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 6-18-2009 

# Rob e r t B arrick v

. P ri son H e alth Sys 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 . 09-1059

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 " Ro be r t B arrick v

. P ri s on H e alth Sys " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1168. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1168A L D - 217 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- 1059

___________ RO BE RT A. BA RR I CK , A ppel l ant

v. P RI S ON HE AL T H S YS T E M S / M E DI CA L ; RA YM OND J . S OB I NA, SUPERI NTEN DA NT; M RS. G. POI ND EXTER, PRI SON HEA LTH SERV I CES ADMI NI S T RA T OR ; DR . M AXA, P RI S ON HE AL T H S E RV I CE S M E DI CA L D IR E C T O R ; M S . R . S H E R B IN E , P R IS O N H E A L T H S E R V IC E S P H Y S IC IA N ’S AS S I S T ANT

____________________________________ 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 . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 1: 07- cv- 00163) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Sus an Par adi s e B axt er

____________________________________ S u b m itted P u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ) or f o r P o s s ib le 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 J une 11, 2009 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , FU E N T E S and J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed : J une 18, 2009)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM R obertA . B arr i ck appe al s fr om an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfort heTh e p a r t i e s c o n s e n t e d t o p r o c e e d b e f o r e a M a g i s tr a t e J u d g e p u r s u a n tt o 1 8 U. S . C. 1 § 6 3 6 (c)(1). 2 W es t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a gr ant i ng A ppel l ees ’ m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm entand 1 di s m i s s i ng hi s compl ai ntforfai l ur e t o exhaus thi s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es , as r equi r ed by the Pr i s on L i t i gat i on R eform A ct( “PL R A ”) , 42 U . S. C . §1997e. Forthe r eas ons that f o l l o w, we wi l l s u mma r i l ya f f i r m th e j u d g me n to f

th e Di s tr i c tCo u r t . S e e 3 d Ci r . L. A. R. 27. 4; I . O . P. 10. 6. I . B ackgr ound B arrick is an inm ate in P en n sy lvan ia st ate p ri so n . In Ju ly2 0 0 7 , B arrick f il ed a p ro s e ci vi l r i ght s compl ai ntpur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1983. I n i t , B arr i ck cont ends pr i s on h e a lth sta f

f v io late d h is E ig h th A m e n d m e n t rig h ts b yf a ili n g to a p p ro p ria telya d d re ss h is m e d ic a l n e e d s c o n c e rn in g s k in c a n c e r o n h is le f t e a r. Speci fi cal l y , B arr i ck cl ai m s thati n J anuary2007, m ember s of the pr i s on m edi cal sta f f a t S C I-F o re st w e re d e lib e ra telyin d if f e re n t to a n e a rlier d o c to r’s re c o m m e n d a tio n to chec k B arr i ck’ s l eftearforpos s i bl e s ki n canc er , i ns t ead onl ytr eat i ng a s ur fac e i nfec t i on w i th ant i bi ot i cs . A ccor di ng t o B arr i ck, the mont hs of del ayi n fol l ow i ng up on the p o ss ib le c a n c e r d iag n o sis a llo w e d h is c o n d iti o n to w o rse n . W h e n B a rric k e v e n tu a lly r ece i ved tr eatm ent , m os tof hi s earw as r emoved. H e ar gues thati f he ha d r ece i ved tr eatm entear l i er , hi s earcoul d have be en s aved. B arr i ck s eeks compensa t oryand pu nit i ve d am ages.3 II. A n a ly sis T he Pr i s on L i t i gat i on R eform A ctof 1995 ( “PL R A ”) r equi r es that , pr i ort o s eeki ng r el i ef i n fede r al court , a pr i s onerm us tpr oper l yexhaus tal l avai l abl e admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es atthe pr i s on. See 42 U . S. C . § 1997e( a) ; W oodfor d v. N go, 548 U . S. 81, 93 (2 0 0 6 ). “T h e b e n e f

its o f e x h a u stio n c a n b e re a lize d o n lyif th e p riso n g rie v a n c e sy ste m is gi ven a f ai roppor tuni tyt o cons i derthe gr i evanc e. ” I d. at95. T he ava i l abi l i tyof admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es i s a ques t i on of l aw . See R ayv. K ert es , 285 F. 3d 287, 291 ( 3d C i r. 20 02 ). W e revi ew de n ov o the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s dis m i ssal for fai l ure t o ex hau st admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es underthe PL R A . See M i t chel l v. H orn, 318 F. 3d 523, 529 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). Ba rr i c k f i l e d two a d mi n i s tr a t i v e g r i e v a n c e s i n wh i c h h e a t t e mp t e d t o r a i s e c l a i ms o f in ad eq u ate m ed ical trea tm en t and d eli b era te i n d iffe ren ce . B arrick’s g ri ev an ce s w ere deni ed atal l thr ee l evel s of the pr i s on’ s admi ni s tr at i ve r evi ew pr oces s . U pon i ni t i al re v iew , the g rie v a n c e s w e re d e n ied f o r la c k o f

