2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 2-3-2006 

# W i l li a ms v . M e ye rs P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ock e t N o . 03-3938

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du
. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" W i l l i a m s v . M ey e r s " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1644. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/16441 NOT PRECEDENTIAL U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E T H IRD C IR C U IT NOS. 03-3938 & 03-4618

________________ KE VI N WI L L IAM S a.k.a. Ki rb y Ste wa rt , v. RO B ERT W. ME YE RS; T ERR Y L . WH I TM AN ; F . J. T EN NI S; G. P. GAERTNER; Capt. L EATHERS; L t. VANCE; L t. EATON; C f s s S O W A S H ; C f

s s T O WN S EN D ; C f

s s E M E L; Dr. WAL MER; Dr. BU RKE; Dr. WHEEL ER; Dr. AL L EN; R.N. L I DYETT; J. RUSS; J . RACKVAN Kevin Willi ams, Appellant

____________________________________ On Appea l From the United States District Court F or the Mid dle Di str ic t of

Pe nn sylva

nia (M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 01-cv- 02312) Mag istrate Judge: Hon. J. Andrew Smy ser

_______________________________________ Submit ted Under

Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Fe bruar y 1, 2006 BEF ORE: FI SHER, AL DI SERT and WEI S, CI RCUI T J UDGES (F iled Fe bruar y 3, 2006)

_____________________ OPI NI ON

_______________________2

PER CU RIAM
.

Kevin Willi ams, an inmate in the Pennsylvania State Prison sy stem, filed a § 1983 complaint in 2001, alleg ing that the defe ndants: (1) plac ed Willi ams in administrative seg reg ation at SCI -Rockview f or over four months, without a hea ring ; (2) ver

bally hara ssed Willi ams whil e he wa s in a dmi nis tr ativ e se g re g atio n; ( 3) we re de lib e ra te ly ind if fe re nt t o h is
se ri ou s p syc ho log ic a l ne e ds at a tim e wh e n h e ha d s uic ida l th ou g hts ; and (4 ) f ir e d h im f ro m hi s pr iso n k itc he n jo b in

re ta liatio n f

or fi lin gg ri e va

nc e s a g a ins t hi s su

pe rv iso r, a ll i n v iol atio n o f h is Ei g hth and F ourt e e nth

Am e ndme nt r ights . H e so ught d ama g e s. Th e Defen dan ts mo vedto di sm is s t he C ompl ain t f or f ail ure t o s tat e a cl aim . By order enter ed June 3, 2002, the District Court adopted the Mag istrate Judge’ s Report
rec ommending dismissal and, with the e x ception of the reta liation claim, dismi ssed all of Willi ams’ s c la ims a s to a ll d e fe nd ants . T he Di str ic t Co ur t di smi sse d th e du e pr oc e ss c la im w ith prejudice for f

ailure to state a

claim bec ause Williams’s 139-day confine ment in administrative custody did not impos e the ty

pe of aty pical sig nificant de privation that g ives rise to a pr otected liberty interest. The District Court also dismis sed Will iams’s Eig hth Amendment har assment claim with prejudice , holding that ve rbal a buse, alone , does not amount to a constitutional deprivation under the Eighth Amendment. Howe ver, the District Court dismi ssed without prejudice Wil liams’s Eighth Ame ndment claim of de liberate indiffer ence to his serious psy cholog ical nee ds beca use it was not prope rly

pled, and grante d Wil liams leave to file a n amende d complaint.

Willi ams a

me nd e d h is c omp la int , a lle g ingthat whil e he wa s in c arc e rate d in administrative segreg ation at SCI -Rockview in Apr il 2001, and on sever al occ asions there afte r,3

the def endants de nied him psy cholog ical tre atment that he ha d reque sted bec ause he was fe eling suicidal. Wil liams also claimed that staff psycholog ists W almer a

nd Allen re fused his written reque sts for psycholog ical tre atment and that his numerous grieva nces r eg ardingthe lack of psy cholog ical tre atment wer e ig nored.

