2006 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 1-12-2006 

# T o dd v . W alte rs 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 . 05-1020

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_2006

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 2006 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 " T odd v . W alt e r s " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1756. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1756NOT 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. 05- 1020

____________ T RA CY L . T ODD, A ppel l ant vs. GI L BE RT WALT E RS , Wa r d e n ; S CO T T M OR GAN; ED W A RD H O RN EM A N ; J I M FA RM A RY ; D O E PET ER S; DO E RI SI NG ER; DO E SHO STER; J EFF REY A . B E A R D , Secr et aryof C orr ect i ons

_______________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m 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 . C i v. N o. 04- cv- 00248) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e A r thurJ . Schw ab

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

J anuary5, 2006 Be f o r e : FI SHER, ALD I SERT AN D W EI S, CI RCU I T J UD GES

Fi l ed J anuary12, 2006

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C U R I A M.

A ppel l antT r acyT odd appea l s fr om tw o D i s tr i ctC our tor der s gr ant i ng t he D efen dan t s’ m oti on s for s um m aryj ud gm ent. W e w i l l affirm the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s orders , bu tfor di fferentreas on s.T he l as tnames of Farm ar i e and Schus t erw er e mi s s pel l ed i n the compl ai ntand 1 l i s t ed as Far m aryand Shos t er . W e us e the corr ects pel l i ngs her e. I. T odd i s curr ent l yan i nm at e atSC I - R ockvi ew . O n February15, 2002, he fi l ed a c om pl ai ntunder42 U . S. C . § 1983 al l egi ng a s er i es of Ei ghth, Four t eenth, and Fi ft eenth A m endmentvi ol at i ons fori nci dent s occurr i ng betw een D ece m ber1, 2001 and M ar ch 4, 2002, w hi l e he w as an i nm at e atSC I - M er cer . Speci fi cal l y , he al l eges ( 1) thathe w a s d e n ied th e u se o f

a w h e e lch a ir, ca u sin g h im to f a ll an d in ju re h im se lf

o n m u lti p le occa s i ons ; ( 2) thatD r . M or gan, Phy s i ci an A s s i s t antH orneman, and ScottPet er s di d not pr ovi de medi cal car e af t ers ever al fal l s ; ( 3) thatN ur s es J i m Far m ar i e and D oe Schus t er 1 d id n o t w e a r g lo v e s w h e n a d m in iste rin g m e d ica tio n a n d th a t S c h u ste r trie d to g iv e h im s oap w i th hi s m edi ci ne; ( 4) thatR i s i ngerand H orneman i nt er fer ed w i th hi s us e of a short cut t o g ett o the cafet eri a, causi ng him t o u se a m ore dan gerous route and m i ss me a l s ; a n d ( 5 ) th a tF a r ma r i e v e rb a l l ya b u s e d h i m.

T he D efe ndant s , w i th the exc ept i on of D r . M or gan and H orneman, m oved to d ism iss th e c o m p lai n t, o r i n the a lt ern ati v e, fo r sum m aryjud g m en t argu ing that T o d d ’s cl ai m s ar e barr ed bythe appl i cabl e s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . T heys ubm i t t ed copi es of gr i evanc es thatT odd fi l ed w hi l e i ncar cer at ed atSC I - M er cer . T he gr i evanc es ar e al l dat ed pr i ort o February15, 2002. T he M agi s tr at e J udge r ecomm ended gr ant i ng the mot i on beca us e the gr i evanc es r efe rt o conductoccurr i ng m or e than tw o y ear s befor e the dat e of fi l i ng. O n A ugus t18, 2004, T odd fi l ed a doc um entent i t l ed “Bri ef i n Suppor tt o deni edW e hav e app el l at e j uri sdi ct i on pu rs uan tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 29 1 an d ex erci se 2 pl enaryr evi ew . See W as t ak v. L ehi gh V al l eyH eal th N etw or k, 342 F. 3d 281, 285 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). M ot i on t o D i s m i s s C om pl ai ntori n the A l t ernat i ve, ForSum m aryJ udgm ent . ” The D is tr ic t C o u rt ig n o re d th is f ilin g a n d a d o p te d th e re p o rt a n d re c o m m e n d a tio n . E v en tually , D r. M o rga n an d H o rne m an m o v ed fo r sum m aryjud g m en t. T h e D istri ct C o u rt gr ant ed the mot i ons concl udi ng thatT odd fai l ed t o s how the exi s t ence of a ge nui ne i s s ue of m at er i al fac t . T odd appea l ed. II. 2