m e rit; w h e n B a rric k a p p e a led , h is e f f o rts w er e deni ed as unt i m el y . A n “unt i m el yorotherw i s e pr ocedur al l ydefe ct i ve admi ni s tr at i ve gr i evanc e orappea l ” does nots at i s fythe mandat oryexhaus t i on r equi r ementof the PL R A . W oodfor d v. N go, 548 U . S. 81, 83 ( 2006) ; s ee a l s o Sprui l l v. G illis , 3 7 2 F .3 d 2 1 8 , 2 3 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). T he D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded thatbeca us e B arr i ck’ s gr i evanc e appe al s w er e deni ed as unt i m el y , theydo nots at i s fyhi s obl i gat i on t o pr oper l yexhaus thi s admi ni s tr at i ve4

re m e d ies u n d e r th e P L R A . B a rric k d o e s n o t d isp u te th is c o n c lu sio n . R a th e r, in h is m em orandu m i n sup po rtof h i s appea l , B arr i ck argu es that hi s fai l ure t o ex hau st admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es s houl d be exc us ed. H e cl ai m s thathe mi s s ed fi l i ng deadl i nes b e c a u s e h e w a s re c o v e ri n g f ro m s u rg e ry o n h is e a r. W e sy m p athize that B arrick u n d erw en t surg eryfo r a se ri o u s m ed ical co n d it ion . In addi t i on, w e have r ecogni zed thatundercert ai n ci r cumst ance s , admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es m aynoteff

ect i vel ybe “a vai l abl e, ” pr event i ng a t i m el ypur s ui tof the pr i s on gr i evanc e pr oces s . See, e. g. , B r ow n v. C r oak, 312 F. 3d 109, 112 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( admi ni s tr at i ve r emedyunavai l abl e w her e pr i s on s ecur i tyoffi ci al s t ol d i nm at e t o w ai tt o fi l e gr i evanc e u n ti l after the in v esti g ati o n w as c o m p let e); C am p v . B ren n an , 2 1 9 F . 3 d 2 7 9 , 2 8 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( a d m in is tr a tiv e re m e d yu n a v a ila b le w h e re in m a te p u t o n g ri e v a n c e re s tr ic tio n ). H ow ever , i n thi s cas e, the r ecor d s i m pl ydoes nots uppor tB arr i ck’ s ar gum entthat a d m i n i s tr a t i v e p r o c e s s w a s u n a v a i l a b l e t o h i m d u r i n g h i s r e c o v e ry f r o m s u r g e ry. B as ed upon the document s B arr i ck appe nded t o hi s compl ai nt , hi s s ur geryt ook p lac e o n F e b ru a ry1 6 , 2 0 0 7 . W ith in d a y s, B a rric k h a d su f f icie n tlyre c o v e re d to b e a b le to fi l e document s w i th pr i s on admi ni s tr at or s i n s upportof hi s m edi cal cl ai m s , i ncl udi ng a February19, 2007, r eques tt o obt ai n copi es of hi s m edi cal r ecor ds . I ndeed, B arr i ck fi l ed hi s s econd gr i evanc e on February27, 2007, verys hor t l yaft erhi s s ur gery . W hen that gr i evanc e w as deni ed, B arr i ck fi l ed a t i m el yfi r s t - l evel appea l . O nl yaft erthe appe al w as deni ed on M ar ch 15, 2007, di d B arr i ck mi s s the dea dl i ne forfi l i ng a s econd- l evel5

admi ni s tr at i ve appe al . T hus , i ti s appar entthatB arr i ck had a cce s s t o admi ni s tr at i ve pr oces s and w as abl e t o pur s ue admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es dur i ng the day s and w eeks im m e d ia te ly f

o llo w in g h is s u rg e ry, e v e n d u ri n g h is re c u p e ra tio n . B as ed upon thes e fa ct s , w e ca nnotcr edi tB arr i ck’ s cl ai m thathi s s ur geryi nt er fer ed w i th hi s abi l i tyt o pr oper l yexhaus thi s avai l abl e admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es as r equi r ed by the PL R A . W e ther efor e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on. I I I . C oncl us i on B e c a u se th is a p p e a l d o e s n o t p re se n t a s u b sta n tial q u e stio n , w e w ill su m m a rily aff i r m the j udgm entof the D i s tr i ctC our t . See 3d C i r . L . A . R . 27. 4; I . O . P. 10. 6. W e deny B a rric k ’s m o tio n f

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

c o u n se l as m o o t.