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 12-23-2009 

# Naz ario B urgo s v

. M ary C anino 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 . 09-3443

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 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 " Nazario B urg os v

. M ary C anino " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 39. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/39DL D- 0 7 5 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. 09- 3443

___________ N A Z A R IO B U R G O S , A ppel l ant

v. M AR Y C AN I NO ; M AR SHA LL, CO RRECTI ON OFFI CER; DA Y, LI EUTEN AN T; LEVI HO SBAN D; TON Y W OLFE; CUDDEBACK, CORRE CTI ON O F F I CER ; DA VI D D I GU GLI ELM O; CO RRETTE, CO RRECTI ON OFFI CER; LI EUTEN AN T DO YLE; L I E UT E NANT S M I T H; CO RR E CT I ON OF F I CE R C HO;

CO RR E CT I ON OF F I CE R B AR RA T A;

SCOTT D AV I ES

____________________________________ 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 E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 06- cv- 02497) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e A ni t a B . B r ody

____________________________________ S u b m itt e d f

o r P o ss ib le D ism iss a l f

o r Ju risd ictio n a l D e f

e c t 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 D ece m ber17, 2009 B efor e: FU E N T E S, J O R D A N and H A R D I M A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: D ece m ber23, 2009)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________2

P E R C UR I AM Na z a r i o Bu r g o s , p r o c e e d i n g p r o s e , f i l e d a c i v i l s u i tp u r s u a n tt o 4 2 U. S . C. § § 1 9 8 3 , 1 9 8 5 , an d 1 9 8 6 a g a in st n u m e ro u s o f f icia ls a n d e m p lo y e e s a t th e S tate C orr ect i onal I ns t i tut e atG r at er for d, w her e he i s a pr i s oner . H e pr es ent ed cl ai m s undert he Fi r s t , Four th, Fi fth, E i ghth, and Four t eenth A m endment s . T he D i s tr i ctC our t , rul i ng on m o tio n s f

iled b ym o st o f

th e d e f e n d a n ts, g ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t o n e a c h c o u n t in favorof al l defe ndant s buta def endantnamed L i eut enantSm i th. A s the footnot e t o t he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or derr eads , “[t ] he onl yr emai ni ng defe ndanti s L i eut enantSm i th w ho has f a ile d to m o v e f

o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t.” B u rg o s a p p e a ls . A ft erB ur gos fi l ed hi s not i ce of appea l , he r eques t ed an e ntryof fi nal j udgm ent p u rsu a n t to R u le 5 4 (b ) (a c tu a llyh is re q u e st w a s n o t a tru e R u le 5 4 (b ) re q u e st, b u t a r eques tforj udgm entagai ns tthe r emai ni ng defe ndant ) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed the re q u e st, n o tin g th a t B u rg o s c o u ld w ith d ra w h is c laim a g a in st S m ith so th a t h e c o u ld p ro c e e d w ith h is a p p e a l. T he fi r s ti s s ue i s w hetherB ur gos ’ s appea l s houl d be di s m i s s ed forl ack of a p p e llate ju risd ictio n . T h e a n sw e r is n o . A lth o u g h B u rg o s in c lu d e d c laim s a g a in st S m ith in h is am en d ed co m p lai n t, S m ith w as n ev er se rve d w ith p roc ess. S ee D istri ct C o u rt D o c k e t E n tryN o . 8 7 (n o tin g th a t th e su m m o n s w a s re tu rn e d u n e x e c u ted ). B e c a u se S m ith w a s n o t s e rv e d , h e w a s n e v e r a p a rt yto th e la w s u it w ith in th e m e a n in g o f R u le 5 4 (b ). See U ni t ed St at es v. Studi vant , 529 F. 2d 673, 675 n. 2 ( 3d C i r . 1976) . A ccor di ngl y , the3

