2010 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 5-7-2010 

# K e nneth F or tune v

. C arl H amb e rge r 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 . 09-4147

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_2010

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 2010 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 " Ke nne th F or tune v

. C arl H ambe rg e r " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1377. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1377A L D - 182 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- 4147 KEN NETH FORTU NE,

A ppel l ant v . C A R L H A M B E R G E R ; U n it M a n a g e r; M A R T IN D R A G O V IC H , S u p e rin ten d e n t; T H O M A S L . JA M E S ; C h ief G rie v a n c e C o o rd in a to r; C .O . B A S E M O R E , G u a rd ; C A R O L B A H E R , H e a rin g E x a m in e r; C . O . L IT C H A R D , G u a rd ; C .O . W R IT , S e rg e a n t; C. O. HA RM ON , Se r g e a n t ; RO BERT STEVEN S, Uni tM a n a g e r ; KA REN PATTERSON , Acc o u n t a n t ; J EAN W . SCOTT, Bus i n e s s M a n a g e r ; DO NA LD L. K E C H N E R , Super i nt endent ; C . O . C R A I G , G uar d; R O B E R T S. B I T N E R , C hi ef H ear i ng E xami ner ; J O H N A N D R A D E , H ear i ng E xami ner ; SH A R O N M . B U R K , C hi ef G r i evanc e Co o r d i n a t o r ; L OUI S S . F OL I NO, S u p e r i n t e n d e n t ; C. O. NI CO L L E T T I ; L I E UT E NANT AGOS T I NO 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 W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 04- cv- 377) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le T erren ce F . M cV erry S u b m itted f

o r P o ssible D ism issal Pu rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ) orSum m aryA ct i on Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 27. 4 and I . O . P. 10. 6 A pr i l 29, 2010 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: M ay7, 2010)2 OP I NI ON P E R C UR I AM K enneth For tune, a pr o s e pr i s oner , appea l s fr om a j udgm entent er ed bythe D is tr ic t C o u rt in f

a v o r o f th e D e f e n d a n ts . W e w ill a f

f ir m . S e e I.O .P . 1 0 .6 . I . For tune i s curr ent l yi n t he cus t odyof the Penns y l vani a D epart m entof C orr ect i ons ( D O C ) atthe St at e C orr ect i onal I ns t i tut i on atFay ett e ( SC I - Fay ett e) . For tune br oughtan act i on i n the D i s tr i ctC our tpur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1983 agai ns ti ndi vi dual s empl oy ed by th e D O C a lleg in g e v e n ts p u rp o rte d to h a v e o c c u rre d w h ile h e w a s im p riso n e d a t th e S tate C orr ect i onal I ns t i tut i on atG r eene ( SC I - G r eene ) and the St at e C orr ect i onal I ns t i tut i on at C am p H il l ( S C I-C am p H il l) . In h is a m e n d e d c o m p lain t, F o rtu n e a lleg e d th a t th e D e f e n d a n ts v io late d h is F irst, Fi fth, E i ghth, and Four t eenth A m endmentr i ght s . M or e s peci fi cal l y , he al l eged that var i ous i ndi vi dual s vi ol at ed hi s r i ght s thr ough the fol l ow i ng act i ons : 1) r es tr i ct i ng the quant i tyof l egal m at er i al s thathe w as abl e t o m ai nt ai n i n hi s cel l atanygi ven t i m e; 2) u n law f u llyo p e n in g leg a l m a il o u tsid e o f h is p re se n c e ; 3 ) a ttem p tin g to c o e rc e h im in to s i gni ng a pr i vi l eged c orr es pondence l og on one dat e i n or dert o r ece i ve one pi ece of l egal m ai l ; 4) or der i ng hi m t o s ee a ps y chol ogi s t ; 5) i s s ui ng hi m s ever al fal s e mi s conduct s ; 6) d en y ing h im sh o w ers, ex erc ise, an d h y g iene m aterial s; 7) su b jecti n g h im to a re tal iat o rySpeci fi cal l y , For tune cl ai m s thatthe i s s uance of tw o m i s conduct s ; the deni al of 1 sh o w e rs, e x e rc ise , an d h y g ien e m a ter ials ; h is tra n sf e r to S C I-G re e n e ; th e sw itch in g o f h is m i gr ai ne medi ci ne; the r emoval of hi s exce s s l egal document s ; and the deni al of “ant i ci pat ed pos t age” w er e r et al i at oryi n natur e. 3 tr ans fer ; 8) i m pr oper l ys w i t chi ng hi s m i gr ai ne medi cat i on; 9) i m pr oper l ydeduct i ng funds fr om hi s i nm at e ac count ; 10) deny i ng hi m “ant i ci pat ed pos t age; ” and 11) notperm i t t i ng him t o m ake suf

