2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

11-17-2010

Brian Griffin v. Jeffrey Beard

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 09-4404

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2010 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Brian Griffin v. Jeffrey Beard" (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 246.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/246
1

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-4404

___________

BRIAN EDWARD GRIFFIN,

Appellant

v.

JEFFREY BEARD; RAYMOND LAWLER; 

C. WAKEFIELD; TIMOTHY YUTZY

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 08-cv-01120)

District Judge: Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

November 16, 2010

Before: FUENTES, GREENAWAY, JR. and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed November 17, 2010)

___________

OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM

Brian Edward Griffin appeals pro se from the final order of the District Court. For 
2

the following reasons, we will vacate in part and remand with an instruction to dismiss 

Griffin‟s complaint in relevant part as moot. We will otherwise affirm.

I.

Griffin is a Pennsylvania state prisoner formerly incarcerated at the State 

Correctional Institution at Huntingdon (“SCI-Huntingdon”). In 2008, he filed pro se a 

civil rights complaint alleging that certain conditions at SCI-Huntingdon constituted cruel 

and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. In particular, he alleged 

inadequate ventilation in the prison cells, exposure to extreme heat and cold, rodent 

infestation, and prison overcrowding, all of which he claimed increases the risk of 

infectious diseases. He also alleged that he had been exposed in the outdoor prison yard 

to coal smoke from a prison smokestack. He named as defendants the Secretary of the 

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, the prison Superintendent and Safety Manager, 

and another corrections officer involved in the grievance process. As relief, he requested 

monetary damages for a risk of future health problems, a declaratory judgment, and an 

injunction requiring the defendants to correct the alleged conditions.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), which 

the District Court denied. Discovery entailed substantial motions practice, and the 

District Court granted certain of Griffin‟s discovery motions but denied others. Griffin 

also filed a motion for the appointment of counsel, which the District Court denied. The 

District Court also denied defendants‟ request to file a motion for summary judgment. It 
3

ultimately conducted a bench trial, at which Griffin called four fellow inmates as 

witnesses and testified himself. At the close of Griffin‟s case, the defendants moved for 

judgment on partial findings under Rule 52(c), and the District Court granted the motion 

and entered judgment in their favor on October 21, 2009. Griffin appeals.1 While this 

appeal was pending, Griffin was transferred from SCI-Huntingdon to another prison.

II.

Griffin challenges a number of the District Court‟s rulings and raises a number of 

issues on review, but his transfer to a different prison has rendered most of them moot. 

“An inmate‟s transfer from the facility complained of generally moots the equitable and 

declaratory claims.” Sutton v. Rasheed, 323 F.3d 236, 248 (3d Cir. 2003) (citing AbdulAkbar v. Watson, 4 F.3d 195, 197 (3d Cir. 1993)). Griffin argues that such claims in this 

case are not moot because the conditions he complains of are capable of repetition but 

evade review. 

We disagree. That limited exception to the mootness doctrine applies only when

“„(1) the challenged action was in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its 

cessation or expiration, and (2) there is a reasonable likelihood that the same complaining 

party would be subjected to the same action again.‟” Abdul-Akbar, 4 F.3d at 206 

(citation omitted) (emphasis in Abdul-Akbar). Neither of these elements is present here. 

 

1 Griffin also filed a motion for a new trial, which the District Court later denied,

but he has not separately appealed from that ruling and raises no issues regarding

that ruling in his brief.
4

Griffin alleges persisting conditions that are not too short in duration to permit full 

litigation. There also is no indication that he is reasonably likely to be transferred back to 

SCI-Huntingdon. Griffin argues that he has been transferred there three times before, but 

the record does not reveal the reasons for his current or past transfers or any reason to 

suspect that he will be transferred to SCI-Huntingdon again. See Moore v. Thieret, 862 

F.2d 148, 150 (7th Cir. 1989); Jerry v. Francisco, 632 F.2d 252, 255 (3d Cir. 1980). 

Thus, Griffin‟s claims for injunctive and declaratory relief are moot. Accordingly, we 

will vacate the District Court‟s judgment as to those claims and remand for the District 

Court to dismiss them on that basis. See Rendell v. Rumsfeld, 484 F.3d 236, 243 (3d Cir. 

2007) (citing United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U.S. 36, 39 (1950)).2

Griffin‟s prison transfer, however, does not render moot his claim for monetary 

damages. See Sutton, 323 F.3d at 249. We thus have jurisdiction to review the District 

Court‟s judgment on that claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. In doing so, we review the 

District Court‟s findings of fact under Rule 52(c) for clear error and its legal conclusions 

de novo. See EBC, Inc. v. Clark Bldg. Sys., Inc., — F.3d —, No. 09-1182, 2010 WL

3239475, at *14 (3d Cir. Aug. 18, 2010). We review the denial of a motion for counsel 

for abuse of discretion. See Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 158 (3d Cir. 1993).

