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 5-21-2010 

# C h aka M atthews v

. V i llell a 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 . 09-1486

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 " C h aka M atthews v

. V i llell a" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1291. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1291NOT 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- 1486

___________ CH A K A A . M A TTH EW S,

A ppel l ant v. SGT . V ILLELLA; C.O . H ERB LI NG ; C. O. HIED I ; C. O. EVAN S; R. H. U. STAF F , e t al.

____________________________________ 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 M id d le 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. 08- cv- 00964 (H o n o rab le Jo h n E . Jo n es, II I)

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

M ay19, 2010 B efore: S C IR IC A , JO R D A N and G R E E N B E R G , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: M ay21, 2010)

_________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_________ P E R C U R I A M. C h ak a A . M atth ew s, p roc ee d ing p ro se , ap p ea ls th e o rde r of the D istri ct C o u rt d ism iss in g h is c iv il righ ts c o m p lain t. F o r th e f o llo w in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm in p a rt, vacate i n p art , and rem and for further proceedings.A typ e o f sp lin t w h e re a n in

ju re d f in g e r is ta p e d to a n a d

jo in in g f in g e r to lim it 1 m obi l i tyand s tr ai n. 2 I. M atthew s i s curr ent l yan i nm at e atthe St at e C orr ect i onal I ns t i tut e ( “SC I ”) at S o m e rse t. H e f

iled su it u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a lleg in g v io latio n s o f h is E ig h th A m e n d m e n t rig h ts b ysta f f m e m b e rs a t S C I W a ym a rt. M a tth e w s a lleg e s th a t in N ovember2007, Ser geantV i l l el l a s truck hi s handcuf fed ha nds , w hi ch w er e s t i cki ng thr ough hi s cel l doors l otforuns hackl i ng, w i th a bi l l ycl ub. H e furtheral l eges that C orr ect i ons O ffi cerH erbl i ng and otherunnamed R es tr i ct ed H ous i ng U ni t( “R H U ”) s t aff w i tn e s s e d th e i n c i d e n ta n d f a i l e d t o i n t e r v e n e o rr e p o r tV i l l e l l a ’ s a c t i o n s . S p e c i f i c a l l y, M atthew s al l eges thatH erbl i ng, upon w i tnes s i ng the as s aul t , as ked V i l l el l a, “w hatar e y ou doi ng?” I n hi s fi r s tamended compl ai nt , fi l ed af t erthe M agi s tr at e J udge’ s R eportand R ecomm endat i on, M atthew s al s o al l eges thatC orr ect i ons O ffi cer s H i edi and Evans w i tnes s ed the as s aul tand thatE vans y el l ed “one - thous and poi nt s forhi t t i ng C haka K han. ” H e r ece i ved x- r ay s and a “ buddyw r ap, ” and as s ert s thatthe as s aul taggr avat ed a 1 pr e- exi s t i ng i nj uryof br oken t endons i n hi s hand. H e s eeks decl ar at oryand i nj unct i ve re lie f , m o n e ta ry d a m a g e s , a n d a n u m b e r o f o th e r c re a tiv e re q u e s ts f o r r e lie f. T he M agi s tr at e J udge r ecomm ended thatM atthew s ’ cl ai m s of exc es s i ve for ce a nd f a ilu re to p ro tec t an d to in ter v e n e a g a in st V ill e lla a n d H e rb lin g p ro c e e d . T h e M a g istra te Judg e recom m end ed thatM at thew s’ request s for cr i m i nal charges agai nstal l defe nd ants ,3

