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 10-5-2010 

# K wa si M uh amm a d v . N J D ept C orr 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 . 09-1819

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 " K wasi M uh amm a d v

. N J D ept C orr " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 498. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/498BL D- 2 6 4 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 os . 09- 1819 and 10- 2152

___________ KWAS I S E KOU MUHAM M AD, a l s o k n o wn a s M I CH AE L WI NS T E AD, A ppel l ant v . NJ DE P AR T M E NT OF CO RR E CT I ONS ; KI DWEL L ; A. S E XT ON; CO RR E CT I ONAL M EDI CA L SERVI CES, I NC . ; CH ENN A G . RED DY , M . D. ; HA RRY J . LAW ELL & S O N , IN C ., P R O S T H E T IC & O R T H O T IC S ; JO H N , JA N E D O E S A -Z ; M .

WI L L I AM S ; J . DE M AI O; L OR E T T A T E RR Y, R. N.

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . N . J . C i v. N o. 05- cv- 04999 ) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le J e ro m e B . S im a n d le

____________________________________ S u b mi t t e d f

o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l P u r s u a n tt 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 ugus t12, 2010 B efor e: R E N D E L L , C H A G A R E S and V A N A SK I E , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: O ct ober5, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM B efor e us ar e tw o appea l s , both ar i s i ng fr om tw o cons ol i dat ed compl ai nt s fi l ed by K w as i Sekou M uhamm ad i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ctof N ewM u h a mma d a l s o n a me d o th e rd e f e n d a n t s n o ta ti s s u e i n th e s e a p p e a l s . Cl a i ms 1 agai ns tthos e def

endant s w er e di s m i s s ed as t i m e- barr ed. 2 Jerse y . A s n o su b stan ti al qu esti o n is prese n ted b yeith er a p p ea l, w e w il l sum m aril yaf firm the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entand or der s . L . A . R . 27. 4. T he part i es ar e al r eadyfami l i arw i th the fa ct s of thi s cas e. T her efor e, w e l i m i tour d isc u ss io n to th o se f

a c ts e ss e n tial to o u r d e c isio n . M u h a m m a d f iled a c o m p lain t, docket ed atD . N . J . C i v. N o. 05- cv- 04999, agai ns tthe N ew J er s eyD epart m entof C o rr e c tio n s (“ D O C ” ), C o rr e c tio n a l M e d ic a l S e rv ic e s , In c . (“ C M S ” ), a n d D r. R e d d y , a doct orw ho tr eat ed hi m i n pr i s on. M uhamm ad, w hos e l eftl eg w as amput at ed bel ow t he 1 k n e e y e a rs p rio r to in c a rc e ra tio n , alle g e d th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts, w h o f

a iled to p ro v id e h im w ith p h y sical th era p y , v iolated h is E igh th A m en d m en t r igh ts be ca u se th eyw ere d e lib e ra telyin d if

f e re n t to h is m e d ica l n e e d s. M u h a m m a d a lso a lleg e d th a t th e in a d e q u a te tr eatm entvi ol at ed Ti t l e I I of the A m er i cans w i th D i s abi l i t i es A ct , 42 U . S. C . §§ 12101- 12213 ( “A D A ”) , and thatD r . R eddycomm i t t ed medi cal m al pr act i ce unde rN ew J er s ey law . T h e D istric t C o u rt, o n su a sp o n te r e v iew , d ism iss e d th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t cla im a g a in st th e D O C a n d th e A D A c laim a g a in st D r. R e d d y , b u t allo w e d th e o th e r c laim s to pr ocee d. M uhamm ad fi l ed a s econd c om pl ai nt , docket ed atD . N . J . C i v. N o. 05- cv- 05001, n a m in g th e D O C , C M S , tw o c o rr e c tio n a l o f f ic e rs , a n d a tr e a tin g n u rs e , N u rs e T e rr y . M uhamm ad al l eged thathi s tr ans ferfr om a handi cappe d- acc es s i bl e ce l l on the fi r s tfl oor3