D istri ct C o u rt ’s j u d g m en t i s fin al (w ith o u t B u rgo s w ith d raw ing h is cl aim ag ains t Sm ith ), a n d w e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . S e e id . O u r r e v ie w o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s d e c is io n to g ra n t s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t is p le n a ry. S e e Ab r a ms o n v . Wi l l i a m P a t e r s o n Co l l e g e , 2 6 0 F . 3 d 2 6 5 , 2 7 6 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) . On re v iew , w e w ill a f

f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t b e c a u se n o su b sta n tial iss u e is p re s e n te d o n a p p e a l. S e e L .A .R . 2 7 .4 ; I .O .P . 1 0 .6 . A s the part i es ar e fa m i l i arw i th the fa ct s ( w hi ch w er e s um m ar i zed on pa ges one th r o u g h f

i v e o f th e Di s tr i c tCo u r t ’ s o p i n i o n ) , we wi l l d i s c u s s th e m a s th e yb e c o me r e l e v a n tt o o u ra n a l y s i s o f Bur g o s ’ s c l a i ms . W e f i r s ta d d r e s s h i s c l a i ms o f r e t a l i a t i o n . To pr evai l , B ur gos had t o pr ove thatthe conduc tthatl ed t o the al l eged r et al i at i on w as c o n s t i tu t i o n a l l yp r o t e c t e d . S e e Ra u s e rv . Ho rn , 2 4 1 F . 3 d 3 3 0 , 3 3 3 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) . He neede d al s o t o s how that , atthe hands of pr i s on offi ci al s , he s uffe r ed s om e adve r s e ac t i on s u f f ic ie n t to d e te r a p e rs o n o f o rd in a ry f

ir m n e s s f ro m e x e rc is in g h is c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts . S ee i d. B urgos al so had t o p rove t hat hi s const i tuti on al l yprot ect ed co nd uct s erved as a s ubs t ant i al orm ot i vat i ng fac t orforthe adve r s e ac t i on. See i d. D efe ndant s coul d r ebutby show i ng bya prepo nd erance of the evidence thattheyw ou l d h ave taken the adv ers e act i on even i n the abs ence of the pr ot ect ed ac t i vi ty . See i d. A s th e D istric t C o u rt d id , w e a c c e p t th a t B u rg o s e n g a g e d in c o n stitu tio n a lly pr ot ect ed ac t i vi tyw hen he f i l ed hi s gr i evanc es and hel ped other s fi l e l aw s ui t s and gr i evanc es , butw e conc l ude thathi s cl ai m s fai l forotherr eas ons . B ur gos cont ended that4

Scot tD avi es r et al i at ed aga i ns thi m byr equi r i ng hi m t o s ubm i tt o ur i nal y s i s t es t i ng and thr eat eni ng t o i s s ue a mi s conductr eporti f he r efus ed t o compl y . I n thi s cas e, the one r equi r ed ur i nal y s i s ( al s o r equi r ed of manyi nm at es aft era r eportaboutthe odorof m a riju a n a ) w a s n o t an a d v e rse a c tio n . A lso , b e c a u se th re a ts a lo n e d o n o t co n stitu te r et al i at i on, the cl ai m r el at i ng t o t he thr eatfai l ed. See M acl ean v. Secor , 876 F. Supp. 695, 699 ( E . D . Pa. 1995) ( col l ect i ng cas es ) . Forthe s ame r eas on, B ur gos ’ s r et al i at i on cl ai m s agai ns tK yungkuk C ho, bas ed on unful fi l l ed thr eat s , di d nots ur vi ve the mot i on for s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. B ur gos al s o cl ai m ed thatL i eut enantM . D oy l e r et al i at ed aga i ns thi m bydeny i ng or del ay i ng gr i evanc es he fi l ed. D oy l e pr es ent ed evi dence thathe i nves t i gat ed and r es ponded t o compl ai nt s and a gr i evanc e B ur gos fi l ed. B ur gos hi m s el f s ubm i t t ed the gr i evanc e and the r es pons e. A l though D oy l e r ej ect ed the gr i evanc e, he pr ovi ded evi dence th a t h e d id so o n th e b a sis o f a n in v e stig a tio n . D o y le a lso a d m itt e d th a t h e f iled a late r es pons e t o a gr i evanc e s i m pl ybeca us e he f or gott o s i gn a document . B ur gos di d not r ai s e a ge nui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac ti n hi s oppos i ng decl ar at i on r el at i ng t o r eas ons for the r ej ect i on of the gr i evanc e oranydel ayi n a r es pons e. A ccor di ngl y , as the D i s tr i ct C o u rt c o n c lu d e d , th e c la im f o r r e ta lia tio n a g a in s t D o y le a ls o f a ils . B ur gos al s o al l eged thatM i chae l B ar att a r efus ed t o pr ovi de hi m cl eani ng s uppl i es ort o r es t or e runni ng w at ert o hi s cel l aft erhi s cel l bl ock fl ooded and the pr i s on cutoff w at erfl ow t o the af

