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 9-14-2009 

# Rob e r t G att i s v

. Pe rry P help s 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 . 08-3090

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 G att i s v

. P e rry P he lps " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 674. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/674NOT 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. 08- 3090

___________ R O B E R T G A T T I S, i ndi vi dual l yand on beha l f of

al l other s s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed, A ppel l ant v. WARDE N P E RR Y P HE L P S ; J AM E S T . VAUGH N C O R R E C T IO N A L C E N T E R ; M A JO R D C C JA M E S S C A R B O R O U G H ;

S T A F F L IE U T E N A N T D C C K A R E N H A W K IN S ; S E R G E A N T D C C W IL F O R D B E C K L E S ; C A R O L P O W E L L , J a m e s T . V a u g h n C o rr e c tio n a l C e n te r,

1181 Paddock R oad, Sm yrna, D E 19977

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fo r th e D istri ct of

D elaw are ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 08- cv- 00154) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le Jo sep h J. F arn an , Jr.

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

A ugus t21, 2009 B efor e: FI SH E R , J O R D A N A N D V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: Sept ember14, 2009)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________N o tably , G att is did n o t nam e the JT V C C as a d ef en d an t i n the § 1 9 8 3 ac ti o n . R athe r, 1 he s ued s ever al D epart m entof C orr ect i ons empl oy ees i n thei ri ndi vi dual and off i ci al capac i t i es. 2 P E R C UR I AM Ro b e r tGa t t i s , a p r i s o n e rp r o c e e d i n g p r o s e , f i l e d a c o mp l a i n tu n d e r4 2 U. S . C. § 1983 i n the D i s tr i ctC our t , al l egi ng thatcert ai n D el aw ar e D epart m entof C orr ect i ons p o li cies inf

ri n g e o n h is co n sti tuti o n al ri g h ts. G att is al so fil ed a re q u est fo r a p reli m inary i nj unct i on and a t empora r yr es tr ai ni ng or der , as w el l as a mot i on forappoi nt m entof couns el . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed the ac t i on underthe Pr i s on L i t i gat i on R eform A ct ( “PL R A ”) , 28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) and § 1915A ( b) ( 1) , and deni ed G att i s ’ r eques t s for i nj unct i ve r el i ef a nd couns el , r eas oni ng thathi s cl ai m s w er e fr i vol ous and fa i l ed t o s t at e a cogni zabl e cl ai m . G att i s now appea l s thatdeci s i on. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. Forthe r eas ons thatfol l ow , w e w i l l aff i r m i n part , vaca t e i n part , and rem and for further proceedings. G a tti s is o n d e a th ro w a t th e Ja m e s T . V a u g h n C o rre c tio n a l C e n ter (“ JT V C C ” ) in D e law a re . In h is § 1 9 8 3 c o m p lain t, G a tti s a lleg e d th a t tw o p o licie s o f th e JT V C C v io late hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . Fi r s t , he cont ended thatthe J T V C C ’ s pol i cyof pr ohi bi t i ng 1 p riso n e rs f

ro m p o ss e ss in g se x u a llye x p licit m a g a z in e s, a s a p p lied to in m a tes o n d e a th ro w , v io late s th e F irst a n d F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n ts. S e c o n d , G a tti s a rg u e d th a t h is E i ghth A m endmentr i ght s w er e vi ol at ed w hen the J T V C C al t er ed i t s exer ci s e pol i ci es for death r ow i nm at es , r educi ng thei rexer ci s e s chedul e fr om fourt o thr ee da y s perw eek a nd3

f o rc in g th e m to e x e rc ise in d o o rs if o u td o o r sp a c e w a s u n a v a ilab le. In a d d iti o n to prel i m i naryi njunct i ve rel i ef, G at t i s sough tperm anen ti njunct i ve rel i ef, no m i nal dam ages, puni t i ve damages , and cos t s . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed the compl ai ntunder§ 1915 and § 1915A , r eas oni ng thatG att i s ’ damages cl ai m s w er e barr ed byE l eventh A m endment i m m un i ty , and that hi s r em ai ning cl ai m s w ere l egall yfri vo l ou s. W h e n r e v i e wi n g a c o mp l a i n td i s mi s s e d u n d e r§ 1 9 1 5 , th i s Co u r ta p p l i e s th e s a me s t andar d pr ovi ded fori n Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 6) . See Tours cherv. M cC o ll o u g h , 1 8 4 F . 3 d 2 3 6 , 2 4 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). In d eterm ining w h ethe r a d istri ct co u rt pr oper l ydi s m i s s ed a c om pl ai ntunderR ul e 12( b) ( 6) , thi s C our tm us t“ac ceptal l fac tual al l egat i ons as true, cons true the compl ai nti n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the pl ai nt i ff, and det erm i ne w hether , underanyr eas onabl e r eadi ng of the compl ai nt , the pl ai nt i ff maybe ent i t l ed t o r el i ef. ” Phi l l i ps v. C ountyof A l l egheny , 515 F. 3d 224, 233 ( 3d C i r . 2008) (q u o tin g P in k e r v . R o c h e H o ld in g s L td ., 2 9 2 F .3 d 3 6 1 , 3 7 4 n .7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 )). T h is s t andar d r equi r es thata pl ai nt i ff a l l ege i n hi s compl ai nt“‘ enough fa ct [s ] t o r ai s e a rea so n ab le ex p ec tat ion that d isco v eryw il l r ev ea l evid en ce o f’ the n ec essa ryelem en t[s]” o f a c a u s e o f