t o the upperbunk of a s econd- fl oorcel l vi ol at ed hi s r i ght s underthe Ei ghth A m endment and the A D A . T he D i s tr i ctC our tappoi nt ed pr o bono couns el forM uhamm ad and con sol i dated the tw o acti on s. D O C and the tw o corr ect i onal offi cer s ( the “D O C defe ndant s ”) fi l ed a mot i on for s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t, a s d id C M S , D r. R e d d y , a n d N u rs e T e rr y(t h e “ C M S d e f e n d a n ts ” ). On No v e mb e r1 2 , 2 0 0 8 , th e Di s tr i c tCo u r tg r a n t e d s u mma ryj u d g me n ta s t o a l l c l a i ms ag ains t th e C M S d ef

en d an ts. T h e D istri ct C o u rtalso g ran ted th e D O C ’s su m m ary j udgm entm ot i on as t o t he A D A cl ai m s ar i s i ng outof i nadequa t e medi cal tr eatm ent . T he A D A c laim a g a in st D O C a risin g o u t o f h is c o n d iti o n s o f

c o n f in e m e n t, an d th e E ig h th A m endmentcl ai m agai ns tthe tw o corr ect i onal offi cer s ar i s i ng outof the condi t i ons of c o n f in e m e n t w e re to b e d e c id e d a t trial. On F e b ru a r y1 1 , 2 0 0 9 , c o u n s e l f o rM u h a mm a d a n d c o u n s e l f o rth e DOC defe ndant s agr eed t o a s ett l ementi n the amountof $15, 000, l es s anyof the St at e of N ew J er s ey ’ s out s t andi ng j udgm ent s and/ orl i ens agai ns tM uhamm ad. O n February19, 2009, th e D istric t C o u rt e n ter e d a n o rd e r o f d ism iss a l. M u h a m m a d f iled a n o tice o f

a p p e a l, dat ed M ar ch 10, 2009, appea l i ng the N ovember12, 2008 D i s tr i ctC our tor der , docket ed her e atC . A . N o. 09- 1819. O n A ugus t24, 2009, the D O C defe ndant s fi l ed a mot i on fors ett l ement enfor cementi n t he D i s tr i ctC our t . T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed the mot i on forw i thdr aw al f iled b yM u h a m m a d ’s p ro b o n o c o u n se l, an d a llo w e d M u h a m m a d 9 0 d a y s to o b tain4

a lte rn a tiv e c o u n s e l o r o th e rw is e re s p o n d to th e m o tio n f o r s e ttle m e n t e n f

o rc e m e n t. M u h a m m a d f

iled a m o tio n f

o r re a p p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n se l, an d f

iled a n a f

f id a v it i n o p p o sitio n to th e m o tio n f o r se ttl e m e n t en f

o rc e m e n t, t o w h ich th e D O C d e f e n d a n ts r epl i ed. I n an opi ni on and or derent er ed M ar ch 3, 2010, the D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed M u h am m ad ’s m o ti o n fo r reap p o intm en t of co u n sel, an d set a d ate f o r an ev iden ti ary h e a ri n g to d e te rm in e w h a t s e ttle m e n t a u th o ri ty M u h a m m a d h a d g iv e n p ro b o n o c o u n s e l. T he C our thel d an evi dent i aryhear i ng on M ar ch 18, 2010, and r ece i ved the t es t i m onyof M uhamm ad and of

the att orney s w ho had pr evi ous l yr epr es ent ed hi m pr o bono. T he Di s tr i c tCo u r tf

o u n d th a tM u h a mma d h a d g i v e n c o u n s e l a u th o r i tyt o s e t t l e a l l c l a i ms a g a in st th e D O C d e f