fi ci ent copi es of l egal m at eri al s. F ortun e al so cl ai m s that s om e of these act i ons w er e r et al i at oryi n natur e. 1 T hi s cas e w as ext ens i vel yl i t i gat ed bef or e the D i s tr i ctC our t , w hi ch di s pos ed of F o rtu n e’s c lai m s in se v era l th o rou g h d ec isi o n s. F o ll o w ing the f il ing o f F o rtu n e’s amended compl ai nt , the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed D efe ndant s ’ part i al m ot i on t o di s m i s s for fai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m . A ft erdi s coveryconcl uded, the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed D efen dan t s’ m oti on for sum m aryj ud gm ent as t o all bu ton e of F ortun e’s cl ai m s. B ecause the D efe ndant s had notaddr es s ed the r emai ni ng cl ai m i n thei rs um m aryj udgm entm ot i on, the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed them l eave t o fi l e a s econd mot i on fors um m aryj udgm enton that cl ai m . In a Sep t em ber 28, 2009 decis i on , the D i stri ctC ou rtgrant ed D efen dan t s’ s econd mot i on fors um m aryj udgm entand ent er ed fi nal j udgm enti n thei rfavor . For tune f iled a tim e lyn o tice o f

a p p e a l. I I . W e have j ur i s di ct i on overthi s appea l pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. O urr evi ew of th e Di s tr i c tCo u r t ’ s d i s mi s s a l s f o rf a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m i s p l e n a ry . P o r tAu th . o f N. Y.4

and N . J . v. A r cadi an C orp. , 189 F. 3d 305, 311 ( 3d C i r . 1999) . W hen cons i der i ng a D istric t C o u rt’s g ra n t o f a m o tio n to d ism iss u n d e r R u le 1 2 (b )(6 ), w e m u st “ a c c e p t all fac tual al l egat i ons as true, cons true the compl ai nti n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the pl ai nt i ff, and det erm i ne w hether , underanyr eas onabl e r eadi ng of the compl ai nt , the pl ai nt i ff maybe ent i t l ed t o r el i ef. ” Phi l l i ps v. C ountyof A l l egheny , 515 F. 3d 224, 233 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). W e re v iew a 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 d e n o v o . P e n n sy lv a n ia C oal A s s ’ n v. B abbi t t , 63 F. 3d 231, 236 ( 3d C i r . 1995) . Sum m aryj udgm enti s pr oper onl yi f i tappea r s “thatther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand thatthe m ovi ng partyi s ent i t l ed t o a j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” Fed. R . C i v. P. 56( c) ; C arr as ca v. Pom er oy , 313 F. 3d 828, 832- 33 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . I f a movi ng partydemonstr at es thatno g e n u in e iss u e o f

m a ter ial f

a c t ex ists, th e n o n -m o v in g p a rtym u st s e t f o rth sp e c if

ic f a c ts s how i ng a genui ne mat er i al i s s ue fortr i al and maynotr es tupon the mer e al l egat i ons or d e n ia ls o f

its p le a d in g s . C o n n o rs v . F a w n M in in g C o rp ., 3 0 F .3 d 4 8 3 , 4 8 9 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). W e w i l l aff

i r m on anygr ound s uppor t ed bythe r ecor d. See, e. g. , T our s cherv. M cC ul l ough, 184 F. 3d 236, 240 ( 3d C i r . 1999) . A ft err evi ew i ng the r ecor d on appea l and the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s thor ough deci s i ons , w e conc l ude thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tcomm i t t ed no rever si ble errori n d i sposi ng of F ortun e’s cl ai m s. D efen dan t s’ P art i al M oti on t o D i sm i ss F i rs t , the D i stri ctC ou rtcorr ect l ydis m i ssed, on st atute of l i m i t at i on s ground s,5