a c t i o n . P h i l l i p s , 5 1 5 F . 3 d a t2 3 4 ( q u o t i n g B e l l A t l a n t i c C o rp . v . T w o m b l y, 5 5 0 U . S . 5 4 4 , 5 5 6 (20 0 7 )). G att is prese n ts th ree arg u m en ts on ap p ea l. F ir st, h e a rgu es th at th e D istri ct C o u rt err ed in di sm i ssi ng al l of h i s m on et arydam ages cl ai m s. T he E l even th A m end m ent bar s a s ui tform oneydamages agai ns ta s t at e age ncyand s t at e off i ci al s s ued i n thei roffi ci alT h e T u rn e r te st “ re q u ire s c o u rts to c o n sid e r (1 ) w h e th e r a ra tio n a l co n n e c tio n e x ists 2 betw een the r egul at i on and a ne utr al , l egi t i m at e governm enti nt er es t ; ( 2) w hether al t ernat i ve means exi s tfori nm at es t o exer ci s e the cons t i tut i onal r i ghtati s s ue; ( 3) w hat i m pactthe ac comm odat i on of the r i ghtw oul d have on i nm at es , pr i s on per s onnel , and al l ocat i on of pr i s on r es our ces ; and ( 4) w hetherobvi ous , eas yal t ernat i ves exi s t . ” W a te rm a n , 1 8 3 F .3 d a t 2 1 3 n .6 (c itin g T u rn e r, 4 8 2 U .S . a t 8 9 -9 1 ). 4 c a p a c iti e s. S e e M e lo v . H a f e r, 9 1 2 F .2 d 6 2 8 , 6 3 5 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 0 ). H o w e v e r, th e E lev e n th A m endmentdoes notbars uch cl ai m s agai ns ts t at e off i ci al s s ued i n thei ri ndi vi dual capa ci t i es . See i d. N ordoes the PL R A pr ohi bi tpr i s oner s fr om s eeki ng nom i nal or puni t i ve damages i n § 1983 act i ons . See A l l ah v. A l - H afe ez, 226 F. 3d 247, 251- 52 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . T hus , though w e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthatE l eventh A m endment i m m uni tybar s anym onet arycl ai m s agai ns tthe J T V C C and i t s empl oy ees i n thei roffi ci al capa ci t i es , w e not e thatG att i s corr ect l yar gues thatthe El eventh A m endmentdoes notbar hi s damages cl ai m s agai ns tthe def endant s i nas m uch as he s ued them i n thei ri ndi vi dual capac i t i es. S econ d, G at t i s ar gu es that the D i stri ctC ou rterr ed in di sm i ssi ng his F i rs t A m en d m en t cl aim . In d eterm ining w h ethe r a p ri so n reg u lat ion inf ri n g es o n a p ri so n er’s c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h t s , c o u r t s a p p l y th e f o u r - p a r tf

r a m e w o r k e s t a b l i s h e d i n T u rn e rv . S a f l e y, 4 8 2 U . S . 7 8 , 8 9 -91 (19 8 7 ). S ee W aterm an v . F arm er, 18 3 F . 3 d 2 0 8 , 2 1 2 -21 3 (3d C ir . 1999) . I n concl udi ng thatG att i s ’ cl ai m w as fr i vol ous , the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d not

2 expr es s l yconducta new anal y s i s underT urner . R ather , i tr el i ed on tw o D i s tr i ctof D el aw ar e ca s es , J ol l yv. Sny der , N o. 00- 041, 2003 W L 1697539 ( D . D el . M ar . 22, 2003)5