T odd’ s cl ai m s ar e governed bya tw o- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . See S a m e ric C o rp . o f

D e l., In c . v . C ityo f

P h ilad e lp h ia, 1 4 2 F .3 d 5 8 2 , 5 9 9 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). H is compl ai nti s dat ed February15, 2004. T hus , a cl ai m bas ed on anyi nci dentoccurr i ng pr i ort o February15, 2002, i s barr ed. W e di s agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on thatal l of Todd’s cl ai m s ar e t i m e- barr ed. H i s A ugus t18th s ubm i s s i on i ncl udes ar gum ent s and copi es of gr i evanc es s how i ng thats om e of the compl ai ned of c onduct , or th e in ju rya risin g f

ro m su c h c o n d u c t, w a s o n g o in g o r o c c u rre d a f ter F e b ru a ry1 5 . In o n ly tw o instan ce s are T o d d ’s claim s p rec lud ed b ythe s tatu te of li m it ati o n s. F ir st, T o d d ’s cl ai m thatN ur s e Schus t ergave hi m s oap appe ar s t o be a s i ngl e i nci dent , w hi ch occ ur r ed pr i ort o February15. Second, cl ai m tw o al l eges thathe w as deni ed ade quat e medi cal tr eatm entfori nj ur i es s us t ai ned i n s ever al fal l s . Fr om w hatw e ca n di s cern, hi s pr i nci pal q u a lm re late s to tre a tm e n t re c e iv e d in c o n n e c tio n w ith a f a ll fro m a n e m b a n k m e n t in e a rly February . T odd’ s m edi cal r ecor ds s how thathe w as s een a l m os tdai l yunt i l February11,w hen he w as r el eas ed fr om the r es tr i ct i ve hous i ng uni t . T hus , hi s al l eged i nj uryw as

k n o w n m o re th a n tw o y e a rs b e f o re h e c o m m e n c e d h is s u it. S e e D e b ie c v . C a b o t C o rp ., 3 5 2 F . 3 d 1 1 7 , 1 2 8 -29 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ).

T he r emai nderof hi s cl ai m s , even i f nott i m e barr ed, fai l t o es t abl i s h the ex ist en ce o f a g en u ine issu e o f m aterial fa ct su ff ici en t t o su rviv e a m o ti o n fo r sum m ary ju d g m e n t. W e c a n a f

f irm th e g ra n t o f

a m o tio n f

o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t o n a n yb a sis su p p o rt ed b ythe re co rd. S ee F airview T w p . v . E . P . A . , 7 7 3 F . 2 d 5 1 7 , 5 2 4 n . 1 5 (3d C ir . 19 85 ). T od d’s cl ai m s ar e prem i sed on the E i gh th A m end m ent. T o succe ed, T od d m ust s how the depr i vat i on ati s s ue i s s uffi ci ent l ys er i ous and thatthe pr i s on offi ci al w as d eli b era tel yind iffe ren t t o h is pli g h t. S ee W il so n v . S eit er, 50 1 U . S . 2 9 4 , 2 9 8 -99 (19 8 1 ); E s t el l e v. G ambl e, 429 U . S. 97, 104 ( 1976) ; W ol os zyn v. C ountyof Law r ence , 396 F. 3d 3 1 4 , 3 2 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ).