F o rt u n e ’s c la im th a t th e D e f e n d a n ts im p ro p e rl ys e iz e d h is “ c o re le g a l m a te ri a ls ” in 1 9 9 9 . F o rtu n e a ss e rte d th a t b e c a u se h is m a ter ials w e re tak e n , h e w a s u n a b le to a d e q u a tely pr epar e fora then- pendi ng s t at e courtact i on. A cl ai m i s pr oper l ydi s m i s s ed underR ul e 12( b) ( 6) on s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons gr ounds i f the unt i m el i nes s of the cl ai m i s appar enton i t s fac e. See O s hi verv. L evi n, F i s h b e i n , S e d r a n & Be r ma n , 3 8 F . 3 d 1 3 8 0 , 1 3 8 4 n . 1 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 9 4 ) . W h i l e 4 2 U. S . C. § 1983 does nots etfor th a l i m i t at i ons per i od, “fe der al court s m us tl ook t o the s t atut e of lim itatio n s g o v e rn in g a n a lo g o u s s tate c a u se s o f a c tio n s.” U rru tia v . H a rrisb u rg C o u n ty P o li ce D ep ’t , 9 1 F . 3 d 4 5 1 , 4 5 7 n . 9 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). H er e, as the D i s tr i ctC our texpl ai ned, the appl i cabl e s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons i s that governi ng per s onal i nj urycl ai m s i n Penns y l vani a. See W al l ace v. K at o, 549 U . S. 384, 387 ( 2007) . T her efor e, For tune had tw o y ear s fr om the t i m e hi s caus e of a ct i on acc rued t o fi l e hi s compl ai nt . See 42 Pa. C ons . St at . A nn. § 5524( 2) . A § 1983 caus e of a ct i on acc rues on the dat e w hen a pl ai nt i ff kne w ors houl d have know n hi s r i ght s had bee n v iolated. S ee G en tyv . R eso luti o n T rust C o rp., 9 3 7 F . 2 d 8 9 9 , 9 1 9 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). For tune knew ors houl d have know n thathi s m at er i al s w er e t aken i n 1999. H ow ever , he di d notfi l e hi s compl ai nti n t he D i s tr i ctC our tunt i l M ar ch 2004. A ccor di ngl y , w e agr ee that the clai m i s unti m el yand the D i stri ctC ou rtproperl ydis m i ssed i ton that basi s. S e c o n d , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rlyd ism iss e d D e f e n d a n ts H amber ger , D r agovi ch, J ames, B aker , B i tner , St evens , A ndr ade, and Fol i no fr om theA s di s cus s ed ea r l i er , For tune’ s cl ai m thatD efe ndant s confi s cat ed hi s “cor e l egal 2 m a te ri a ls ” in v io la tio n o f h is c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts is b a rr e d b yth e s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s . 6 act i on as For tune’ s fai l ur e i n hi s amended compl ai ntt o al l ege pe r s onal i nvol vementon the partof thos e i ndi vi dual s w as fat al t o the cl ai m s agai ns tthem. See R ode v. D ell arc iprete, 84 5 F . 2 d 1 1 9 5 , 1 2 0 7 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 8 ). D efe ndant s ’ M ot i ons forSum m aryJ udgm ent A c c e ss to C o u rts A s m ent i oned, For tune’ s amended compl ai ntcont ai ned numer ous al l egat i ons t hat v a ri o u s D O C e m p lo y e e s a c te d in w a y s th a t f ru s tr a te d h is ri g h t o f

a c c e s s to th e c o u rt s . M or e s peci fi cal l y , he al l eged, i nt eral i a, thathi s “cor e l egal m at er i al s ” w er e t aken a nd/ or r es tr i ct ed, he w as deni ed ant i ci pat ed pos t age, and an i nform al appel l at e br i ef w as t aken

