D L D

- 1 3 7 NOT PR ECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF A PPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 2 0

- 3 1 5 0

___________

RONALD EDWARD GILLETTE

,

Appellant

v.

ACTING WARDEN DIANE PROSPER;

J UL IUS WILSON, in his capaci ty as the Directo r of Prisons;

TERRITORY OF VIRGIN I SLANDS; ERIC HOLDER

________________ ____________________

On Appeal from the

Distric t C o u r t of t h e V i r g i n I s l a n d s

(D.C. Civil Action No. 1

- 1 4

- c v

- 0 0 1 1 0 )

District Judge: Honorab le W i l m a A

. L e w i s

___ _______________________ __________

Sub mitted for Possible D i s m i s s a l P u r s u a n t t o 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B ) o r

Summary Action Pursuant to Third C ircuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

A p r i l 1

, 2 0 2 1

Before: JORDAN, KRAUSE

, and PHIPPS

, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed April 2 7 , 2021 )

_________

OPIN IO N *

_________

* T his disposition is not an opinion of the full C ou rt a nd pursua nt to I .O.P. 5.7 does not

constitute binding precedent.2

PER C URIAM

R o n a l d E

. G i l l e t t e a p p e a l s f r o m t h e o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e V i r g i n

I s l a n d s g r a n t i n g t h e d e f

e n d a n t s ’ m o t i o n o n t h e p l e a d i n g s a n d d i s m i s s i n g h i s c a s e

. W e

w i l l a f f i r m t h e judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

.

G i v e n t h e l e n g t h y h i s t o r y o f t h i s l i t i g a t i o n

, a n d b e c a u s e t h e p a r t i e s a r e f a m i l i a r

w i t h t h e b a c k g r o u n d

, w e p r e s e n t o n l y a s u m m a r y

. G i l l e t t e i s a f o r m e r i n m a t e a t G o l d e n

G r o v e C o r r e c t i o n a l F a c i l i t y ( “ G o l d e n G r o v e ” ) l o c a t e d o n S t

. C r o i x

. T h r o u g h c o u n s e l

, h e

f i l e d h i s c o m p l a i n t i n 2 0 1 4

, a m e n d e d i n M a r c h 2 0 1 5

, c h a l l e n g i n g t h e p r i s o n c o n d i t i o n s a t

G o l d e n G r o v e

. R eferencing t he l o n g

- t e r m l i t i g a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g t h e d an g e r o u s a n d

u n s a n i t a r y c on d i t i o n s a t G o l d e n G r o v e i n U n i t e d S t a te s v

. T e r r i t o r y o f t h e V i r g i n I s l a n d s

,

e t a l

. , D

. V

. I

. C i v

. N o

. 1 : 8 6

- c v

- 2 6 5

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

,

G i l l e t t e a l l e g e d t h a t c o n d i t io n s h a v e n o t i m pr o v e d

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

G r o v e r em a in e d a t r i s k o f s e r i o u s h a r m

. 1 G i l l e t t e a l s o p r o v i d e d i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g a

p r i o r b r a i n i n

j u r y

, a l o n g w i t h a p h y s i c i a n ’ s d o c u m e n t a t i o n t o G i l l e t t e ’ s a t t o r n e y

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

. I n

a d d i t i o n

, G i l l e t t e p r e s e n t e d i n f o r m a t i o n a n d r e c o r d s o f G o l d e n G r o v e ’ s ongoing

1 Gillette previously appear ed before us in United State s v. Territory of the V irgin

Islands

, 748 F.3d 514 ( 3d Cir. 2014) , whe n we affirme d the denial of his motion to

interve ne i n the Golden Grove li tigatio n that began in 1986

. We note d that Gille tte relie d

extensively on the Uni ted S tates ’ s pleadings and fou nd t hat “ Gillette ’ s int erest s not on ly

overla p with those of the Unite d S t ates, th e y are es sentially identical

. ” I d

. at 521

- 22

.3

p r o b l e m s

, i n c lu d i n g i s s u e s o f p r i s o n s u p e r v i s i o n

, i n m a t e s a f e t y

, m e d i c a l c a r e

, a n d

e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n c e r n s

.