e n d a n ts, a n d th u s e n ter e d a n o rd e r g ra n tin g th e d e f e n d a n ts’ m o tio n to enfor ce the s ett l ementagr eement . M uhamm ad appe al ed, and w e docke t ed thatappea l at C . A . N o. 10- 2152. C . A . N o. 10- 2152 W e fi r s taddr es s the i s s ues r ai s ed bythe appe al fr om the or dergr ant i ng the mot i on to en fo rce the s ett lem en t agre em en t. W e e x erc ise p lena ryrev iew o v er a d istri ct co u rt ’s interpre tat ion o f law , b u t m ayset aside a d istri ct co u rt ’s find ing s o f f ac t on lyif th eyare c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s . A g e re S y s te m s , In c . v . A d v a n c e d E n v ir o n m e n ta l T e c h n o lo g yC o rp ., 6 0 2 F . 3 d 2 0 4 , 2 1 6 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 1 0 ) . M u h a m m a d a rg u e d in th e D istric t C o u rt th a t h e o n lya u th o riz e d h is a tto rn e y s to s e t t l e th e c l a i ms th a ts u r v i v e d s u mm a ryj u d g me n t ; i . e . , th e ADA c l a i m a g a i n s tDOC5

ar i s i ng outof hi s condi t i ons of conf i nement , and the Ei ghth A m endmentcl ai m agai ns tt he tw o corr ect i onal offi cer s ar i s i ng outof the condi t i ons of conf i nement . H e ar gued thathe di d notauthor i ze hi s att orney s t o s ett l e hi s r i ghtt o appea l the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof the D O C defe ndant s as t o the A D A cl ai m s ar i s i ng outof i nadequa t e medi cal tr eatm ent . T he D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l ydet erm i ned thatN ew J er s ey law g o v e rn e d th e q u e stio n o f w h a t typ e o f

a u th o rityis re q u ire d f

o r a n a tto rn e yto se ttl e h is cli en t’ s claim . T ierna n v . D ev o e, 92 3 F . 2 d 1 0 2 4 , 1 0 3 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). T h e D istri ct C o u rt exami ned N ew J er s eyl aw , and pr oper l yfound underthatl aw thatan agr eementent er ed i nt o byan att orneyon behal f of hi s cl i enti s bi ndi ng i f the att orneyact ed w i th actual a u th o r i tyo ra p p a r e n ta u th o r i ty . Am a tu z z o v . Ko z mi u k , 7 0 3 A. 2 d 9 , 1 2 ( N. J . S u p e r . A. D. 1997) ( att orney ’ s negot i at i ons bi ndi ng on cl i enti f cl i entexpr es s l yauthor i zed s ett l ement orper s on of or di naryprudence w oul d be j us t i fi ed i n pr es um i ng thatatt orneyhad au tho ri tyto en ter i n to se tt lem en t) . A s not ed, the D i s tr i ctC our tconduct ed an e vi dent i aryhear i ng t o cons i derw hether M uhamm ad’ s att orney s had ac t ed w i th actual orappar entauthor i tyi n r eac hi ng a s ett l ement . Fol l ow i ng the hea r i ng, the D i s tr i ctC our tm ade c om pr ehens i ve fi ndi ngs of f a c t , a n d c o n c l u d e d th a tM u h a mma d h a d a g r e e d t o th e s e t t l e me n to f a l l o f h i s c l a i ms agai ns tthe D O C defe ndant s . I n part i cul ar , the D i s tr i ctC our tfound thatM uhamm ad knew thatboth t he s ui t s he had f i l ed w er e cons ol i dat ed and w er e movi ng forw ar d. T he C our tnot ed thata l ett erfr om M uhamm ad’ s att orney s t o M uhamm ad, bear i ng the capt i ons6