fec t ed ce l l s i n r es pons e. B ar att a di s put ed the cl ai m s , and B ur gos5

s eems t o have pr es ent ed more evi dence abouthi s compl ai nt s aboutthe w at er( orl ack ther eof i n hi s cel l ) than aboutthe ac tual abs ence of w at eri n hi s cel l . B ur gos ( Second) D e c l. ¶ 7 & C o lli n s D e c l. ¶ 7 (a f e llo w in m a te’ s d e sc rip tio n o f B u rg o s y e lli n g a b o u t a w at eri nt errupt i on) & E x. 2 t o B ur gos ( Second) D ecl . ( compl ai ni ng abouta four - day d en ial o f h o t w ater in a g ri ev an ce fil ed co n tem p o ran eo u slyw ith the in cide n t) . H o w ev er, even t aki ng B ur gos ’ s cl ai m s as true, underthe undi s put ed ci r cumst ance s , namel y , an em erg en cysitu ati o n w ith in the p ri so n , w e a g ree w ith the D istri ct C o u rtthat the tem p o rary in c o n v e n ie n c e s B u rg o s s u f f e re d d id n o t a m o u n t to re ta lia tio n . B ur gos al s o al l eged thatA dr i ano C arr et e deni ed hi m hi s one- hourr ecr eat i on p e rio d , tam p e re d w ith h is f o o d , inte rc e p ted h is m a il, p re v e n ted h im f ro m su b sc rib in g to th e n e w sp a p e r, an d g e n e ra llyth re a ten e d a n d h a ra ss e d h im . A s n o ted a b o v e , m e re th re a ts do notcons t i tut e r et al i at i on. Fur therm or e, B ur gos di d notpur s ue the mai l i nt er cept i on cl ai m aft erhe ment i oned i ti n hi s compl ai nt . E ven as s um i ng thatC arr et e depr i ved B ur gos o f h is r ec rea ti o n p eriod (a c o n tention that C arrete d en ied), th ere is ev iden ce in the rec o rd thatforthe t i m e per i od i n ques t i on, B ur gos had ampl e opportuni tyt o exer ci s e w hen C arr et e w as noton duty , C arr et e D ecl . ¶ 6; B ur gos D ep. 53: 15- 17, s uch thatany dep ri vati on caused byC arr et e did not r i se t o the l evel of an ad verse act i on . C arr et e al so s t at ed thathe di d nott amperw i th B ur gos ’ s food. B ur gos tr i ed t o count erthatcl ai m by fal s el ys t at i ng thatC arr et e di d notdenythe al l egat i ons , B ur gos ( Fi r s t ) D ecl . ¶ 36, and w ith th e d e c lar a tio n o f

a f e llo w in m a te. H o w e v e r, th e in m a te d id n o t av e r th a t C a rre te6