Wil liams re-a lleg ed his reta liation claim in the Amended Complaint, addingthat in March 2001, he filed a grieva nce c laiming that de fenda nt Emel hara ssed him and tried to g et him fired fr om his prison job hauling kitchen tra sh. He c laimed that Emel then dire cted other prison office rs to fire Williams. He alleg ed that Rac kovan did nothing a bout the reta liatory
c on du c t. The District Court denie d defe ndants’ Rule 12(b) (6) motion to dismi ss the Amended Complaint. The De fenda nts moved for summary

judgme nt. In September 2003, the Di str ic t Co ur

t de nie d s umm ary

jud g me nt a s to the re ta liatio n c la im w ithre sp e c t to de fe nd ants Meyer, Sowa sh, Townsend, Emel, a nd Rackova

n, and grante d summary

judgme nt on Wi lliams’s E i g h thA m e n dm e n tc l a i ma s t o d e f e n d an t s B ur

k e , M e y e r s , A l l e n , W a l m e r , an d W h e e l e r . In g rantingsummary

judgme nt, the District Court noted that (1) the Suicidal Risk Indication Check L ist , c omp le te d thre e tim e s d ur ingWilli ams’ s c on fi ne me nt i n a dmi nis tr ativ e se g re g atio n ( in April, J une, and July

2001), indicate d that Wil liams did not ex press suicidal ideation; (2) none of Willi ams’ s r e qu e st s lip s f or ps yc ho log ic a l tr e atme nt m e nti on e d th at he ha d s uic ida l inte nti on s, and (3) when he was e valuated by Dr. B urke in August 2001, W illiams denied any suicidal ideation, denied a

ny history of suicidal attempts, and r efuse d psychotropic me dication, desc ribing him se lf on ly a s d e pr e sse d a

nd fr us tr ate d. B a se d o n th e un dis pute d f a c ts, the Di str ic t Co ur

t he ld that th e re wa s n o r e c or d e vid e nc e that th e de fe nd a nts kn e w that Will iams w a s su ic ida l.W i l l i ams’ s appea l fr om t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s or der ent er ed Sept ember 2, 2003, 1 docket ed as N o. 03- 3938, w as cons ol i dat ed w i t h hi s appea l fr om t he fi nal j udgm ent ent er ed N ovember 4, 2003. 4

In October

2003, a jury

trial was he ld before a Mag istrate Judge on the reta liation claim. At the close of Will iams’s ca se in chief , the def endants moved f

or judg ment as a matter of law, arguin gthat Will iams h a d f a ile d to e sta

bli shthat th e de fe nd ants te rm inate d h is j ob in
re ta liatio n f

or his purs uit

of the g ri e va

nc e pr oc e ss. Af

te r c on sid e ri ngthe te sti mony and e xhibi ts, the Di str ic t Co ur

t g ra nte d th e mot ion . O n N ov e mbe r 4 , 2 00 3, jud g me nt w a s e nte re d a g a ins t Wil liams and on beha lf of all def endants. Willi ams timely appea led. 1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our standa rd of r eview of

the District Court’s dismiss al under Fe d. R. Civ. P . 12(b)( 6) is plenar y . “We must determine whether , under a

ny rea sonable re adingof the plea dings, the plaintiffs may be entitled to re lief, and we must acce pt as true the f actua l alleg ations in the complaint and all re asonable infere nces that can be drawn there from.” N ami v. Fa uver, 82 F .3d 63, 65 (3d Cir. 1996) (c itation omit ted). We reviewde novo an or der grantingsummary judgme nt. Saldana v. K Ma rt Corp., 260 F.3d 228, 231 (3d Cir. 2001). Summary judgme nt is proper whe n, viewingthe evidenc e in the lig ht
mos t f avo ra ble to t he no nmo va

nt, the re is n o g e nu ine iss ue of mate ri a l f

a c t and the mov ingpa

rt y is entitled to judgment as a matter of la

w. I d. at 232; Fe d. R. Civ. P . 56(c) . The “ nonmoving pa rt y c ann ot r e ly

up on c on c lus or

y a lle g atio ns in i ts p le a din g s o r i n me mor and a and br ie fs to establish a g enuine issue of materia l fac t.” Pastore v. B ell Telephone Co. of Pennsylvania, 24 F.3d 508, 511- 12 (3d Cir. 1994). Rather , the nonmoving pa rty “must make a

showingsufficie nt to establish the exis tence of eve ry element e ssential to his case, ba sed on the a ffidavits or by the5

depositions and admissions on file.” Har ter v. GA F Corp., 967 F .2d 846, 852 (3d Cir. 1992). Finally , our re view of the District Court’s entry of judg ment as a matter of law pursuant to Fe d. R. Civ. P ro. 50(a ) is plenar y . Hofkin v. Provident L ife & Acc . Ins. Co., 81 F.3d 365, 369 (3d Cir. 1996). We will affirm the District Court’s judg ment as to Wil liams’s due proc ess and Eig hth Amendment claims substantially for the r easons se t forth in the Mag istrate Judge’ s Opinion filed on May