A s d e f e n d a n t s

, G i l l e t t e n a m e d D i a n e P r o s p e r

, f o r m e r W a r d e n o f G o l d e n G r o v e ;

a n d J u l i u s W i l s o n

, f

o r m e r D i r e c t o r o f t h e V i r g i n I s l a n d s B u r e a u o f C o r r e c t i o n s ; i n t h e i r

i n d i v i d u a l a n d o f

f i c i a l c a p a c i t i e s

. G i l l e t t e a l s o n a m e d t h e T e r r i t o r y o f t h e V i r g i n I s l a n d s

a s a d e f e n d a n t

. 2 I n t h e t w e n t y

- t w o c o u n t s o f t h e c o m p l a i n t

, G i l l e t t e a l l e g e d d e n i a l o f

a d e q u a t e m e d i c a l c a r e f

o r h i s p h y s i c a l a n d m e n t a l i s s u e s

, f a i l u r e t o p r o t e c t h i m f

r o m t h e

r i s k o f a t t a c k

, f

a i l u r e t o p r o t e c t h i m f

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

, i n a d e q u a t e

e m p l o y e e t r a i n i n g

, e x c l u s i o n f r o m s e r v i c e s a n d p r o g r a m s

, a n d f a i l u r e t o a c c o m m o d a t e

h i s h e a t

- s e n s i t i v e d i s a b i l i t i e s

. H e f r a m e d h i s c l a i m s u n d e r 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 1 9 8 3 ; B i v e n s v

.

S i x U n k n o w n A g e n t s o f F e d e r a l B u r e a u o f N a r c o t i c s

, 4 0 3 U

. S

. 3 8 8 ( 1 9 7 1 ) ; S e c t i o n 5 0 4

o f t h e R e h a b i l i t a t i o n A c t ; a n d t h e A m e r i c a n s w i t h D i s a b i l i t i e s A c t ( “ A D A ” )

. H e s o u g h t

d e c l a r a t o r y r e l i e f t h a t h i s r i g h t s w e r e v i o l a t e d

, i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f o f r e l e a s e o r t r a n s f e r t o

a n o t h e r f a c i l i t y

, a n d d a m a g e s r e l i e f

.

T h e d e f e n d a n t s f i l e d a m o t i o n f

o r j u d g m e n t o n t h e p l e a d i n g s a n d f o r d e n i a l a s

m o o t o f G i l l e t t e ’ s m o t i o n s t o f i l e a n o v e r l e n g t h b r i e f

, t o s t r i k e a f f i r m a t i v e d e f

e n s e s

, a n d

t o t a k e j u d i c i a l n o t i c e

. 3 T h e a s s i g n e d M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e i s s u e d a r e p o r t a n d

2 G illette had named f

ormer United S t ate s Attorney Gen eral Eric Holder as a defendant

but voluntar ily dismi ssed him from the c a se i n April 2015.

3 Mea nwhile , the District Court denied Gillette ’ s motion to conv ene a three

- judge panel

under the P r ison L i tigation Refor m Act ( “ PLRA ” ). We dismissed Gillette ’ s appeal from

t hat denia l for lack of juri s diction. Gil l ette v . Prosper , 858 F.3d 8 33 (3d Cir. 2017)

.4

r e c o m m e n d a t i o n t o g r a n t t h e d e f e n d a n t s ’ m o t i o n

. D e s p i t e b e i n g r e p r e s e n t e d b y c o u n s e l

,

G i l l e t t e f i l e d p r o s e o b

j e c t i o n s a n d a s s e r t e d n e w f a c t u a l c l a i m s ; h e a l s o s t a t e d t h a t h e w a s

n o l o n g e r i m p r i s o n e d a t G o ld e n G r o v e

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o n s i d e r e d G i l l e t t e ’ s

o b j e c t i o n s i n r e v i e w i n g the r e p o r t a n d r e c o m m e n d a t i o n a n d a c c e p t e d t h e r e p o r t a n d

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

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t G i l l e t t e ’ s c l a i m s f o r

i n j u n c t i v e a n d d e c l a r a t o r y r e l i e f u n d e r § 1 9 8 3

, t h e A D A

, a n d § 5 0 4 o f t h e R e h a b i l i t a t i o n

A c t b e c a m e m o o t u p o n G i l l e t t e ’ s t r a n s f e r f r o m G o l d e n G

r o v e i n 2 0 1 6

. C o n c e r n i n g t h e

§ 1 9 8 3 d a m a g e s c l a i m s a n d a l l o f t h e B i v e n s c l a i m s

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t

G i l l e t t e f a i l e d t o s t a t e a c l a i m u p o n w h i c h r e l i e f m a y b e g r a n t e d

. T h u s

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

g r a n t e d t h e d e f

e n d a n t s ’ m o t i o n f

o r j u d g m e n t o n t h e p l e a d i n g s a n d d i s m i s s e d G i l l e t t e ’ s

m o t i o n s a s m o o t

.