fort erm i nat i on of thei rempl oym ent , and forforw ar di ng of thei ry ear l ys al ar i es t o hi m be stri cken as i m proper request s for r el i ef. A s t o M at thew s’ cl ai m s agai nstH i edi, E van s, a n d u n n a me d RHU s t a f f me mb e r s , th e M a g i s tr a t e J u d g e r e c o mme n d e d th a tth o s e c l a i ms be di s m i s s ed w i thoutpr ej udi ce f orfai l ur e t o s t at e an Ei ghth A m endmentcl ai m and b e c a u s e th e c o m p la in t la c k e d s u f f ic ie n t a lle g a tio n s a s to e a c h d e f e n d a n t’ s c o n d u c t. T h e D istric t C o u rt a d o p ted th e R e p o rt a n d R e c o m m e n d a tio n in p a rt a n d re jec ted it i n part . T he courtconcl uded thatV i l l el l a’ s us e of f or ce a gai ns tM atthew s w as m i nor , as w er e M atthew s ’ i nj ur i es , and that , ther efor e, V i l l el l a’ s conductdi d notr i s e t o the l evel of the “mal i ci ous ” or“s adi s t i c. ” The cour tdi s m i s s ed the fa i l ur e t o pr ot ectand t o i nt ervene c laim s a g a in st H e rb lin g b e c a u se M a tth e w s d id n o t su f f e r se rio u s h a rm a n d b e c a u se h e d id nots how thatH erbl i ng w as del i ber at el yi ndi ffe r entt o a r i s k of harm . T he courtdi s m i s s ed th e c a s e in its e n tir e ty. M a tth e w s f ile d a tim e ly ap p e a l. II. W e h av e jurisdicti o n u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . O u r rev iew o f th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s or deri s pl enary . See Sant i ago v. G M A C M or t gage G r oup, I nc. , 417 F. 3d 384, 386 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . “To survi ve a mot i on t o di s m i s s , a compl ai ntm us tcont ai n s uffi ci entfac tual m att er , acc ept ed as true, t o ‘ s t at e a c l ai m t o r el i ef thati s pl aus i bl e on i t s fac e. ’ ” A s hcr oft v. I qb a l , 12 9 S. Ct . 19 37 , 19 49 ( 20 09 ) ( qu ot i ng Bel l A t l . Corp. v. Tw ombl y , 55 0 U. S. 544, 570 ( 2007) ) . I n deci di ng a mot i on t o di s m i s s , a courtm us tdet erm i ne w hetherthe4

compl ai nt“pl eads fac tual cont entthatal l ow s the courtt o dr aw the r eas onabl e i nfer ence thatthe def

endanti s l i abl e forthe mi s conductal l eged. ” I d. III . A . C laim s A g a in st O f

f ice r V ill e lla T h e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t p ro h ib its p riso n o f f icia ls f ro m u n n e c e ss a rilya n d w a n to n ly i nfl i ct i ng pai n i n a mannerthatoffe nds cont empora rys t andar ds of dec ency . See H uds on v. M cM i l l i an, 503 U . S. 1, 8 ( 1992) . W hen r evi ew i ng E i ghth A m endmentexce s s i ve for ce c laim s, w e m u st d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e “ f o rc e w a s a p p lied in a g o o d -f a ith e f f o rt to m a in ta in o r r e s to re d is c ip lin e , o r m a lic io u s ly an d s a d is tic a lly to c a u s e h a rm .” Id . a t 7 . W h ethe r th e f

o rce ap p li ed w as e x ce ssive req u ir es th e e x am ination o f se v era l fac tors in c lu d in g : ( 1) ‘ the nee d forthe appl i cat i on of for ce’ ; ( 2) ‘ the r el at i ons hi p betw een the n ee d an d the a m o u n t of fo rce that w as u sed ’; (3) ‘the ex tent o f in jury i nfl i ct ed’ ; ( 4) ‘ the ext entof the thr eatt o the s afe tyof s t aff and i nm at es , as re a so n a b lyp e rc e iv e d b yre sp o n sib le o f f icia ls o n th e b a sis o f

th e f a c ts know n t o t hem’; and ( 5) ‘ anyeff or t s m ade t o t emperthe s ever i tyof a fo rce fu l r esp o n se.’ Br oo ks v. K y l e r , 20 4 F. 3d 10 2, 10 6 ( 3d Ci r . 20 00 ) ( qu ot i ng W hi t l e yv. A l be r s , 46 5 U. S. 3 1 2 , 3 2 1 (1 9 8 6 )). A lth o u g h th e e x ten t o f a n in m a te’ s in

ju rie s is re lev a n t to a n E ig h th A m end m ent anal y si s, “t here i s no fixed m i nim um qu antum of inj urythat a pr i soner m ust p ro v e th a t h e su f

f e re d th ro u g h o b

jec tiv e o r in d e p e n d e n t ev id e n c e in o rd e r to sta te a c laim f o r w a n to n a n d e x c e s s iv e f o rc e .” Id . a t 1 0 4 .5