2 fr om hi m forbr i ef pe r i ods of t i m e. Pr i s on e r s ha ve a fu nd a ment a l r i gh tt o a c c e s s the c ou r t s . Lewi s v. Cas e y , 51 8 U. S. 3 4 3 , 3 4 6 (1 9 9 6 ). H o w e v e r, a p riso n e r m a k in g a n a c c e ss -to -c o u rts c laim is re q u ire d to sh o w that the d en ial o f a cc ess c au sed ac tual injury . Id. at 35 2 -54 . A ctua l i n juryo cc u rs w hen a pri soner dem on strat es that a “non fri vo l ou s” and “ arguab l e” cl ai m w as l ost beca us e of the deni al of ac ces s t o t he court s . C hr i s t opherv. H arbury , 536 U . S. 403, 415 (2 0 0 2 ). W e a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t F o rtu n e f a iled o n su m m a ryju d g m e n t to show anyactual i njuryres ult i ng from the all eged den i al of ac cess t o the cou rt s. F re e S p e e c h C laim7

T h e D istric t C o u rt a lso c o rre c tlyg ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t o n F o rtu n e ’s c laim th a t th e D e f

e n d a n ts v io late d h is F irst A m e n d m e n t rig h t to f re e sp e e c h b yo p e n in g h is l egal m ai l out s i de of hi s pr es ence . For tune cl ai m s thaton one occ as i on, i n Sept ember 2005, D efe ndant s N i col l et i and A gos t i no opened hi s l egal m ai l out s i de of hi s pr es ence and then cons pi r ed t o have hi m s i gn a bac k- dat ed l og s o thatFor tune coul d notl at erfi l e a g rie v a n c e a g a in st th e m f o r d o in g so . T h e D istric t C o u rt c o rre c tlyd e ter m in e d th a t a s in g le i nst ance o f i nter ference w i th an i nm at e’s m ai l i s not s uff i ci ent t o co nst i tute a Fi rs t A m en d m en t violati o n . S ee B iereg u v . R en o , 5 9 F . 3 d 1 4 4 5 , 1 4 5 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ), ab rog ated o n o ther g rou n d s b yL ew is v. C ase y , 5 1 8 U . S . 3 4 3 (19 9 6 ).

Re t a l i a t i o n Cl a i ms W e al s o agr ee w i th t he D i s tr i ctC our tthatther e i s no genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac t r egar di ng For tune’ s r et al i at i on cl ai m s . For tune cl ai m s thats ever al D efe ndant s r et al i at ed agai ns thi m i n var i ous w ay s forfi l i ng gr i evanc es and l aw s ui t s agai ns tthem. T o s how r et al i at i on, 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 c o n d u c t, th a t 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 llyp ro tec ted c o n d u c t w a s a m o tiv a tin g f a c to r in th e o f

f icia ls’ d e c isio n to di s ci pl i ne hi m . C art erv. M cG r ady , 292 F. 3d 152, 158 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( ci t i ng R aus erv. H orn, 241 F. 3d 330, 333 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ) . Pr i s on offi ci al s m aypr evai l bypr ovi ng that th e yw 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 a s n o t en g a g in g in cons t i tut i onal l ypr ot ect ed conduc t . I d.8

For tune cl ai m ed thatD efe ndant s B as emore and W i r tr et al i at ed aga i ns thi m for fi l i ng var i ous l aw s ui t s agai ns tthe D O C byi s s ui ng hi m tw o s epar at e mi s conduct s i n J une 2002 – nos . A 364867 and A 364873. H ow ever , the r ecor d s how s thatm i s conductnum ber A 364867 w as i s s ued as a r es ul tof For tune’ s r efus al t o obeyan or dert o r eportt o the offi ce of a ps y chol ogi s t , pur s uantt o a mandat orypas s . A tthe mi s conducthear i ng, F o rtu n e sta ted th a t h e d id n o t w a n t to g o to th e a p p o in tm e n t b e c a u se h e h a d a rig h t to r efus e medi cal tr eatm ent . T he hea r i ng exami nerfound For tune gui l tyof r efus i ng t o obey a law f u l o rd e r to g o to a n a p p o in tm e n t. T h u s, th e m isc o n d u c t w a s n o t issu e d d u e to F o rtu n e ’s f