tam p e re d w ith B u rg o s’s f o o d . In ste a d , h e sta ted th a t h e o n c e sa w C a rre te f e e d a n in m a te food w i th goos e fe ces on i t . C ol l i ns D ecl . ¶ 11. A ccor di ngl y , B ur gos di d nots how that ther e w as a genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac t . Si m i l ar l y , he di d notdi s put e the evi dence t hat h e h a d a n e w s p a p e r s u b s c ri p tio n d u ri n g th e tim e in q u e s tio n e x c e p t f o r t h e o n e m o n th . R o ss o D e c l. ¶ 4 . T h e d e f e n d a n ts a lso im p lied th a t B u rg o s s u b m itt e d h is c a sh slip to o late fo r th e n ew sp ap er. I d . H o w ev er, ev en if C arrete so m eh o w interfe red w ith B u rgo s’s s ubm i s s i on of hi s paym entforhi s new s papers ubs cr i pt i on, the i nt er fer ence w oul d not det era per s on of or di naryfi r m nes s . A ccor di ngl y , he di d nots how thatC arr et e r et al i at ed a g a in s t h im . B ur gos ’ s cl ai m s agai ns tM aryC ani no r el at e t o the di s ci pl i naryhear i ng atw hi ch he w as found gui l ty , bas ed on the ur i nal y s i s r es ul t s , of m ar i j uana us e i n pr i s on. A ft er r evi ew i ng the evi dence i n the r ecor d, w e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthatther e i s no evi dence thatC ani no’ s deci s i ons r el at i ng t o the pr ocee di ng orherul t i m at e dec i s i on that B u r g o s w a s g u i l ty o f

m i s c o n d u c tw e r e m o t i v a t e d b y a n y a n i m u s f o rB u r g o s . S i m i l a r l y, h is re talia tio n c laim a g a in st L e v i H o sb a n d , T o n yW o lf e , C O III D a y , an d D a v id D i G ug l i el m o, w ho revi ew ed B urgos’s app eal from the m i scond uct fi nd i ng , fai l s becau se B ur gos cannots how thatthes e def endant s bas ed thei rdeci s i on on anythi ng otherthan the h e a ri n g re c o rd . L a s t l y , i n r e g a r d s t o r e t a l i a t i o n , j u d g me n twa s p r o p e r l ye n t e r e d i n f a v o ro f CO I C uddebac k beca us e B ur gos di d noti ncl ude s peci fi c cl ai m s agai ns thi m and conc eded that7

h e h a d n o c laim s a g a in st h im . B u rg o s D e p . 2 5 :4 -8 . In sh o rt, th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rly e n te re d ju d g m e n t in f

a v o r o f a ll th e d e f

e n d a n ts o n th e B u rg o s ’s c la im s o f re ta lia tio n . B ur gos al s o as s ert ed thatC ani no, D i G ugl i el m o, H os band, D ay , and D avi es vi ol at ed 42 U . S. C . §§ 1985( 2) & ( 3) and 1986 byi nt i m i dat i ng a w i tnes s , obs truct i ng j ust i ce, and neg l ect i ng t o p reventa con spi racy . H ow ever, B urgos’s cl ai m of w i tness i nt i m i dat i on fai l ed w hen he a dm i t t ed thathe w as nota w i tnes s i n anyci vi l l i t i gat i on, B ur gos D ep. 9: 1- 9. See M al l ey - D uff & A s s oc. , I nc. v. C r ow n L i fe I ns . C o. , 792 F. 2d 341, 356 ( 3d C i r . Pa. 1986) ( s ett i ng for th the el ement s of the ca us e of a ct i on) . H i s char ge o f o b stru c tio n o f