of both cas es , s t at ed thatM uhamm ad had a uthor i zed hi s att orney s t o “make a s ett l ement propo sal t o the defen dan t s i n the am ou nt of $1 4, 00 0 w i th au tho ri tyt o n ego t i at e t ow ards a s ett l ementi n t he vi ci ni tyof $10, 000. ” B oth att orney s t es t i fi ed thatM uhamm ad had not i ndi cat ed thathe w ant ed t o par s e outcert ai n cl ai m s agai ns tthe D O C defe ndant s . T he C our tnot ed thatM uhamm ad’ s att orney s m ade a s ett l ementdemand of $15, 000, and that the St at e had c ount er ed w i th an off erof $15, 000 l es s a deduc t i on forfi nes and l i ens M uhamm ad ow ed the St at e, w hi ch w as w el l above the $10, 000 fl oorthatM uhamm ad had author i zed. T he D i s tr i ctC our tfound thatM uhamm ad’ s att orney s t el ephoned M uhamm ad i n m i d t o l at e J anuary2009, and expl ai ned the pr opos ed s ett l ement . M uhamm ad i nd i cat ed in the p ho ne call that he w anted t o ap peal the d i sm i ssal of the C M S defe nd ants , and hi s att orney s agr eed t o s eek t o pr es erve thos e cl ai m s butnot ed thattheyw oul d not re p re se n t M u h a m m a d o n su c h a n a p p e a l. M u h a m m a d a lso in d ica ted th a t h e w ish e d to appea l the di s m i s s ed cl ai m s agai ns tthe D O C defe ndant s , buthi s att orney s expl ai ned that the D O C d ef

en d an ts w o u ld n o t agre e to a p arti al sett lem en t. B o th o f M u h am m ad ’s att orney s r eca l l ed thatM uhamm ad then agr eed w i th the s ett l ement . A ft err evi ew i ng t he r e c o r d , we h o l d th a tth e Di s tr i c tCo u r t ’ s f i n d i n g o f f a c t s a r e n o tc l e a r l ye rr o n e o u s , a n d we a g re e w ith th e C o u rt’s c o n c lu sio n th a t M u h a m m a d g a v e h is a tto rn e y s a u th o rityto se ttl e all claim s ag ains t th e D O C d ef en d an ts. W e w il l th ere fo re a ff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s o rd e r e n f o rc in g th e se ttl e m e n t.7

C . A . 09- 1819 W e now cons i derM uhamm ad’ s appea l of the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s N ovember12, 2008 d e c isio n . W e o n lyh a v e ju risd ictio n to c o n sid e r c laim s w h e re th e re is a ju stic iab le co n tr o v ersy . S alov aa ra v . Jac k so n N at’l L ife In s. C o . , 2 4 6 F . 3 d 2 8 9 , 2 9 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). “I nt erveni ng event s , s uch as the part i es r eac hi ng s ett l ementi n the ca s e, can r enderan a p p e a l mo o t . ” I d . Be c a u s e th e p a r t i e s s e t t l e d a l l c l a i ms a g a i n s tth e DOC d e f e n d a n t s , we lac k ju risd ictio n to c o n sid e r th e N o v e m b e r d e c isio n ’s g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t w ith regar d to cl ai m s agai nstthe D O C defe nd ants . W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm ent as to the re m ainin g claim s: ( 1 ) M u h am m ad ’s E igh th A m en d m en t cl aim ag ains t D r. R e d d ya n d C M S , h is m e d ica l m a lp ra c tice c laim a g a in st D r. R e d d y , an d h is A D A c laim agai ns tC M S, al l ar i s i ng outof al l egedl ys ubs t andar d m edi cal tr eatm entw hi l e he w as hous ed atA l bertC . W agnerY outh C orr ect i onal Faci l i ty( “A C W Y C F”) ; and (2 ) M u h a m m a d ’s E ig h th A m e n d m e n t cla im a g a in st N u rse T e rrya n d h is A D A c laim agai ns tC M S bas ed on hi s tr ans ferfr om a fi r s t - fl oor , handi cappe d- acc es s i bl e ce l l t o an u p p er-leve l bu n k o f a sec o n d -floo r ce ll at S o u th W o o d s S tat e P ri so n (“S o u th W o o d s”). W e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthatM uhamm ad’ s cl ai m s ar i s i ng outof the fai l ur e t o pr ovi de hi m phy s i cal ther apyatA C W Y C F ar e t i m e- barr ed. A tw o- y earper i od o f l i mi t a t i o n s a p p l i e s t o b o th M u h a mm a d ’ s E i g h th Am e n d me n tc l a i ms a n d h i s ADA cl ai m s . See M ont gom eryv. D e Si m one, 159 F. 3d 120, 126 & n. 4 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( N ew8