ili n g o f a p rio r g rie v a n c e o r la w su it, b u t in ste a d f o r h is f a ilu re to c o m p lyw ith an or der . Si m i l ar l y , m i s conductnum berA 364873 w as i s s ued t o For tune af t erhe th r e a t e n e d a n e m p l o ye e w i th b o d i l y h a r m a n d u s e d a b u s i v e l a n g u a g e . A p p a r e n t l y, For tune bel i eved thathe w as m i s s i ng pr opertyand ac cus ed the pr i s on empl oy ee of t aki ng the pr opertyw hi l e he w as i n confi ned i n the R es tr i ct ed H ous i ng U ni t( R H U ) . A tthe m i s conducthear i ng, the exa m i nerfound For tune gui l tyof us i ng abus i ve l anguage , but d i s mi s s e d th e c h a r g e f

o rth r e a t e n i n g a n e mp l o y e e wi th b o d i l yh a r m. W hi l e the fi l i ng of gr i evanc es and l aw s ui t s agai ns tpr i s on offi ci al s cons t i tut es co n sti tuti o n all yp rotec ted a cti v ity , see M il h o u se v . C arlson , 6 5 2 F . 2 d 3 7 1 , 3 7 3 -74 (3d C ir . 1981) , the D i s tr i ctC our tcorr ect l ydet erm i ned thatther e w as no caus al nexus betw een the is s u in g o f

m is c o n d u c ts in J u n e 2 0 0 2 a n d F o rt u n e ’s p e n d in g la w s u its a n d /o r g ri e v a n c e s . T he mi s conduct s w er e i s s ued bec aus e he vi ol at ed pr i s on r egul at i ons . See C art er , 292T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o pr oper l ygr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof D efe ndant s on 3 For tune’ s cl ai m s thathe w as deni ed “a nt i ci pat ed pos t age, ” ac ces s t o the l i br ary , and the abi l i tyt o m ake c opi es of ce r t ai n l egal document s i n r et al i at i on forhi s fi l i ng of var i ous gr i evanc es agai ns tthem. T he r ecor d r efl ect s thatD efe ndant s ’ deci s i ons conce rni ng t he appr opr i at enes s of For tune’ s pos t age a nd hi s abi l i tyt o acc es s the l i br aryand make copi es w er e al l m ade i n acc or dance w i th es t abl i s hed D O C pol i cy . A gai n, For tune di d not chall eng e t he v al i dityof those D O C po l i ci es. 9 F. 3d at158. T h e D istric t C o u rt a lso p ro p e rlyg ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t o n F o rtu n e ’s c laim thatD efe ndant s L i t char d, C r ai g, and H arm on r et al i at ed aga i ns thi m byr emovi ng ei ght b o x e s o f leg a l d o c u m e n ts w h ile h e w a s in c o n f in e d in th e R H U in Ju n e 2 0 0 2 . O n th e d a te thatthe boxes w er e conf i s cat ed, he w as t ol d thatpur s uantt o D O C pol i cy , he w as al l ow ed onl yt o keep hi s per s onal pr operty , i ncl udi ng l egal r ecor ds , and thatthe i t ems coul d be stored in o n e f