ju stic e a lso f

e ll b e c a u se th e e v id e n c e o n w h ich it w a s b a se d – a sin g le i nci denti n w hi ch C arr et e us ed of a der ogat oryt erm w hen he t ol d anotheri nm at e thatt he der ogat oryt erm di d notdes cr i be hi m , C arr et e D ecl . ¶ 8 – w as nots uffi ci ent . See B r aw er v. H or ow i t z, 535 F. 2d 830, 840 ( 3d C i r . 1976) . H i s act i on under§ 1985( 3) al s o di d not s ur vi ve the mot i on fors um m aryj udgm entbeca us e, agai ns tthe evi dence thatthe d e f e n d a n ts d id n o t ac t o r c o n sp ire to d e p riv e h im o f h is rig h ts, h e o n lyp re se n ted h is all eg ati o n s tha t th ere w as a co n sp ir ac yag ains t him . S ee F ed . R . C iv. P. 56 (e)(2); se e a lso L a k e v . A rn o ld , 1 1 2 F .3 d 6 8 2 , 6 8 5 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 7 ) (s e tti n g f o rth th e re q u ire m e n ts fora ca us e of a ct i on underthe s t atut e) . B eca us e hi s cl ai m s under§ 1985( 2) & ( 3) di d not s ur vi ve, hi s cl ai m s under§ 1986 coul d notei ther . See B r aw er , 535 F. 2d at841; R ogi n v. B e n s a le m T w p ., 6 1 6 F .2 d 6 8 0 , 6 9 6 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 0 ). T he D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l yent er ed j udgm enti n favorof the def endant s on8

B ur gos ’ s cl ai m of a c ons pi r acyunder§ 1983, t oo. I n r es pons e t o defe ndant s ’ evi dence thattheydi d notagr ee t o depr i ve hi m of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght , B ur gos di d notoffe r s uffi ci entevi dence of an a gr eement . See Parkw ayG ar age, I nc. v. C i tyof Phi l a. , 5 F. 3d 6 8 5 , 7 0 0 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ), over r ul ed on othergr ounds , U A T heatr e C i r cui tv. T w p. of W a rrin g to n , 3 1 6 F .3 d 3 9 2 (3 d C ir. P a . 2 0 0 3 ). A s th e D istric t C o u rt c o n c lu d e d , h is uns ubs t ant i at ed al l egat i ons as t o m os tof the def endant s , and hi s cl ai m thata per s on w ho i s nota def

endantas ked C ani no nott o di s cl os e hi s ur i nal y s i s r es ul t s fors ecur i tyr eas ons ( and C ani no’ s compl i ance w i th t he r eques t ) , di d notcons t i tut e pr oof of a cons pi r acy . See C a p o g r o s s o v . T h e S u p r e m e C o u r to f N e w J e r s e y , ___ F . 3 d ___ , N o . 0 8 - 3 8 1 6 , 2 0 0 9 WL 411372, at*2- 3 ( 3d C i r . N ov. 27, 2009) . Fur therm or e, B ur gos hi m s el f conc eded thathe n e v e r o b s e rv e d th e d e f

e n d a n ts d is c u s s in g th e is s u e s h e ra is e d . B u rg o s D e p . 3 3 :2 -7 . B u rgo s also su ed fo u r de fe n d an ts fo r vio lat ion s o f th e E igh th A m en d m en t’ s p roh ibit ion o n cru el an d u n u su al pu n ishm en t. A s the D istri ct C o u rtex p lai n ed in m o re d e tail, ev e n a ss u m in g th a t B u rg o s w a s o c c a sio n a llyd e n ied a n e x e rc ise p e rio d b yC a rre te w hen he w as i n the R H U , he di d nots uffe rcruel and unus ual puni s hm enti n l i ghtof the e v id e n c e o f

h is a m p le o p p o rt u n ity to e x e rc is e , C a rr e te D e c l. ¶ 6 ; B u rg o s D e p . 5 3 :1 5 -1 7 . A nyl i m i t ed d epri vati on of w at er and sanit arycon dit i on s aft er a fl oo d at the p ri son als o di d notvi ol at e B ur gos ’ s E i ghth A m endmentr i ght s . See B el l v. W ol fi s h, 441 U . S. 520, 547 ( 1979) ( advi s i ng w i s e- r angi ng defe r ence r el at i ng t o how theyr es ol ve pr obl ems that ar i s e i n the day - t o- dayoper at i on of a pr i s on) . Fur therm or e, B ur gos ’ s uns ubs t ant i at ed9