Je rse y ’s tw o -y e a r lim itatio n s p e rio d f o r p e rso n a l in

ju rya c tio n s a p p lies to c iv il righ ts claim s); D isab led in A cti o n o f P a. v. S e. P a. T ran sp . A u th., 5 3 9 F . 3 d 1 9 9 , 2 0 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ( s t a tu t e o f

l i mi t a t i o n s a p p l i c a b l e t o s t a t e p e r s o n a l i n j u ryc l a i ms a p p l i e s t o ADA cl ai m s ) . M uhamm ad’ s compl ai nt s ar e dat ed Sept ember26, 2005; thus , anycl ai m s that acc rued bef

or e Sept ember26, 2003 ar e t i m e–barr ed. A s the D i s tr i ctC our tnot ed, M uh am m ad w as transferred from A C W Y C F t o S ou th W oo ds on S eptem ber 24, 2003 , so al l cl ai m s thatacc rued w hi l e he w as atA C W Y C F ar e t i m e- barr ed. M uhamm ad ar gued th a t u n d e r a “ c o n tin u in g v io latio n s” th e o ry , h e c o u ld b rin g c laim s re g a rd in g th e f a ilu re to pr ovi de phy s i cal ther apyatA C W Y C F, beca us e he w as notpr ovi ded w i th phy s i cal th e ra p yu n til A p ril 2 0 0 4 (a t S o u th W o o d s). H o w e v e r, as th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rly no t ed, i n o rdert o u t i l i ze a co nti nu i ng viol at i on s theo ry , a plai nti ff m ustshow that “atl east one ac toccurr ed w i thi n the fi l i ng per i od. ” D i s tr i ctC our tO pi ni on at19, quot i ng M cA l ees e v. B r ennan, 483 F. 3d 206, 218 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . B eca us e M uhamm ad di d not a lleg e th a t h e w a s re f

u se d p h y sic a l th e ra p ya t an ytim e a f ter S e p tem b e r 2 6 , 2 0 0 3 , h is c l a i m s r e g a r d i n g f

a i l u r e t o p r o v i d e p h ys i c a l th e r a p y a r e u n t i m e l y. T he r emai ni ng cl ai m s ar e the Ei ghth A m endmentcl ai m agai ns tN ur s e Ter ryand h is A D A claim ag ains t C M S , b ase d o n h is tran sfe r fro m a f ir st- flo o r, h a n d ic a p p e d -a c c e s s ib le c e ll to a n u p p e r- le v e l b u n k o f a s e c o n d -f

lo o r c e ll a t S o u th W o o d s . W e not e thati n an A pr i l 19, 2009 l ett ert o the D i s tr i ctC our t , M uhamm ad s t at ed thathe w a s “ in a g re e m e n t w ith th e c o u rt’s o p in io n d a ted N o v e m b e r 1 2 2 0 0 8 , as it p e rta in s s o lely9

t o ci vi l act i on no. 05- 5001, i ncl udi ng the di s m i s s al of C M S defenda ntL or et a [s i c] T err y . ” D kt . #140- 2, page 60 of 63. I tappea r s thatM uhamm ad thus di d noti nt end t o appea l th e se c laim s. N e v e rth e les s, o u t o f a n a b u n d a n c e o f

c a u tio n , w e n o te th a t w e a re f u llyin agr eementw i th the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entas t o thes e cl ai m s , fort he r eas ons s t at ed bythe D i s tr i ctC our t . See D i s tr i ctC our tO pi ni on, D kt . #117, n. 13. Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j udgm ent ent er ed N ovember13, 2008 and i t s or derent er ed M ar ch 31, 2010.