o o t l o ck er a n d tw o rec o rd c en ter bo x es. U p o n F o rtu n e’s ref u sal t o so rt thr ough hi s m at er i al s , the exc es s boxes w er e conf i s cat ed. A s the D i s tr i ctC our tpoi nt ed out , the D efe ndant s w er e i n compl i ance w i th pr ocedur es out l i ned i n D C - A D M 815 w hen theyconfi s cat ed For tune’ s exce s s boxes . For tune di d notchal l enge the val i di tyof that pol i cy . T hus , beca us e the D efe ndant s l i m i t i ng of For tune’ s per s onal pr opertyw as d icta ted b ye sta b lish e d D O C p o licy , an d b e c a u se F o rtu n e ’s c laim o f re talia tio n is u n su p p o rt ed b yan yrec o rd e v iden ce , D ef en d an ts w ere p rop erlyg ran ted s u m m ary ju d g m e n t. 3 R egar di ng For tune’ s tr ans fert o SC I - G r eene i n A ugus t2002, ther e w as s uffi ci ent uncontr overt ed evi dence pr es ent ed thatthe tr ans feroccurr ed due t o hi s hi s t oryof10

as s aul t i ve beha vi orand hi s poorpr i s on adj us t m entatSC I - C amp H i l l . T hus , beca us e the D efe ndant s demonstr at ed a l egi t i m at e penol ogi cal r eas on forthe tr ans fer , R aus er , 241 F . 3 2 a t3 3 3 , th e ywe r e e n t i t l e d t o s u mma ryj u d g me n to n th e c l a i m.

E i gh th A m end m ent C l ai m s For tune’ s al l eges w hi l e he w as confi ned i n the R H U fr om J une 3, 2002 unt i l J une 18, 2002, D efe ndant s L i t char d, C r ai g, and H arm on deni ed hi m s how er s , exer ci s e, and h y g ien ic m a ter ials in v io latio n o f h is E ig h th A m e n d m e n t rig h ts. T h e re lev a n t E ig h th A m endmenti nqui r yi s w hetherthe al l eged de pr i vat i on i s “s uffi ci ent l ys er i ous ” and w h ethe r th e inm ate h as b ee n d ep ri v ed o f th e “ m inim al civil ized m ea su re o f li fe ’s nece s s i t i es . ” Farm erv. B r ennan, 511 U . S. 825, 834 ( 1994) ( quot i ng R hodes v. C hapman, 452 U . S. 337, 347 ( 1981) ) . T hi s r equi r es an i nm at e t o s how that“he i s i ncar cer at ed under c o n d iti o n s p o sin g a su b sta n tial risk o f se rio u s h a rm ,” a n d th a t p riso n o f f icia ls d e m o n s tr a te d a “ d e lib e ra te in d if f e re n c e ” to h is h e a lth o r s a f e ty. Id . For tune has notpr ovi ded anyevi dence thatm i ghtr ai s e a ge nui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tr egar di ng the condi t i on of hi s confi nementi n the R H U . A s m ent i oned, For tune c o m p la in e d o f

h is in a b ility to a d e q u a te ly sh o w e r a n d e x e rc is e f o r a p e ri o d o f

f if te e n d a y s . A l though i ti s notcl earhow m anyt i m es For tune bel i eves thathe s houl d have be en perm i t t ed t o engage i n t hos e ac t i vi t i es i n addi t i on t o the t i m e he w as al r eadygi ven t o do s o, he does notal l ege thathe s uffe r ed anyharm as a r es ul tof the deni al of addi t i onal s how er s and exe r ci s e.11

A c c o rd in g ly , w e a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t F o rtu n e h a s n o t se t f o rth f a c ts demonstr at i ng thatthe al l eged de ni al of ade quat e s how er s and exe r ci s e dur i ng hi s br i ef stayin the R H U w as su ff ici en tl yseriou s to d ep ri v e h im o f th e “ m inim al civil ized m ea su re of l i fe’ s nece s s i t i es . ” I d. E ven a mi ni m al pr ovi s i on of t i m e forexer ci s e and r ecr eat i on m ays at i s fycons t i tut i onal r equi r ement s . See, e. g. , W i s hon v. G amm on, 978 F. 2d 446, 4 4 9 (8th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) (fo rty -five m inu tes o f e x erc ise p er w ee k n o t con sti tuti o n all yinf irm ); K ni ghtv. A r m ontr out , 878 F. 2d 1093, 1096 ( 8th C i r . 1989) ( the deni al of out door r e c r e a t i o n f

