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 7-27-2010 

# G ary R hines v . B . B led so e 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 . 10-1067

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 " G ary R hine s v . B . B le d s oe " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 867. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/867BL D- 1 7 6 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. 10- 1067

___________ G A RY RH I N ES, A ppel l ant v. W A R D E N B . A . B L E D S O E ; PHY SI CI AN ASST. LOU I S RAM I REZ; S T E V E B R O W N , H ea lth S erv ices A d m inistrator; T R O Y W I L L I A M SO N , For m erW ar den

____________________________________ 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 M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 09- cv- 00643) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e W i l l i am J. N eal on

_______________________________________ 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 ) o r S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 A pr i l 22, 2010 B efor e: M cK E E , C hi ef J udge, R E N D E L L and C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed J ul y27, 2010)

_________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_________ P E R C UR I AM G aryR hi nes , a fe der al pr i s onerform er l yconfi ned i n the U ni t ed St at es2

Peni t ent i ary , L ew i s bur g ( “U SP-Lew i s bur g”) , Penns y l vani a, appea l s pr o s e fr om the D istric t C o u rt’s e n tryo f ju d g m e n t in f

a v o r o f d e f e n d a n ts. B e c a u se w e c o n c lu d e th a t th is 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 , we wi l l s u mma r i l ya f f i r m. S e e 3 d Ci r . L. A. R. 2 7 .4 ; I .O .P . 1 0 .6 I. R hi nes fi l ed a c i vi l r i ght s compl ai ntpur s uantt o B i vens v. Si x U nknow n N amed A gen t s of t he F ed. B ureau o f N arcot i cs, 40 3 U . S . 38 8 (197 1), i n the D i stri ctC ou rtagainst th e W a rd e n a n d o th e r p riso n o f f icia ls. H e c laim s th a t th e yw e re d e lib e ra telyin d if f e re n t in the i rmedi c a l tr e a t menta nd c a r e of a kn e e i nj uryhe s us t a i ne d whi l e i nc a r c e r a t e d a tU SPL ew i s bur g. H e s eeks compensa t oryand puni t i ve damages and dec l ar at oryr el i ef. R hi nes r eport ed t o s i ck ca l l i n M ay2007 aft eri nj ur i ng hi s knee w hi l e pl ay i ng bas ketbal l . D efe ndantL oui s R ami r ez e xami ned hi s knee, pr ovi ded tr eatm ent , and o rd e re d a n x -ra y . A f

ter f ili n g a n a d m in istra tiv e re m e d y , R h in e s re c e iv e d th e x -ra yin e a rlyJu ly2 0 0 7 . H e sa w R a m ire z a g a in in late Ju ly2 0 0 7 , co m p lain in g th a t h is k n e e p a in and s w el l i ng cont i nued. R ami r ez f ound no s w el l i ng and found norm al m ovementand cont i nued R hi nes on m edi cat i on forhi s s tr ai n. T her eaf t er , defe ndantW ar den W i l l i amson r es ponded t o t he admi ni s tr at i ve r emedy , not i ng thatR hi nes had r ece i ved the x- r ayand w as cont i nui ng t o r ece i ve medi cal tr eatm ent , and dec l i ned t o i nt ervene. In e a rlyA u g u st 2 0 0 7 , R h in e s f iled a n a d m in istra tiv e a p p e a l, co m p lain in g th a t h is x- r ayhad bee n del ay ed one mont h and r eques t i ng an M R I . T he r egi onal di r ect ornot ed3

th a t R h in e s h a d b e e n tr e a te d a n d th a t a n M R I w a s n o t in d ic a te d , a n d d e n ie d th e a p p e a l. I n O ct ober2007, R hi nes fi l ed an appeal t o the B ur eau of Pr i s ons ( “B O P”) centr al offi ce, compl ai ni ng of the ca r e he ha d r ece i ved and r eques t i ng an M R I . W hi l e hi s appea l w as pendi ng, R hi nes w as exami ned i n O ct ober2007 and the nee d foran M R I w as not ed. T he c e n tra l o f

f ice d e n ied h is a p p e a l in late N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7 . R h in e s re c e iv e d a n M R I in M a r c h 2 0 0 8 , a n d u n d e r we n ts u r g e r yi n Au g u s t2 0 0 8 t o r e p a i ra t o rn me d i a l me n i s c u s . He w as r eturned t o U SP-Lew i s bur g w i th a thi r ty - dayconval es cents t atus and w as author i zed to u s e th e g ym f

o r s e lf -t h e ra p yf

o r s ix m o n th s . R h in e s f iled th e c o m p lain t in A p ril 2 0 0 9 , arg u in g th a t d e f e n d a n ts a re liab le to h im fo r de lay ing the p rop er d iagn o sti c test, em o ti o n al distr ess, ne g li g en ce , rec k less d isr eg ard ordel i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence t o hi s w el far e, m al fea s ance , m al i ce, r aci al di s cr i m i nat i on, in a d e q u a te m e d ica l ca re , an d c ru e l an d u n u su a l p u n ish m e n t. D e f e n d a n ts f iled a m o tio n to di s m i s s , or , i n t he al t ernat i ve, fors um m aryj udgm ent . T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed the m ot i on and ent er ed j udgm enti n favorof def endant s . R hi nes fi l ed a t i m el ynot i ce of a p p e a l. II. W e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. I n r evi ew i ng a D istri ct C o u rt ’s gra n t of su m m aryjud g m en t, w e a p p lythe s am e test th e D istri ct C o u rt appl i ed. Sal dana v. K m artC orp. , 260 F. 3d 228, 231 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . Sum m aryj udgm ent is p ro p e r w h e n , v iew in g th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o st f a v o ra b le to th e n o n -m o v in g p a rty4

