, he w as i m pr i s oned i n the St at e C orr ect i onal I ns t i tut i on at S o m erse t ( “S C I-So m erse t”). H e w as n o t r elea sed , h o w ev er, be ca u se o f d etaine rs l o d g e d a g a i n s th i m.

O n T hur s day , February28, 2002, the pl ai nt i ff’ s det ai ner s w er e pai d and the courtor der ed hi m r el eas ed on bai l . T hats ame day , the PerryC ountySher i ff’ s O ffi ce s ent a ce r t i fi ed copyof the or dergr ant i ng the pl ai nt i ff’ s r el eas e t o offi ci al s atSC I - Som er s et vi a U ni t ed St at es Post al Ser vi ce. SC I - Som er s etr ece i ved the or derfourday s l at eron M onday , M ar ch 4. U pon r ece i vi ng the document s , offi ci al s atSC I - Som er s etcompl et ed v e ri f ic a tio n p ro c e d u re s a n d a p p ro v e d th e p la in tif f ’s re le a s e th a t d a y . A tthatt i m e, Penns y l vani a D epart m entof C orr ect i ons pol i ci es r equi r ed s at i s fac t i on of al l out s t andi ng det ai ner s befor e an i nm at e coul d be r el eas ed. M or eover , an i nm at e w as nott o be r el eas ed on bai l unt i l pr i s on offi ci al s r ece i ved an or i gi nal , cert i fi ed c o u rt o rd e r a llo w in g b a il, a n o rd e r s e ttin g b a il, a n d a s ig n e d re c e ip t th a t b a il w a s p a id . D e f e n d a n t, S u p e rin ten d e n t S o b in a , sta ted th a t th e se p o licie s w e re “ n e c e ss a ryf o r se c u rity rea so n s an d [w ere ] req u ir ed in o rde r t o g u ard ag ains t falsi fica ti o n o f re co rds a n d to en su re thatthe i nm at e’ s r el eas e i s pr operand i n acc or dance w i th the C our t ’ s i ns truct i ons . ”3 Pl ai nt i ff a l l eges he w as unl aw ful l ydet ai ned dur i ng the fourday s that el aps ed betw een the s t at e courtor derand hi s actual r el eas e. H e as s ert ed numer ous fe d era l and stat e c o n sti tuti o n al claim s ag ains t variou s state of ficials. T h e D istri ct C o u rt di s m i s s ed al l of the pl ai nt i ff’ s cl ai m s exce pthi s E i ghth and Four t eenth A m endment cl ai m s agai ns tcorr ect i ons offi ci al s Sobi na and Bear d. Sum m aryj udgm entw as l at er e n te re d in th e irf

a v o r. P la in tif

f h a s a p p e a le d th e g ra n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. T h e D istric t C o u rt d ism iss e d th e p lain tiff ’s E ig h th A m e n d m e n t cla im beca us e he di d nots how thatdefe ndant s act ed w i th del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence . See M oor e v. T artl er, 98 6 F . 2 d 6 8 2 , 6 8 6 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). T h e e v iden ce su p p o rt s the D istri ct C o u rt ’s concl us i on thatpr i s on offi ci al s r es ponded pr om pt l yt o the pl ai nt i ff’ s r eques tfor in f o rm a tio n a n d a c te d q u ic k ly to re le a s e h im o n c e th e yre c e iv e d th e n e c e s s a ry p a p e rw o rk . M o reo v er, plainti ff

h as n o t sho w n that h e w as d en ied d u e p roc ess. T h e re g u lat o ry p ro c e d u re s a d o p te d b yth e D e p a rt m e n t o f C o rr e c tio n s a re re a s o n a b le a n d c o n s titu tio n a l. S e e M a th e w s v . E ld rid g e , 4 2 4 U .S . 3 1 9 , 3 3 5 (1 9 7 6 ) (a p p ly in g th re e -p a rt a n a ly sis to det erm i ne cons t i tut i onal i tyof admi ni s tr at i ve pr ocedur es ) . T he D i s tr i ctC our t , ther efor e, p ro p e rl yg ra n te d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t f o r d e f e n d a n ts . A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill a f f irm th e O rd e r o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.