G i l l e t t e f i l e d a t i m e l y n o t i c e o f a p p e a l f r o m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s f i n a l o r d e r

d i s m i s s i n g h i s c l a i m s

. W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 9 1

. Because G i l l e t t e

has bee n granted l e a v e t o p r o c e e d in forma pa uperis u n d e r § 1915 o n a p p e a l , we review

t h e appeal for possible dis missal u n d e r § 1915 (e)(2) (B). A l t e r n a t i v e l y

, w e may

summarily aff

irm under T hi rd Circuit L

. A

. R

. 27 .4 and I.O.P. 10.6 if n o s u b s t a n t i a l

q u e s t i o n i s p r e s e n t e d

. G i l l e t t e h a s f i l e d a d o c u m e n t i n s u p p o r t o f h i s a p p e a l

, a l o n g w i t h

a t t a c h m e n t s

. A p p e l l e e s P r o s p e r

, W i l s o n

, a n d T e r r i t o r y o f t h e V i r g i n I s l a n d s

, i n t u r n

,

h a v e f i l e d a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l a n d r e s p o n s e t o G i l l e t t e ’ s d o c u m e n t

, t o w h i c h

G i l l e t t e h a s r e s p o n d e d

.5

We r e v i e w d e n o v o t h e District C ourt’s j u d g m e n t

, w h e t h e r s t r i c t l y c o n s t r u e d a s

judgment on t he pleadings under Federal Rule of Civi l Procedure 12(c)

, o r a s j u d g m e n t

b a s e d o n a f

a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m u n d e r R u l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 )

. S e e DiCarlo v. St. Mary Hosp.

,

530 F.3d 255, 259 (3d Cir. 2008) ( s t a t i n g t h e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w f o r a R u l e 1 2 ( c ) m o t i o n ) ;

New ark Cab Ass’ n v. City of Newark , 901 F. 3d 146, 151 (3d Cir. 2018) ( s t a t i n g t h e

s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w f

o r a R u l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) m o t i o n ) ; s e e a l s o Spruill v. Gillis , 372 F.3d 218,

223 n.2 (3d Cir. 2004) ( n o t i n g t h a t t h e r e i s n o m a t e r i a l d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e a p p l i c a b l e l e g a l

s t a n d a r d s c o n c e r n i n g m o t i o n s u n d e r R u l e 1 2 ( c ) a n d R u l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) )

.

W e a g r e e w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t G i l l e t t e f a i l e d t o s t a t e B i v e n s

c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e A p p e l l e e s i n s o f a r a s t h e y a r e n o t f

e d e r a l a c t o r s

. A B i v e n s a c t i o n i s t h e

f e d e r a l a n a l o g f

o r § 1 9 8 3 c i v i l r i g h t s s u i t s c o n c e r n i n g v i o l a t i o n s o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s

b y f e d e r a l o f f i c i a l s

. S e e D a v i s v

. S a m u e l s

, 9 6 2 F

. 3 d 1 0 5

, 1 1 1 ( 3 d C i r

. 2 0 2 0 )

. B e c a u s e

§ 1 9 8 3 i t s e l f p r o v i d e s a r e m e d y f o r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l d e p r i v a t i o n s b y p e r s o n s a c t i n g u n d e r

c o l o r o f l a w “ o f a n y S t a t e o r T e r r i t o r y o r t h e D i s t r i c t o f C o l u m b i a

, ” 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 1 9 8 3

( e m p h a s i s a d d e d )

, t h e r e i s n o n e e d t o e x t e n d B i v e n s f o r G i l l e t t e ’ s s u i t a g a i n s t t h e

A p p e l l e e s

.

