2009 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 3-18-2009 

# S cott v . M ahlmei s t e 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 . 07-4197

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_2009

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 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 " S c ott v . M ahlmei s t e r " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1730. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1730NOT 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. 07- 4197

___________ STEVEN SCO TT, A ppel l ant v . DE BO RA H M AHL M E I S T E R; S GT . E P E RJ E S I : OF F I CE R E F AW

____________________________________ 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. Ci v i l Act i o n No. 0 6 - 0 0 0 3 4 E) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le S e a n J. M c L a u g h lin

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 13, 2009 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, C H A G A R E S and W E I S, C i r cui tJ udges (O p inion fil ed : M arc h 1 8 , 2 0 0 9 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C U R I A M.

P ro se a p p e llan t S tev e n S c o tt ch a llen g e s th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e n ial o f h is r eques tt o i nt r oduce a ddi t i onal t es t i m onyi n r es pons e t o ques t i ons fr om the j uryr egar di ng d a m a g e s in h is 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n .2 S c o tt, w h o is in c a rc e ra ted a t a P e n n sy lv a n ia s tate p riso n , file d a c iv il righ ts c o m p lain t in th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia a g a in st th re e p riso n e m p lo y e e s. A s is re lev a n t h e re , h e c laim e d th a t d e f e n d a n t D e b ra M a h lm e iste r v io late d h is E ig h th A m endmentr i ght s beca us e s he fa i l ed t o actaft erhe w arned herthatanotheri nm at e, R o n a ld P a ig e , h a d th re a ten e d h im . P a ig e a ttac k e d S c o tt w ith a ra z o r so o n a f ter S c o tt in f o rm e d M a h lm e is te r t h a t P a ig e h a d th re a te n e d h im .

T h e c a se w e n t to trial in O c to b e r 2 0 0 7 , an d S c o tt rep re se n ted h im se lf a t all t i m es . A l t hough t he r ecor d i s notent i r el ycl ear , i tappea r s thatScot tr ece i ved a m i s conductchar ge af

t erPai ge att acke d hi m and thathe w as pl ace d i n a r es t r i ct ed hous i ng u n it fo r th irtyd a y s. H e h a d re sid e d in th e “ K b lo c k ” a n d w o rk e d in th e k itch e n p rio r to the a tt ac k . A t som e p o int, the p ri so n su p erinten d en t r ed u ce d the lev el of h is discipli n ary w ri t e-up, and S cottsubsequ entl yasked M ahlm ei st er t o all ow him t o return t o K block so t hathe coul d r etur n t o hi s ki t chen j ob. T he t es t i m onyw as uncl earas t o w hetherhe eve r r etur ned t o K bl ock ort o t he ki t chen j ob.

D u rin g d e lib e ra tio n s, th e ju ryse n t th e f o llo w in g q u e stio n s to th e ju d g e : “W hatw as t he hour l yr at e M r . Scot tw as pai d w hen w or ki ng i n t he ki t chen? H ow l ong w as M r . Scot toutof the ki t chen pos i t i on beca us e of the al t er cat i on?” T he D i s t r i ctJ udge pr opos ed thathe t el l t he j ur yt hat“they ’ r e j us tgoi ng t o have t o det erm i ne, as bes tthey can, fr om t hei rr ecol l ect i on w hatt he evi dence on t hos e poi nt s w er e. ” The defe ns e di d not obj ectt o t he pr opos ed r es pons e, butScot tas ked i f he c oul d “t el l ” the j urythathe “ne ver3

gott he ki t chen j ob back. ” The D i s tr i ctJ udge i nform ed Scottthatthe ca s e coul d notbe re o p e n e d a n d sta ted th a t “[ t]h e e v id e n c e is w h a t th e e v id e n c e w a s.” S c o tt d ro p p e d h is obj ect i on, and the j ur or s w er e t ol d t hattheym us tr el yon t hei row n r ecol l ect i on of the evi dence . T h e juryreturn ed w ith a v erd ictfin d ing that M ah lm eist er v iolated S co tt ’s ci vi l r i ght s beca us e s he knew t hatt her e w as a s ubs t ant i al r i s k t hatPai ge w oul d att ack Scot tbutdel i ber at el ydi s r egar ded i t . Fur t herm or e, the j uryfound thatScot tw oul d not have be en harm ed orw oul d have s uffe r ed l es s harm i f M ahl m ei s t erhad notbeen d e lib e ra te ly in d if

f e re n t. T h e ju ry d id n o t, h o w e v e r, a w a rd a n yd a m a g e s to S c o tt. Scot tt i m el yappea l ed, as s ert i ng thatthe D i s t r i ctC our terr ed bynotal l ow i ng h im to te s tif

yin re s p o n s e to th e ju ry’s q u e s tio n s . II. T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on t o r eopen ort o s uppl ementthe r ecor d once juryd eli b era ti o n s h av e b eg u n is r ev iew ed fo r ab u se o f d iscreti o n . G ibso n v . M ay o r & C ityC o u n c il o f