( appl y i ng T urnert o t he J T V C C pol i cypr ohi bi t i ng s exual l yexpl i ci tm at er i al ) , and St evens on v. Sny der , N o. 00- 732, 2004 W L 422693 ( D . D el . M ar ch 3, 2004) ( r el y i ng on Jo ll y ’s ap p li ca ti o n o f T u rne r t o the s am e b an ). G att is argu es th at Jo ll yan d S teve n so n are n o t co n tro lli n g b e c a u se th e yd o n o t co n tem p late th e b a n a s it re late s to d e a th p e n a lty p ri s o n e rs , w h o a re s u b

je c t to s p e c ia l c o n d itio n s , in c lu d in g a d m in is tr a tiv e s e g re g a tio n . W e a g re e th a t an a n a ly sis o f th e T u rn e r f

a c to rs, a s a p p lied to G a tti s’s sp e c if ic c ir c u m s ta n c e s , is w a rr a n te d . T he ex pli ci tm at eri al s poli cyi nv olved i n Joll y , S t even son, and the p res ent cas e appl i es br oadl yt o al l pr i s oner s . T he J ol l yand St evens on deci s i ons r es t ed on the ar gum entthat“the pol i cyi s nece s s aryt o m ai nt ai n pr i s on s ecur i tyand t o fur ther re h a b ili tativ e g o a ls. S p e c if ica lly , D e f

e n d a n ts u rg e th a t p o ss e ss io n o f p o rn o g ra p h ic m a ter ials b yp riso n e rs, e sp e c iallyse x o f f e n d e rs, c a n lea d to se x u a l h a ra ss m e n t o f f e m a le o f f i c e r s a n d c a n u n d e r m i n e th e s a f e ty o f b o th p r i s o n g u a r d s a n d o th e ri n m a t e s . ” J o l l y, 2003 W L 1697539, at*3. N ei thercas e expl ai ns w hetherthe pl ai nt i ffs i nvol ved w er e, l i ke G a ttis , d e a th ro w in m a te s , o r w h e th e r t h e yw e re h o u s e d in th e g e n e ra l p ri s o n p o p u la tio n . W h i l e th e r e a s o n i n g o f

J o l l ya n d S t e v e n s o n mi g h tr e a s o n a b l yb e a p p l i e d t o th e J TVCC i nm at e popul at i on atl ar ge, i tm ayorm aynothol d up w hen appl i ed t o death r ow i nm at es in a d m in istra tiv e se g re g a tio n : th e re c o rd d o e s n o t re v e a l th e e x ten t to w h ich d e a th penal tyi nm at es have c l os e cont actw i th guar ds , femal e off i cer s , and otheri nm at es , s o the degr ee t o w hi ch the pr i s on s ecur i tyi s s ues i nvol ved i n J ol l yand St evens on ar e al s o i n pl ay6

h e re is u n c lea r. M o re o v e r, sin c e G a tti s is o n d e a th ro w , fu rth e r a n a ly sis is re q u ire d to d e m o n stra te th a t re h a b ili tatio n is a leg iti m a te p e n o lo g ica l in ter e st. G iv e n th e p o ss ib ili ty of cl emencyorot herr el i ef thatcoul d change G att i s ’ s s ent ence , w e do nots aythat re h a b ili tatio n c o n c e rn s a re irre lev a n t. In d e e d , reh a b ili tatio n m a yb e a p p ro p ria tely c o n s i d e r e d e v e n i f

i tp e r t a i n s o n l yt o a p r i s o n e r ’ s b e h a v i o rwh i l e i n c a r c e r a t e d , b u ts o me anal y s i s i n t hatr egar d s houl d be undert aken bythe D i s tr i ctC our ti n the fi r s ti ns t ance , and s uch ana l y s i s m aybenef i tfr om fur therdevel opm entof the r ecor d. I n s hor t , the D i s tr i ct C o u rt lac k e d su f

f icie n t f a c ts to c o n c lu d e th a t G a tti s is sim ilarlysitu a ted to th e p lain tiff s in J o lly a n d S te v e n s o n . M o re o v e r, th e p ro c e d u ra l p o stu re o f Jo llya n d S tev e n so n d if f e re d sig n if

ica n tly fr om the i ns t antcas e. T hos e ca s es w er e dec i ded on a mot i on t o di s m i s s and mot i on for s um m aryj udgm ent , r es pect i vel y , m eani ng thatthe def endant s had bee n aff

or ded an oppor tuni tyt o r es pond t o t he cl ai m s agai ns tthem and ar t i cul at e a r eas on forthe chal l enged pol i cy . H er e, the D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed G att i s ’ compl ai ntdur i ng the § 1915 s cr eeni ng pr oces s , as s um i ng thatadmi ni s tr at i vel ys egr egat ed pr i s oner s ar e s ubj ectt o the sam e ra ti o n ale a s the p lai n ti ff s in Jo ll yan d S teve n so n . O n rem an d , the D istri ct C o u rt s houl d cons i derw hetherthe def endant s s houl d be af

for ded an opportuni tyt o devel op t he f a c tu a l re c o rd a n d e x p lain h o w , if a t all, th e re g u latio n re a so n a b lya p p lies to in m a tes in G a ttis ’ s itu a tio n . T h ird , G a tti s a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt im p ro p e rlyd ism iss e d h is E ig h th7