and dr aw i ng al l i nfer ence s i n thatparty ’ s favor , ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac t a nd the movi ng pa r tyi s e nt i t l e d t o j ud gmen ta s a mat t e rof l a w . I d. a t23 2; Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 56( c) . T he partyoppos i ng s um m aryj udgm ent“maynotr es tupon the mer e al l egat i ons or den i al s of t he . . . pleadi ng , ” bu t“m ustsetforth specifi c facts show i ng that there i s a g en u ine issu e f

o r tri al. ” S alda n a, 26 0 F . 3 d at 23 2 (cit ing F ed . R . C iv. P. 56 (e); M a ts u s h ita E le c . In d u s . C o . v . Z e n ith R a d io C o rp ., 4 7 5 U .S . 5 7 4 (1 9 8 6 )) . III . R hi nes ar gues thatdefe ndant s ’ act s and omi s s i ons dur i ng the cour s e of tr eatm ent forhi s i nj urycons t i tut ed del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence , fr om w hi ch he s uffe r ed pai n and emot i onal di s tr es s . I n or dert o s t at e a c l ai m underthe Ei ghth A m endmentfordeni al of m e d ica l ca re , R h in e s m u st s h o w th a t d e f e n d a n ts w e re d e lib e ra telyin d if f e re n t to h is s er i ous m edi cal needs . E s t el l e v. G ambl e, 429 U . S. 97, 104 ( 1976) ; Far m erv. B r ennan, 511 U . S. 825, 834- 35 ( 1994) . D el i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence can be s how n bya pr i s on offi ci al

“ in ten tio n a llyd e n y in g o r d e layi n g a c c e ss to m e d ica l ca re o r in ten tio n a llyin ter f e rin g w ith the tr eatm entonce pr es cr i bed. ” Est el l e, 429 U . S. at104- 05. A cl ai m thata doct oror m edi cal depart m entw as negl i gentdoes nots t at e a c l ai m form edi cal m i s tr eatm entunder the Ei ghth A m endment . I d. at106. A m edi cal need i s s er i ous i f i t“has been di agnos ed b ya p h y sic ian a s re q u irin g tre a tm e n t o r o n e th a t is so o b v io u s th a t a la yp e rso n w o u ld e a silyre c o g n ize th e n e c e ss ityf o r a d o c to r’s a tten tio n .” M o n m o u th C o u n tyC o rr. In st. In m a te s v . L a n z a ro , 8 3 4 F .2 d 3 2 6 , 3 4 7 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 7 ).5

R hi nes ’ cl ai m s agai ns tdefe ndant s ar e bas ed on hi s bel i ef thathe s houl d have be en tr ea ted in a m o re ti m elym an n er a n d thro u g h the im m ed iat e u se o f a n M R I. T h e re co rd s how s thatR hi nes w as aff or ded cont i nual m edi cal car e forhi s knee i nj ury , and thatpr i s on staff tr ea ted a n d ev alua ted h im o n ea ch v isi t. T h ere fo re, w e a g ree w ith the D istri ct C o u rt th a t R h in e s c a n n o t sh o w d e f e n d a n ts p o ss e ss e d th e re q u isite m e n tal s tate n e c e ss a ryto pr ove an Ei ghth A m endmentvi ol at i on. M or eover , R hi nes ’ di s agr eementabouthi s cour s e of tr eatm ent , namel y , thatan M R I sho u ld h av e b ee n im m ed iat elyo rde red , d o es n o t dem o n str ate 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 . M er e di s agr eementas t o the pr operm edi cal tr eatm entw i l l nots uppor ta cl ai m underthe Ei ghth A m endment . Sprui l l v. G i l l i s , 372 F. 3d 218, 235 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . C our t s w i l l “di s avow anyatt empt t o s econd- gues s the pr opr i etyoradequa cyof a pa r t i cul arcour s e of tr eatm ent. . . ( w hi ch) r emai ns a ques t i on of s ound pr ofes s i onal j udgm ent . ” I nm at es of A l l eghenyC ountyJ ai l v. Pi er ce, 612 F. 2d 754, 762 ( 3d C i r . 1979) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . A ccor di ngl y , s um m aryj udgm entw as properl yenter ed in favo r of defen dan t s. In a d d iti o n , the D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rlyd e n ied th e c laim s a g a in st d e f e n d a n ts W ard en B leds o e a n d fo rm er W ard en W il li am so n , b ec au se th eyare p rem ised o n a the o ry of respon deat s up eri or. N ei ther defen dan t–asi de from W i l l i am son’s denial of R hines’ a d m in istra tiv e re m e d yin 2 0 0 7

– w a s p e rso n a llyin v o lv e d in h is m e d ica l ca re o r tre a tm e n t, and thus nei thercan be l i abl e foran al l eged c i vi l r i ght s vi ol at i on. See R ode v.6

D e lla rc ip re te , 8 4 5 F .2 d 1 1 9 5 , 1 2 0 7 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 8 ). Fi nal l y , t o t he ext entR hi nes chal l enges the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on forcouns el , w e conc l ude thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on. A n i ndi gent p lain tiff se e k in g th e a p p o in tm e n t o f c o u n se l m u st p re se n t a c laim h a v in g “ so m e m e rit in f a c t a n d la w .” P a rh a m v . J o h n s o n , 1 2 6 F .3 d 4 5 4 , 4 5 7 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ); T a b ro n v . G ra c e , 6 F. 3d 147, 155 ( 3d C i r . 1993) . R hi nes ’ cl ai m s l ack mer i tforthe r eas ons al r eady d is c u s s e d . Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e conc l ude thatthi s appea l pr es ent s no s ubs t ant i al q u esti o n . S ee I. O . P . 1 0 . 6 . A cc o rdin g ly , w e w il l sum m aril yaf firm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s o rd e r.