T odd’ s fi r s tcl ai m r el at es t o the deni al of a w heel chai r . T her e i s no doubt thatT odd has decr eas ed mobi l i ty , buthe does nots how thatanypr i s on offi ci al w ho m i ght be author i zed t o pr ovi de a w heel chai ract ed w i th del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence . T her e i s no i ndi cat i on thathe fa ced pa i nful orperm anenti nj ur i es i f a w heel chai rw as notpr ovi ded, or thatanyD efe ndantw as aw ar e thatthi s m i ghtbe the ca s e. See R ous e v. Pl ant i er , 182 F. 3d 192, 197 ( 3d C i r . 1999) . H e al s o exagge r at es hi s i nabi l i tyt o w al k. T he r ecor d s how s t hat on s ever al occa s i ons T odd decl i ned ac comm odat i ons , i ns t ead c hoos i ng t o w al k w i th the a ss ista n c e o f

a w a lk e r. F in a lly , the m e d ica l re c o rd s s h o w th a t th e re w a s n o id e n tifia b le r e a s o n f o rh i s i n a b i l i tyt o wa l k , a n d i twa s s u s p e c t e d th a tT o d d wa s “ ma l i n g e r i n g . ” Onth e f

a c ts in e v id e n c e , itc a n n o t b e sa id th a t an yD e f e n d a n t w a s d e lib e ra telyin d if f e re n t. In c laim th re e , T o d d a lleg e s th a t th e N u rse s’ f a ilu re to w e a r g lo v e s w h ile d isp e n sin g m e d ica tio n sp re a d g e rm s a n d c a u se d h im to f a ll i ll. P riso n e rs h a v e a rig h t to b e h o u s e d in s a n ita ry a n d s a f e c o n d itio n s . S e e B e ll v . W o lf is h , 4 4 1 U .S . 5 2 0 , 5 3 9 (1 9 7 9 ). H ow ever , ther e i s no evi dence thatthe fa i l ur e t o us e gl oves cr eat es an uns afe e n v iro n m e n t, no r is th e re a n yin d ica tio n th a t eith e r N u rse in ten tio n a llyig n o re d a p o ss ib le danger . See R hodes v. C hapman, 452 U . S. 337, 346- 48 ( 1981) ( di s cus s i ng the obj ect i ve c o m p o n e n t). F u rth e r, N u rse S c h u ste r’s u se o f a n a n ti-b a c ter ial h a n d lo tio n a c tu a lly w ei gh s agai nstT od d’s cl ai m that he w as subj ect ed to unsafe c on dit i on s.

T o d d ’s f o u rt h c la im a g a in s t R is in g e r a n d H o rn e m a n is e q u a lly b a s e le s s . H orneman i s s ued an or derforT odd t o us e a s hor t cut , butw i thdr ew the or derfol l ow i ng an exami nat i on byD r . M or gan, w hi ch r evea l ed thatther e w as a pos s i bi l i tythatT odd w as ex ag g era ti n g h is disab il ity . M o reo v er, H o rne m an att em p ted to ac co m m o d ate T o d d ’s needs , butT odd r efus ed the ac comm odat i on. T her e i s no i ndi cat i on H orneman w as i ndi ffe r entt o T odd’ s m edi cal condi t i on. T he r ecor d al s o fai l s t o s how thatR i s i nger play ed an yparti n thi s deci si on . F i nall y , T od d’s verbal abuse cl ai m againstN urse Far m ar i e i s notact i onabl e under§ 1983. See C al houn v. H ar gr ove, 312 F. 3d 730, 734 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). T o d d f

a ils to su f

f icie n tlysh o w th a t an yo f F a rm a rie ’s a lleg e d th re a ts resu lt ed in p h y sical i n

jury . S ee id.; 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 9 7 e(e ). Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , the D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l ygr ant ed the D e f e n d a n ts ’ m o tio n s f

o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. A c c o rd in g ly, w e w ill a f f ir m .