o rth i rt e e n d a y s d o e s n o tc o n s t i tu t e c ru e l a n d u n u s u a l p u n i s h me n t ) . T h u s , we a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t F o rtu n e ’s a lleg e d h a rm w a s in su f f icie n tlyse rio u s to im p lica te th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t. For tune al s o cl ai m s thatD efe ndant s vi ol at ed hi s E i ghth A m endmentr i ght s by c h a n g in g h is m ig ra in e m e d ica tio n f ro m C a f e rg o t to M id rin , thu s f

a ili n g to p ro v id e h im w i th adequa t e medi cal car e. T o es t abl i s h a vi ol at i on of the r i ghtt o adequa t e medi cal car e, a pl ai nt i ff musts how a s er i ous m edi cal need a nd act s orom i s s i ons bypr i s on of fi c i a l s tha ti nd i c a t e d a de l i be r a t e i nd i ff e r e nc e t o tha tne e d. Es t e l l e v. G a mbl e , 42 9 U. S. 9 7 , 1 0 6 (19 7 6 ). F o rtu n e f ail ed to p rov ide e v iden ce su g g esti n g that the D ef en d an ts w ere del i ber at el yi ndi ffe r entt o hi s m edi cal needs . W hi l e For tune ar gues thatC afe r gotw as m or e ef fec t i ve i n t r eat i ng hi s s ym pt om s , the fa ctthathe r ece i ved a medi cat i on othert han C afe r gotdoes notamount t o a cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on. See W hi t e v. N apol eon, 897 F. 2d 1 0 3 , 1 1 0 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) ( d o c to r’ s c h o ic e o f o n e d ru g o v e r a n o th e r i s n o t a c tio n a b le ).T o the ext entFor tune al s o cl ai m s thathe w as deni ed ade quat e ac ces s t o s how er s and 4 exer ci s e and thathi s m edi cat i on w as change d i n r et al i at i on forfi l i ng gr i evanc es , w e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthatFor tune has fai l ed t o s etfor th anyevi dence s ugges t i ng that w as the ca s e. 12 M or eover , ther e i s no i ndi cat i on thatthe dec i s i on t o pr ovi de For tune w i th a medi cat i on o th e r th a n C a f

e rg o t w a s b a se d o n a n u lterio r m o tiv e b e y o n d ro u tin e p a tien t ca re w ith in the co nfines of t he p ri son’s pol i ci es. 4

F o u r t e e n th Ame n d me n tCl a i ms F o rtu n e a lso c laim s th a t h is d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts w e re v io late d a s a re su lt o f h is pl ace m enti n t he R H U on t w o s epar at e occ as i ons i n J une and J ul y2002. A s m ent i oned e a rlier , F o rtu n e w a s is su e d tw o se p a ra te m isc o n d u c ts in Ju n e 2 0 0 2 . T h e f irst re su lted in fi ft een da y s of conf

i nementi n t he R H U . A s a r es ul tof the s econd mi s conduct , he w as pl ace d i n the R H U foran addi t i onal thi r tyday s . T he D i s tr i ctC our tcorr ect l ynot ed thatan i nm at e’ s due pr oces s r i ght s ar e nottr i gger ed unl es s the pr i s on “i m pos es atypi cal and s i gni fi canthar ds hi p on t he i nm at e i n r el at i on t o the or di naryi nci dent s of pr i s on l i fe. ” S an d in v . C o n n er, 51 5 U . S . 4 7 2 , 4 8 4 (19 9 5 ). H ere , F o rtu n e w as p lace d in R H U fo r a t ot al of forty - fi ve day s . W e have m ade c l earthatthi s type of c onfi nementdoes not cons t i tut e an “ atypi cal and s i gni fi canthar ds hi p” s o as t o tr i ggerdue pr oces s r i ght s . See G rif f in v . V a u g h n , 1 1 2 F .3 d 7 0 3 , 7 0 6 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 7 ) (f in d in g th a t f