cl ai m of emot i onal harm fr om bei ng y el l ed ati n a humi l i at i ng ordemeani ng m annerfor n o t f o llo w in g o rd e rs d id n o t c o n s titu te a n E ig h th A m e n d m e n t v io la tio n . B ur gos al s o br oughtan unr eas onabl e i ntrus i on cl ai m underthe Four th A m endment agai ns ts i x defe ndant s , al l egi ng thathe w as for ced t o s ubm i ta ur i ne s ampl e foran unl aw ful , non- r andom anal y s i s , the r es ul t s w er e us ed t o di s ci pl i ne hi m , and the di s ci pl i narys anct i ons w er e uphel d. A s the D i s tr i ctC our texpl ai ned, bas ed on the evi dence i n the r ecor d, the t es t i ng of B ur gos ’ s ur i ne w as partof an i nves t i gat i on i nt o drug us e af t era pr i s on offi ci al s m el l ed mar i j uana ne arB ur gos ’ s cel l . G i ven the j us t i fi cat i on f o r th e tes tin g , w e a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t u n d e r B e ll th e re w a s n o u n re a so n a b le i ntrus i on orFour th A m endmentvi ol at i on. W e al s o agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthat B u rg o s’s re late d sta te la w c o n tra c t cla im re latin g to th e f o rc e d tes tin g o f

h is u rin e is w i tho ut m eri t . A l so, as di d the D i stri ctC ou rt , w e con cl ud e t hat he i s not ent i t l ed to j ust c o m p e n s a tio n u n d e r t h e T a k in g s C la u s e f o r t h e u ri n e u s e d in th e u ra n a lysis . T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o pr oper l ygr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof the defe ndant s on B ur gos ’ s pr ocedur al and s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s and equa l pr ot ect i on cl ai m s . Fi r s t , B ur gos di d nots uffe ran atypi cal ors i gni fi canthar ds hi p w hen he s erved 83 d a y s o f a 9 0 -d a yR H U d e te n tio n f o r b e in g f

o u n d g u ilty o f

m a ri ju a n a u s e in p ri s o n . See G r i ffi n v. V aughn, 112 F. 3d 703, 706 ( 3d C i r . 1997) . M or eover , the r ecor d i s r i fe w i th ev i den ce t hat B urgos w as afforded du e process; he w as provi ded w i th the charges, h e w a s p e rm itte d to re te s t h is u ri n e , a n d h e w a s m a d e a w a re o f th e e v id e n c e a g a in s t h im .W e d o n o t add ress B u rgo s’s claim s o f a F ir st A m en d m en t violati o n b ec au se th eyw ere 1 onl yagai ns ta def

endantthathe di s m i s s ed fr om the ac t i on and Sm i th, w ho w as never s e rv e d . 10 C ani no D ecl . ¶¶ 4- 9. A l s o, he w as perm i t t ed t o appea l the dec i s i on ( w hi ch w as bas ed on tw o lab re p o rts in d ica tin g m a riju a n a u se ). A c c o rd in g ly , the D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rly g ra n te d ju d g m e n t in f

a v o r o f th e d e f e n d a n ts o n B u rg o s ’s p ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e s s c la im s . A s the D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded, the def endant s w er e al s o ent i t l ed t o j udgm enton the s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s cl ai m s beca us e notonl ydi d B ur gos nots peci fi cal l yart i cul at e a s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s cl ai m , butal s o t o the ext entthathe al l uded t o one, i tw as bett er cons i der ed underotherm or e s peci fi c cons t i tut i onal pr ovi s i ons . See C ountyof Sacr ament o v. L ew i s , 523 U . S. 833, 843 ( 1998) . L as t l y , B ur gos ’ s cl ai m of a vi ol at i on of 1 equal pr ot ect i on, bas ed on a br oad al l egat i on and no evi dence i n the fa ce of the defe ndant s ’ evi dence t o t he contr ary , pr oper l ydi d nots ur vi ve the def endant s ’ m ot i on for s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. I n concl us i on, forthe r eas ons gi ven above ( and forthe r eas ons gi ven bythe D i s tr i ctC our t ) , the D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l ygr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof the d ef en d an ts. B ec au se n o su b stan ti al i ssu e is raised o n ap p ea l, w e w il l sum m aril yaf firm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t.