2013 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

9-19-2013

Anthony Williams v. LT. Forte

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-3971

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2013 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Anthony Williams v. LT. Forte" (2013). 2013 Decisions. Paper 204.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013/204
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 11-3971

____________

ANTHONY WILLIAMS,

Appellant,

v.

LT. FORTE (SCIP); JOAN A. DELIE, Health Care

Administrator (SCIP); JOSEPH GERAGI, Medical

Staff ( SCIP); DR. GINCHREAUI, Medical Director

(SCIP); DIANE MANSON, R.N. Supervisor (SCIP);

WILLIAM STICKMAN, Superintendant (SCIP); JOE 

ECSEDY,C/O I (SCIP); DAVID GOOD, Deputy 

Superintendent PRC Member (SCIP); CHARLES J. 

SIMSOM, Captain (SCIP); THOMAS E. MCCONNELL, 

Captain (SCIP); BILL CARNUCHE, Counselor (SCIP);

MIKE ZAKEN, Unit Manager PRC Member (SCIP);

DONALD WILLIAMSON, Coordinator Diagnostic 

Classification Bureau of Inmate Services PA Dept. of 

Corrections; THOMAS JAMES, Grievances and Appeals 

Officer; H. CLIFFORD O'HARA, Office of Professional 

Responsibility Director at Dept. of Corrections

__________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civ. No. 04-cv-00012)

District Judge: Honorable Gary L. Lancaster

__________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

September 3, 2013

Before: JORDAN, GREENAWAY, JR. and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: September 19, 2013)

____________

OPINION

____________
2

PER CURIAM

Appellant Anthony Williams appeals from the District Court’s judgment entered 

in favor of the remaining defendant and against him following a jury trial in his civil 

rights case. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.

Williams, who at the relevant time was incarcerated in the Restrictive Housing 

Unit at the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh (“SCI-Pittsburgh”), filed an in

forma pauperis civil rights action, 28 U.S.C. § 1983, in the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Pennsylvania, naming fifteen defendants. Williams alleged 

the excessive use of force and denial of medical care in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment. All of the defendants except for Lieutenant Jeff Forte and Correctional 

Officer Joe Ecsedy moved to dismiss the complaint. The District Court granted the

motion in January, 2009, and Williams does not challenge that decision on appeal. 

Discovery ensued, and, among other things, the Magistrate Judge, pursuant to Williams’ 

motion to compel, ordered the defendants to turn over all of Williams’ medical records 

for the year 2003.

With respect to Forte and Ecsedy, Williams claimed that, on August 21, 2003, 

while he was handcuffed, Forte kicked him down a flight of stairs on the way back from 

the exercise yard, that Ecsedy failed to intervene and protect him, and that he suffered 

injuries to his head, back, wrists and fingers for which both of them, and non-defendant 

Unit Nurse Martha Hancock, denied him medical care. Williams claimed that, moments 

earlier, he had refused to let Forte and Ecsedy put him in an outdoor exercise cage with 

hostile gang members who wanted to kill him. Williams several times moved 
3

unsuccessfully for appointment of counsel. Although his motions were denied, in March, 

2011, the District Court sua sponte ordered the Clerk to contact the pro bono arm of the 

Allegheny County Bar Association and seek counsel to represent Williams at the trial. 

No attorney came forward to take the case. 

Trial was scheduled for September 26, 2011. About six weeks prior to this date, 

Williams moved to amend his complaint to add an additional defendant and a claim that, 

in November, 2002, this additional defendant put him in restrictive custody in retaliation 

for filing lawsuits and grievances concerning prison conditions, and for complaining to a 

state legislator. The District Court denied leave to amend, and the case proceeded to a 

jury trial as scheduled. Williams testified and he called as his witnesses inmates Anthony 

J. Veneri and Arthur Commeger. These witnesses did not substantiate Williams’ version 

of the events; one had him “kicked in the butt ... on the way back up the steps,” (N.T., 

9/26/11, at 60), while the other had him beaten in his cell, see id. at 65. At the close of 

Williams’ case, the defense made a motion under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 50(a)(1) that resulted 

in the District Court’s dismissing all claims against Ecsedy and the claim against Forte 

for denying Williams medical care. 

Forte then testified that Williams, who was last in line for the exercise yard on that 

morning, declined to be put into the exercise cage that was assigned to him based upon 

his place in line, so he was returned to his cell without incident. Ecsedy played no role in 

escorting Williams back and forth to the exercise yard; it was Correctional Officer 

Samuel Lawrence who actually did so, and Lawrence, when he testified, also did not 

substantiate Williams’ account. Nurse Hancock testified that she did not deny Williams 

medical care, and his medical records during the relevant time period showed no injuries 
4

except an old injury to his right hand for which he refused treatment. Thomas McConnell 

testified that he conducted an internal investigation for the Department of Corrections and 

determined that Williams’ account was false and that none of his allegations could be 

substantiated.