W ilm in g to n , 3 5 5 F .3 d 2 1 5 , 2 2 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). “G re a t f lex ib ili tyis acc or ded the D i s t r i ctC our ti n i t s det erm i nat i on . . . though i tm us tavoi d perpetr at i ng any typ e o f in ju s tic e .” Id . T he D i s t r i ctJ udge di d notabus e hi s di s cr et i on bydecl i ni ng t o al l ow s uppl ement al t es t i m onyorar gum enti n r es pons e t o t he j ury ’ s fac tual ques t i ons . T he q u esti o n s fro m the ju ryin this m att er d ea ltsq u are lyw ith d am ag es, i n d icati n g that the ju ryFur t herm or e, Scot tpr ovi ded s canti nform at i on r egar di ng 1 d a m a g e s d u rin g th e trial. W e d o n o t ag re e w ith th e a p p e llee s’ a ss e rtio n th a t th e f a ilu re to i nt r oduce s uch evi dence w as a “s t r at egi c des i gn byScot tt o i nvi t e the j ury ’ s arr ant sp e c u latio n . . . in th e h o p e o f g e tti n g a w in d f

a ll. ” It w a s, h o w e v e r, S c o tt’s b u rd e n to pr ove eve r yel ementof hi s cas e, i ncl udi ng damages , R ochez B r os . , I nc. v. R hoades , 527 F .2 d 8 9 1 , 8 9 4 (3 d C ir. 1 9 7 5 )), a n d if h e d id n o t p ro v id e th e ju ryw ith e n o u g h e v id e n c e to sa tisf yth is b u rd e n d u rin g th e trial, h e sh o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n a llo w e d to re m e d yth is over s i ghtaft erdel i ber at i ons had begun. 4 h ad alread yd eterm ined that at l ea st on e o f th e d ef en d an ts ha d v iolated S co tt ’s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . Scot tcont ends thatans w er i ng the j ury ’ s ques t i ons w oul d have re q u ire d h im to o n lysta te h is h o u rlyw a g e a n d th e f a c t th a t h e n e v e r re tu rn e d to h is kit chen j ob . H ow ever, t he d efen se w ou l d li kelyhav e dis pu t ed, am on g o t her things, w hethert he ( appar ent l yperm anent ) l os s of the ki t chen j ob r es ul t ed fr om the vi ol at i on of Scot t ’ s r i ght s . A l l ow i ng t hi s t ype of pr oces s w oul d have bur dened the def endant s by 1 r equi r i ng t hem t o r eca l l t hei rw i t nes s es ; i tal s o w oul d have unne ces s ar i l ydel ay ed the res olut i on of the case, and cou l d h ave d i st ort ed the i m po rt ance o f t he ev i den ce as a w hol e. See G i bs on, 355 F. 3d at229; cf. E as on v. U ni t ed St at es , 281 F. 2d 818, 822 ( 3d C i r . 1960) ( s t at i ng, i n a cr i m i nal cas e, that“r eopeni ng forthe purpos e of i ntr oduci ng over l ooked evi dence m us tbe done w i t h extr eme r el uct ance beca us e of the undue emphasi s gi ven t o t he i nt r oduced e vi dence w i t h t he cons equentdi s t or t i on of the evi dence as a w hol e”) . T he D i s t r i ctC our tt her efor e di d notperpetr at e anytype of i nj us t i ce by r efus i ng t o al l ow Scot tt o i nt r oduce ne w evi dence i n r es pons e t o t he j ury ’ s ques t i ons . See G i bs on, 355 F. 3d at229.5 S c o tt also a p p e a rs to a rg u e th a t th e ju ryw a s re q u ire d to a w a rd d a m a g e s in lig h t o f its liab ili tyd e ter m in a tio n . C o m p e n sa to ryd a m a g e s, h o w e v e r, ar e o n ly re c o v e ra b le u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 to c o m p e n sa te “ f o r a c tu a l in

ju rysu f f e re d a s a re su lt of the vi ol at i on of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght ” bec aus e the “a bs t r actval ue of a cons t i tut i onal r i ght. . . m aynotform t he bas i s for1983 damages . ” A l l ah v. A l - H afe ez, 226 F. 3d 247, 250 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . T hus , a l i abi l i t ydet erm i nat i on does not m andat e a da m ages aw ar d. M or eover , al t hough nom i nal damages m aybe aw ar ded i n t he a b se n c e o f

p ro o f o f a c tu a l in ju ryto re c o g n ize a v io latio n o f a c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t, th is “ent i t l ementi s notaut om at i c, ” as t he pl ai nt i ff mustm ake a “t i m el yr eques t ” fors uch d am ag es. A lexa n d er v . R iga, 20 8 F . 3 d 4 1 9 , 4 2 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). T h e p rop o sed jury i ns t ruct i ons s ubm i t t ed byScot tand the def endant s i ncl uded an i ns t ruct i on r egar di ng nom i nal damages . T he fi nal j ur yi ns t ruct i ons di d not , how ever , i ncl ude s uch an i ns t ruct i on. I n r es pons e t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s query , nei t herpart yobj ect ed t o t he instruction s as g iven , an d S co ttthu s w aive d an yclaim to n o m inal d am ag es. A lexa n d er, 2 0 8 F .3 d a t 4 2 6 .

F o r th e f o reg o ing rea so n s, w e w il l aff irm the ju d g m en t i n this m att er.