A m endmentcl ai m . T he deni al of exe r ci s e orr ecr eat i on m ayr es ul ti n a cons t i tut i onal
v io la tio n . S e e P e te rk in v . J e f f e s , 8 5 5 F .2 d 1 0 2 1 , 1 0 3 1 -3 3 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 8 ). H o w e v e r, a pl ai nt i ff mustdemonstr at e thats uch a de ni al i s s uffi ci ent l ys er i ous t o depr i ve i nm at es of the m inim al civil ized m ea su re o f li fe ’s ne ce ssit ies. S ee T il lm an v . L eb an o n C o u n tyC o rr. F aci l i ty , 22 1 F . 3d 41 0, 41 8 (3d C i r. 20 00 ). E ven m i nim al provis i on of ti m e for exerci se and r ecr eat i on m ays at i s fycons t i tut i onal r equi r ement s . See, e. g. , W i s hon v. G amm on, 978 F. 2d 446, 449 ( 8th C i r . 1992) ( for ty - fi ve mi nut es of exe r ci s e perw eek not cons t i tut i onal l yi nfi r m ) ; K ni ghtv. A r m ontr out , 878 F. 2d 1093, 1096 ( 8th C i r . 1989) ( hol di ng thatdeni al of out doorr ecr eat i on forthi r t een da y s notcruel and unus ual p u n ish m e n t). M o re o v e r, “a tem p o ra ryd e n ial o f o u td o o r e x e rc ise w ith n o m e d ica l ef f e c ts is n o t a s u b s ta n tia l d e p ri v a tio n .” M a yv . B a ld w in , 1 0 9 F .3 d 5 5 7 , 5 6 5 (9 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). T hus , w e agr ee w i th t he D i s tr i ctC our tthatG att i s ’ al l eged ha r m – thathi s exer ci s e w as lim ited to th re e d a y s p e r w e e k a n d th a t h e w a s n o t g u a ra n tee d o u td o o r e x e rc ise a t all tim e s – w a s in su f

f icie n tlyse rio u s to im p lica te th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t. Fi nal l y , G att i s appea l s fr om the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deni al of hi s r eques t s for pr el i m i naryi nj unct i ve r el i ef a nd appoi nt m entof couns el . A courts houl d gr anti nj unct i ve r el i ef onl yi f, i nt eral i a, “the pl ai nt i ff i s l i kel yt o s ucce ed on the mer i t s . . . [and] deni al
w i l l r es ul ti n i r r epar abl e harm t o t he pl ai nt i ff. ” M al donado v. H ous t oun, 157 F. 3d 179, 1 8 4 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). T h e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied in ju n c tiv e re lief

, rea so n in g th a t G a tti s fai l ed t o demonstr at e a l i kel i hood of s ucce s s on the mer i t s . W e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ct8

C our t ’ s r eas oni ng as i tpert ai ns t o hi s E i ghth A m endmentcl ai m . Fur ther , w e ca nnots ay th a tGa t t i s ’ i n a b i l i tyt o a c c e s s s e x u a l l ye x p l i c i tma t e r i a l c o n s t i tu t e s i rr e p a r a b l e h a r m. As s uch, the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deni al of i nj unct i ve r el i ef c oncerni ng hi s Fi r s tA m endment cl ai m w as al s o appr opr i at e. W i th r es pectt o G att i s ’ r eques tforcouns el , w e r evi ew the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . S e e P a rh a m v . J o h n s o n , 1 2 6 F .3 d 4 5 4 , 4 5 6 -5 7 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). A l though w e per cei ve no abus e of di s cr et i on i n the deni al of G att i s ’ m ot i on, s ee Tabr on v . G ra c e , 6 F .3 d 1 4 7 , 1 5 5 -5 6 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 3 ) (s e tti n g f o rth th e f a c to rs a c o u rt sh o u ld co n side r i n d ec iding a m o ti o n fo r ap p o intm en t of co u n sel), w e n o te th at th e D istri ct C o u rt is f re e to re e v a lu a te its d e c isio n o n re m a n d if c irc u m sta n c e s w a rra n t. A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt in p a rt, v a c a te in p a rt , 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 c o n s is te n t w ith th is o p in io n .