Griffin‟s claim for damages is based solely on an alleged risk of future harm as a 

 

2

This disposition means that the District Court‟s rulings as to these claims would

not have preclusive effect on any claim for prospective relief that Griffin might

assert if he is returned to SCI-Huntingdon in the future.
5

result of exposure to coal smoke in the prison yard.3 The District Court entered judgment 

in favor of the defendants on this claim because, inter alia, Griffin presented no medical 

or scientific evidence that he faces a risk of future harm. Griffin argues that medical 

evidence was not necessary because it is common knowledge that exposure to coal smoke 

is dangerous. Even if that were the case, however, the only claim surviving Griffin‟s 

prison transfer is his claim for compensatory damages for a risk of future harm. That 

claim required him to present evidence that he actually faces such a risk. See Atkinson v. 

Taylor, 316 F.3d 257, 265 & n.6 (3d Cir. 2003) (explaining in environmental tobacco 

smoke case that if the prisoner “can produce evidence of future harm, he may be able to 

recover damages,” and noting record medical evidence of future harm). We agree with 

the District Court that Griffin presented no such evidence here.

Griffin further argues that he was hampered in his ability to present his case 

because the District Court abused its discretion in denying his motion for counsel. We 

are indeed troubled by that ruling. Although the District Court cited the Tabron factors, it 

did not discuss Griffin‟s ability to gather and present scientific evidence (the lack of 

 

3 Griffin argues on appeal that he is entitled also to damages for past suffering 

under all the conditions he alleges. Griffin, however, asserted no such claim in the

District Court. In his complaint, he expressly limited his claim for monetary 

damages to his “future health risk.” (Compl. at 5 ¶ 1.) He did the same at his 

bench trial. (N.T., Oct. 21, 2009, at 66-67) (“[T]he civil suit is about future health. 

You can sue about future health. That‟s what the suit—the whole suit—read the 

complaint.”); (id. at 79) (“The injury part, the civil suit was about future 

injuries.”).
6

which it later held against him), or his potential difficulties with discovery (which already 

had surfaced when he moved for counsel and which proved to be protracted). See

Montgomery v. Pinchak, 294 F.3d 492, 501-05 (3d Cir. 2002). The District Court also 

reasoned that “this court‟s liberal construction of pro se pleadings mitigates [sic] against 

the appointment of counsel.” (Dist. Ct. Docket No. 58 at 3.) Leaving aside the fact that 

the pleading stage had concluded, this reasoning suggests that all motions for counsel 

(which by definition are filed by pro se litigants) inherently are “mitigated against.” That 

reasoning conflicts with the framework we set forth in Tabron, and there is no support for 

it in our precedent. 

Nevertheless, we cannot say that any abuse of discretion in this regard constitutes 

reversible error. See 28 U.S.C. § 2111. The primary reason for appointing counsel is to 

assist a litigant in litigating a potentially meritorious claim. See Tabron, 6 F.3d at 155-

56. In this case, Griffin‟s alleged risk of future harm appears purely speculative and there 

is no indication that it is potentially meritorious even at this late stage.

Neither in his complaint nor at trial did Griffin provide any meaningful detail 

about his exposure to the coal smoke, such as its frequency or duration.4 Nor has he 

specified how he believes such exposure will affect his health in the future. In that 

regard, he did not visit a prison doctor to address his concerns, which he did not require 

 

4 One of Griffin‟s witnesses testified that smoke blows into the prison yard “on a 

regular basis” (N.T. Oct. 21, 2009, at 25), but Griffin himself appears to have 

testified that it happened only twice (id. At 66).
7

counsel in order to do and which might have resulted in evidence on this issue. To the 

contrary, when asked at the bench trial whether he had any medical evidence to support 

this claim, he answered: “I have no medical evidence and I will never have no medical 

evidence because I will never deal with medical.” (N.T., Oct. 21, 2009, at 67.) 

Moreover, Griffin does not argue on appeal how (or even that) counsel could have 

assisted him in litigating this specific issue.5 Thus, under the circumstances, we cannot 

say that the denial of counsel hampered Griffin‟s ability to present a claim that was 

otherwise potentially meritorious. Consequently, we cannot conclude that any abuse of 

discretion in denying counsel constitutes reversible error as to this sole remaining claim. 

For the benefit of all concerned, however, we note that our ruling may have been 

different if Griffin‟s claims for prospective relief had remained live on appeal.

Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court‟s judgment as to Griffin‟s claim for 

monetary damages, but vacate its judgment as to Griffin‟s other claims and remand for 

the District Court to dismiss his complaint as to those claims as moot. In light of our 

disposition, we need not address the parties‟ remaining arguments.

 

5 Griffin argues that counsel could have assisted him in obtaining the discovery he

sought, and also argues the denial of his discovery motions as an independent

ground for reversal. The discovery in question, however, relates to the existence 

and defendants‟ knowledge of the alleged conditions, not to his alleged risk of 

future injury.