6, 2002, and in the District Court’s Opinion enter ed September 2, 2003. We will also affirm the District Court’s or der grantingjudgme nt as a matter of law on Williams’s reta liation claim, as furthe r discussed be low.

In order to preva il on his retaliation claim at trial, Will iams had to prove that the
c on du c t th at le d to the a lle g e d r e ta liatio n w a s c on sti tut ion a lly pr ote c te d, that he su ff

e re d s ome “adve rse a ction” at the ha nds of prison offic ials, and that exercise of the c onstitut ional rig ht was a substantial or motivatingfac tor in the cha lleng ed ac tion. Rauser v. Horn, 241 F .3d 330, 333-34 (3 d Ci r. 20 01 ). Pr iso n o ff ic ia ls m ay

sti ll p re va il b y

pr ov ingthat th e y

wo uld have ma de the same de c isi on a bs e nt t he pr ote c te d c on du c t f

or re a so ns that are re a so na

bly re late d to a

le g iti mate penolog ical intere st. I d. at 334.

We ag ree with the District Court that there w as no leg ally sufficie nt evidentiary basis for a

rea sonable jury

to find that the defe ndants reta liated ag ainst Wi lliams for pursuing g ri e va nc e s a bo ut h is p ri so n w or

k s up e rv iso r. Ac c or din gto Wi lli ams’ s tr ia l te sti mony , u po n h is transfe r to SCI -Rockview in June 2000, he starte d workingin the kitchen wa iting tables in the
c a fe te ri a . Within

a month, he wa s r e -a ssi g ne d to wa sh ingpa ns in t he kit c he n, and

the n to ha uli ngkit c he n tr a sh . H e re c e ive d g oo d w or k r e po rt s. B e fo re he fi le d a g ri e va nc e a bo ut h is6

wo rk a s a kit c he n tr a shha

ule r, Willi ams h a d mi no r d if fe re nc e s w ithon e of

his su pe rv iso rs , defe ndant Emel, over

his late appe ara

nces f or work a nd his inabilit y

to work with other inmates. Af te r Wi lli ams f

ile d h is c omp la int

in M arc h 2 00 1, Em e l c ontin ue d to ra ise the same pr ob le ms wi th Wi lli ams’ s w or

k. On Marc h 2 0, 20 01 , Wil liams s ub mitte d a re qu e st s lip to h is b loc k unit
mana g e r, Jac k A lle r, re qu e sti nga job c ha ng e . T hat sa

me da y , h e wa s r e a ssi g ne d to ano the r j ob in the kitchen be cause he wa s unable to work w ith the other inmates on the job. The evidenc e sh ow s th at E me l’ s c omp la int s a bo ut Wi lli ams’ s w or

k p re date d Wil liams’ s gri e va nc e , a nd thu s, there is no evidence upon which a r easona ble jury could find that the e x erc ise of a constitutionally

protec ted rig ht was the motivatingfac tor for f iringWil liams from his old job or for r e-a ssigninghim to a new one.

Finally , Wil liams argues that the District Court er red in de nying his motion for
a pp ointme nt o f c ouns e l f

or purp os e s o f t

ri a l. We c on c lud e that th e Di str ic t Co ur t di d n ot a

bu se its discretion in denying c ounsel. See Ta bron v. Gra ce, 6 F .3d 147 (3d Cir. 1993). As the District Court corre ctly

noted, the ca se wa s not complex and expert testimony was not nec essar

y to make out a c ase of

reta liation. We have f

ully considere d the re maining c ontentions in W illiams’s brief and w e find no merit in any

of those conte ntions. According ly , we will af firm the District Court’s jud g me nt.