W e fi nd thatM atthew s has s t at ed a pl aus i bl e cl ai m forr el i ef byal l egi ng that V ill e lla a c ted w a n to n lya n d m a licio u slyb ystrik in g h is h a n d c u f f e d h a n d s w ith a b ill y cl ub, w i thoutanyappar entpr ovocat i on. M atthew s cl ai m s thathi s “s m as hed” f i nger r equi r ed x- r ay s and a “ buddys pl i nt , ”and thata pr e- exi s t i ng i nj uryw as aggr avat ed. E ven i f w e cons i derhi s i nj ur i es de mi ni m i s , M atthew s has al l eged the us e of w ant on, unnece s s aryfor ce r es ul t i ng i n pai n and i nj ury . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l vaca t e the D i s tr i ct C ou rt ’s order as t o thi s cl ai m and rem and for further proceedings. B . C l ai m s A gai ns tO ffi cerH erbl i ng T h e D istric t C o u rt in terp re ted M a tth e w s’ c laim s a g a in st H e rb lin g a s a f a ilu re to p ro tec t cla im a n d a f

a ilu re to in ter v e n e c laim . T o sta te a n E ig h th A m e n d m e n t f a ilu re to pr ot ectcl ai m , M atthew s m us tal l ege thathe fa ced “ s ubs t ant i al r i s k of s er i ous harm . ” Far m erv. B r ennan, 511 U . S. 825, 834 ( 1994) . H e mustal s o al l ege thatH erbl i ng w as d e lib e ra telyin d if

f e re n t to th a t risk . Id . at 8 3 8 . W e a g re e th a t M a tth e w s h a s n o t m e t th is s t andar d. H i s al l eged i nj ur i es do notr i s e t o the l evel of “s er i ous harm , ” and he has not al l eged a “pervas i ve r i s k of harm ” fr om thi s s i ngl e i nci dent . See R i l eyv. J eff es , 777 F. 2d 143, 147 ( 3d C i r . 1985) . M or eover , M atthew s ’ acc ountof the al l eged e vent s i ndi cat es th a t H e rb lin g w a s s u rp rise d b yV ill e lla’s a c tio n s, a n d th e re f o re lac k e d th e k n o w led g e to have a ct ed w i th del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence . T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt a ls o p ro p e rl yd is m is s e d M a tth e w s ’ f a ilu re to in te rv e n e c la im . A n offi ceri s l i abl e forfai l i ng t o pr ot ectan i nm at e fr om anotheroffi cer ’ s us e of e xces s i ve6

for ce “ i f ther e i s a r eal i s t i c and r eas onabl e opportuni tyt o i nt ervene. ” Sm i th v. M ens i nger , 293 F. 3d 641, 650- 51 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . A s the D i s tr i ctC our tr eas oned, even as s um i ng V i l l el l a us ed exc es s i ve for ce, i tdoes notappea rthatH erbl i ng coul d have ha d a n yo p p o rt u n ity to in te rv e n e in V ille lla ’s s u d d e n u s e o f f o rc e . C. Re ma i n i n g Cl a i ms W e a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t M a tth e w s’ r e q u e sts f o r c rim in a l ch a rg e s to b e b ro u g h t ag a in st th e d e f e n d a n ts, f

o r th e ir ter m in a tio n , an d f o r th e ir sa lar ies to b e p a id to h im a re im p ro p e r re q u e sts f o r re lief. W e a lso f

in d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rly d i s mi s s e d h i s c l a i ms a g a i n s tu n n a me d RH U s t a f f me mb e r s . T o th e e x t e n tth a tM a t th e ws names Evans and H i edi as the r el evantR H U s t aff m ember s i n hi s fi r s tamended compl ai nt , thatcl ai m w as al s o pr oper l ydi s m i s s ed. I f cons trued as a fa i l ur e t o pr ot ector i nt ervene c l ai m , M atthew s ’ cl ai m fai l s forthe s ame r eas ons hi s cl ai m agai ns tH erbl i ng f a ils. H e a lleg e s n o th in g m o re th a n th a t E v a n s a n d H ied i w itn e ss e d th e a lleg e d a ss a u lt, and fr om a gr eat erdi s t ance than di d H erbl i ng. I V. I n s um , M atthew s has s t at ed a c l ai m forexce s s i ve for ce a gai ns tV i l l el l a. W e thus v a c a te th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s d is m is s a l o f th a t c la im a n d re m a n d f o r f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s . W e a ff irm the re m aind er o f th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er.