if tee n m o n th s in s e g re g a tio n w a s n o t a n a typ ic a l a n d s ig n if ic a n t h a rd s h ip ). T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o corr ect l ygr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorofFor tune al s o cl ai m ed thatthe funds w er e bei ng deduct ed atan unl aw ful r at e. 5 13 D e f e n d a n ts o n F o rtu n e ’s c laim th a t th e m isc o n d u c t re p o rts, w h ich re su lted in h is di s ci pl i narycus t odyi n t he R H U , w er e fa l s i fi ed. A s di s cus s ed above , For tune w as not s ubj ect ed t o “atypi cal and s i gni fi canthar ds hi p” w hen he w as pl ace d i n R H U fol l ow i ng h is m isc o n d u c t ch a rg e . Id . T h e re f o re , b e c a u se h e w a s n o t d e p riv e d o f a p ro tec ted lib e rty in ter e st, h is c h a llen g e to th e m isc o n d u c t ch a rg e is a c tio n a b le o n lyu n d e r § 1 9 8 3 if D efe ndant s i s s ued the mi s conducti n r et al i at i on forhi s havi ng exer ci s ed a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght . See R aus er , 241 F. 3d at333. A s w e di s cus s ed ea r l i er , For tune di d notpr es entany fa cts th at w o u ld es tablish a retali atorym o ti v e b eh ind eith er m isco n d u ct ch arg e. S u m m ary j udgm entw as ther efor e appr opr i at e.

D educt i ons fr om For tune’ s I nm at e A ccount L astl y , the D istri ct C o u rtp rop erlyg ran ted D ef en d an ts seco n d m o ti o n fo r sum m ary ju d g m e n t o n F o rtu n e ’s r e m a in in g c laim th a t f u n d s w e re im p ro p e rlyd e d u c ted f ro m h is i nm at e ac count . For tune had a r gued thatD efe ndant s Pat t er s on and Scottvi ol at ed hi s due pr oces s r i ght s , as w el l as the Pr i s on L i t i gat i on R eform A ct , 28 U . S. C . § 1915, by i m pr oper l ydeduct i ng m oni es fr om hi s i nm at e ac counti n 2001. Speci fi cal l y , he cl ai m ed 5 that theyim p rop erlyw ith d rew $ 1 , 3 1 0 . 0 3 fro m h is acc o u n t fo r th e p ay m en t of fin es, co u rt cost s and/orl egal fees i n co nn ect i on w i th tw o earl i er federal l aw sui t s. W e a g ree w ith the D istri ct C o u rtthat F o rtu n e c an n o t sustain this claim u n d er § 1983. For tune fa i l ed t o s etfor th anyevi dence s ugges t i ng thatD efe ndant s Pat t er s on and14

Scot thad anyper s onal i nvol vementi n deduct i ng m oneyfr om hi s acc ount . I n fac t , the r ecor d r efl ect s the deduc t i ons w er e made byan i ndi vi dual notnamed i n the i ns t ant l aw s ui tw ho w as , atthatt i m e, empl oy ed atSC I - C amp H i l l . D efe ndant s Pat t er s on and Scot tw er e empl oy ed atSC I - G r eene . Fur therm or e, ther e i s no evi dence demonstr at i ng thattheyw er e per s onal l yi nvol ved i n as s es s i ng the amountof m oneyappr opr i at e t o be d e d u c ted f

ro m F o rtu n e ’s a c c o u n t. B e c a u se F o rtu n e d id n o t d e m o n stra te a n yf a c ts, if pr oven true, thatw oul d s how thatD efe ndant s Pat t er s on and Scottw er e i nvol ved i n the d ed u cti o n o f f

u n d s fro m h is acc o u n t, h is cl aim s ag ains t th em ca n n o t be s u stai n ed u n d er § 1983. See R ode, 845 F. 2d at1207. A s F o rt u n e ’s a p p e a l p re s e n ts n o s u b s ta n tia l q u e s tio n , w e w ill s u m m a ri ly af f ir m . S e e T h ird C ir. L A R 2 7 .4 ; I.O .P . 1 0 .6 . F o rtu n e ’s m o tio n f o r a p p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n se l is deni ed.