On September 27, 2011, the jury returned a defense verdict on the remaining 

excessive force claim against Forte and the District Court entered judgment on the 

verdict. Williams then moved for a new trial, complaining about racial discrimination in 

the jury selection process. The District Court denied this motion in an order entered on

October 11, 2011.

Williams appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Williams 

contends in his Informal Brief that the District Court erred in refusing to appoint him 

counsel, in granting the Rule 50(a)(1) motion, and in refusing to allow him to amend his 

complaint. He also contends that jury selection was tainted by racial discrimination. 

Prior to briefing, we granted his motion for the production of transcripts from his jury 

trial. We have reviewed those transcripts.

We will affirm. The denial of a prisoner’s request for appointment of counsel in a 

civil rights case is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 158 

(3d Cir. 1993). Williams was not, contrary to his contention, entitled to appointment of 

counsel early in the litigation because the case did not require investigation beyond his 

capability, nor did it require expert testimony. See id. at 156. The case turned on a 

straightforward credibility determination, and, prior to trial, the District Court sua sponte

appointed counsel to represent Williams. See id. (when case is likely to turn on 

credibility determinations appointment of counsel justified). Williams’ contention is thus 
5

meritless. In his brief, he argues that he did not know how to properly cross-examine the 

adverse witnesses, or know generally how to present his case to the jury, but courts have 

no authority under the in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), to compel 

counsel to represent an indigent civil litigant; the court may only make the request. 

Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 307 (1989). The District 

Court actually made a formal request to the bar for appointment of counsel to conduct the 

trial on Williams’ behalf. No counsel volunteered to take Williams’ case. 

 Williams next argues that the directed verdict in favor of Ecsedy was error. Rule 

50(a)(1) provides that if “a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and 

the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis

to find for the party on that issue, the court may: (A) resolve the issue against the 

party....” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 50(a)(1)(A). The rule requires a court to “review all the 

evidence in the record ... [and in] doing so, draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the 

nonmoving party ... [without] mak[ing] credibility determinations or weigh[ing] the 

evidence.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 149-50 (2000). 

The District Court did not err in granting the motion for a directed verdict. Neither 

Williams nor his witnesses mentioned Ecsedy in connection with the claim that Forte 

without warning kicked Williams down a flight of stairs or the claim that he was denied 

medical care for his alleged resulting injuries. Moreover, Correctional Officer 

Lawrence’s testimony in rebuttal served to reinforce the correctness of the District 

Court’s decision. Lawrence testified, that he, and not Ecsedy, took Williams to the 

exercise yard and back again to his cell. (N.T., 9/27/11, at 12-13.) Thus, viewing the 

evidence in the light most favorable to Williams and without making a credibility 
6

determination, there was insufficient evidence from which a jury could have found 

Ecsedy liable in any way.

Next, Williams contends that he should have been allowed to amend his complaint 

to add a new, unrelated, and stale claim just before trial. In his motion to amend, filed on 

August 5, 2011 and after a trial date had been set, Williams sought to introduce a new 

claim against one Captain Bovo, who allegedly filed a false misconduct report against 

him in November, 2002. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave 

to amend. The statute of limitations had long since passed by the time Williams filed this 

motion, see generally 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5524 (providing that an action must be 

commenced within two years), and the claim did not relate back to the original complaint, 

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 15(c)(1)(B). The claim did not arise out of the same transaction or 

occurrence that was set forth in the original complaint in that it had nothing whatever to 

do with the allegation that Forte and Ecsedy used excessive force and denied Williams 

medical care. The District Court did not err in denying the motion because this 

amendment to Williams’ complaint would have been futile, see Grayson v. Mayview 

State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002).

With respect to Williams’ contention of racial discrimination, we note that 

litigants have an equal protection right to jury selection procedures free from 

discrimination, J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127, 128-29 (1994), but litigants 

are not entitled to juries of a particular composition, Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 

538 (1975). Williams contended in his motion for a new trial and now on appeal that he 

should have had jurors from the Homewood or Hazelwood neighborhoods of Pittsburgh, 

but he has not provided a basis for us to conclude that the absence of Homewood or 
7

Hazelwood residents on the jury caused its composition to be unconstitutional or 

unrepresentative of a fair cross-section of his community. The District Court noted that 

the panel or venire was the standard one for the U.S. District Court for the Western 

District of Pennsylvania. (N.T., 9/26/11, at 6-7.) Moreover, a plaintiff in a civil action 

who claims that racial discrimination occurred in jury selection must establish a prima 

facie case, including information about whether there has been a pattern of strikes against 

members of a particular race. Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614, 631 

(1991). Williams has provided no evidentiary support for this claim.

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment and all orders of the 

District Court.