R e g a r d i n g G i l l e t t e ’ s § 1 9 8 3 c l a i m s f o r i n j u n c t i v e a n d d e c l a r a t o r y r e l i e f u n d e r

§ 1 9 8 3

, w e a g r e e w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e s e c l a i m s

, a s w e l l a s t h o s e

u n d e r t h e A D A a n d § 5 0 4 o f t h e R e h a b i l i t a t i o n A c t

, b e c a m e m o o t u p o n G i l l e t t e ’ s t r a n s f e r6

f r o m G o l d e n G r o v e i n 2 0 1 6

. 4 A federal court does not hav e the power to decide moot

questions. See North Carolina v. Rice , 404 U.S. 244

, 2 46 ( 1971). Article III requ ires a

live case or controversy throughout the entire litigation; if no li ve controversy exists, the

court must dismiss the case for l ack of juris diction. See Lusardi v. Xerox Corp. , 975 F.2d

96 4, 974 (3d Cir. 1992). A s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t n o t e d , an inmate’s claim for inj unctive and

de claratory relief g e n e r a l l y becomes moot on his t r a n s f e r from t h e f

a c i l i t y a t i s s u e ;

G i l l e t t e ’ s c l a i m s d o n o t i m p l i c a t e the e x c e p t i o n t o m o o t n e s s f o r c l a i m s t o o s h o r t i n

d u r a t i o n t o b e f

u l l y l i t i g a t e d

, w h e r e i t i s r e a s o n a b l y l i k e l y t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f a g a i n w i l l b e

s u b j e c t e d t o t h e s a m e a c t i o n

. See

, e

. g

. , Sutton v. Rasheed , 323 F.3d 236, 248 (3d Cir.

2003); Abdul

- Akbar v. Watson , 4 F.3d 195, 206 (3d Cir. 1993)

.

I n h i s r e m a i n i n g c l a i m s

, G i l l e t t e s o u g h t d a m a g e s r e l i e f u n d e r § 1 9 8 3 a g a i n s t

A p p e l l e e s P r o s p e r a n d W i l s o n i n t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t i e s ( C o u n t s 2

, 7

, 1 2

, a n d 1 7 )

.

W e a g r e e w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s a s s e s s m e n t t h a t G i l l e t t e ’ s a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t w a s

i n s u f f i c i e n t t o s t a t e a c i v i l r i g h t s a c t i o n f o r d a m a g e s a g a i n s t P r o s p e r a n d W i l s o n

. “To

state a § 1983 cla im, a plaintiff must demonstrate the def endant, acting under color of

state law, deprived him or her of a right secured by the Constitution or the laws of the

Un ited States.” Kaucher v. Coun t y of Bucks , 455 F.3d 418, 4 23 (3 d Cir. 2006). T h e

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

4 Gill ette confirm s that his current place of incarcerati on is Ci trus County Detention

Facility in Florida , which he st ates is a private facility holding over 100 Virgi n Islands

convicted inmates

. See Appella nt ’ s Response at 3.7

W i l s o n w e r e a w a r e o f

, b u t w e r e d e l i b e r a t e l y i n d i f f e r e n t t o G i l l e t t e ’ s n e e d s a n d r i s k s o f

h a r m

. A s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s t a t e d

, t h e r e a r e n o a l l e g a t i o n s o f s p e c i f i c c o n d u c t

,

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

, o r o t h e r personal involve m e n t in an

unlawful deprivation of h i s r ights

. See Evancho v. Fisher , 423 F.3d 347, 353 (3d Cir.

20 05) (e xplaining that a civil ri gh ts complaint must allege fact s identifying the “co nduct,

ti me, pla ce, and persons resp onsible”)

. G i l l e t t e cann ot rely solely on respondeat superior

as a theory o f liabili ty f

o r t h e s e c l a i m s

, s o l e l y u p o n P r o s p e r ’ s p o s i t i o n a s W a r d e n a n d

W i l s o n ’ s p o s i t i o n a s D i r e c t o r o f t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f C o r r e c t i o n s

, w h e r e h e h a s a l l e g e d n o

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

. See Rode v. Dellarciprete , 845 F. 2d 1195,

1207

- 0 8 (3d Cir. 1988).

B e c a u s e G i l l e t t e ’ s a p p e a l p r e s e n t s n o s u b s t a n t i a l q u e s t i o n

, 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

. A p p e l l e e s ’ m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s i s d e n i e d

.