2008 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 8-20-2008 

# Rob e r t P or t e r v

. D a ve B l ak e 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 ocke t N o . 08-2173

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you 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 at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at 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 va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Ro be r t P or t e r v

. D a ve B l ake " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 635. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/635D L D - 258 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. 08- 2173

________________ ROBER T R. P ORTE R, A ppel l ant v. D A V E B L A K E , C o rrecti o n s O ff icer; B A R R Y W R IG H T , C o rrecti o n s O ff icer; M A R K C A PO Z Z A , U ni t M anage r

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D ist ri 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 v. N o. 04- cv- 00464) D i s t r i ct J udge: H onor abl e N or a B ar r yFi s cher

_______________________________________ S u b m it ted F o r P o ssible D ism issal Pu rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ) or S u m m a ry A c tio n U n d e r 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 ul y 24, 2008 B efor e: B A R R Y , C H A G A R E S and C O W E N , C i r cui t J udges

Fi l ed: A ugus t 20, 2008

_______________________ OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM Ap pell ant, Ro bert

Po rt er , a pp ea ls from

the final order of the Un it ed Stat es Distri ct Court for the W e s t e rn Di s tr i c t

of Pe nns yl vani agr ant i ng s umm ary judgm e nt

i n favor of2

the defendants. Fo r e ss enti al ly the r ea sons prov ided by

the Magis tr at e Jud ge, i n a Repo rt an dR eco mm en d atio nth at w as ad o p tedas th e o p in io no f th e D istrict C o u rt, w e w ill dism is s the appeal pu rs uant to 28 U.S.C. 19 15 (e )( 2)(B). Po rt er , an inm at e pre viou sl y incarc er at ed at

the State Co rr ec ti on al Inst it ution at Gree ne (“ SC I- Gree ne”) , fil ed the und er lying civil ac ti on agai nst SCI-Gre ene c orre ct ional o f f icers D o n aldB lak e, B arry Wrig h t an dM arkC ap o zza. P o rter alleg edth at so m etim e in m i d t o l at e Mar c h 2002, de fe ndant s Bl ake and Wr i ght gave hi m an ope ne d c ont a i ne r

of m ilkth at th ey

h adco n tam in atedw ith H ep atitis C an dA b lo o d . P o rter claim edth at th is contam inat ed m il k cause d h im to contra ct

Hepati ti s that s am e m on th. Porte r further alleg edth at d ef

en d an t C ap o zza, th e U n it M an ag er, f ailedto rep o rt th e in cid en t d esp ite h is resp o n sib ility

f o r sup erv isin g th e o f

f icers. Th e defendants ult im at el y file d m otions fo r s umm ar y ju dg m ent, ar gu ing that P o rter h adn o t ex h au stedad m in istrativ e rem ed ies an d/o r p ro cedu rally d ef au ltedh is c l a i m s i ns ofar

a s the onl y

gr i e vanc e he fi l e d ( Gr i e vanc e # 26070 s ubm i tt e d on Jul y 13, 2 0 0 2 ) m erely

co m p lain edth at h is h ealth h adb eenp u t inj eo p ardy as a resu lt o f

h is contra ct ion o f H epat it is from an un kn ow n sou rc e at SCI-Gre ene, and b ec ause it was r e je c t e d by the gr i e vanc e offi c e r

a s unt i m e l y . The Ma gi s tr at e Judge t o whom the a c t i on w as ref erredag reedw ith th e d ef en d an ts th at P o rter f

ailedto p ro p erly

ex h au st h is ad m in istrativ e rem ed ies, an dreco mm en d edth at th e d ef en d an ts’ m o tio n s b e g ran ted . Ove r Port e r ’ s obje c t i ons , the Di s tr i c t Court a dopt e d the r e c omm e ndat i on, gr ant i ng3

s umm ary judgm e nt

i n favor of de fe ndant s . Thi s t i m e l y a ppe a l fol l owe d. We exer ci se plenar

y re view ov er

the Dis tr ic t Cou rt ’s deci si on to grant s umm ar y j u d g m en t. S ee T o rres v . F au v er, 2 9 2 F .3 d1 4 1 , 1 4 5 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 2 ). U n d er 4 2 U .S .C . § 19 97 e( a) , pri soners ar e r equire d to exh aust avai la ble a dm inis tr at ive r em edie s before b rin g in g a civ il rig h ts actio nco n cern in g p riso nco n d itio n s, reg ard less o f w h eth er th ese r e m e di e s c an pr ovi de the i nm at e wi th the r e l i e f s ought . Se e Booth v. Churne r , 532 U. S. 73 1, 74 1 (20 01 ). Th e Pennsylvania Departm ent of C orre ct ions has a thre e- ti er grie vance sy st em , s et

fo rth in P olic y

Stat em ent DC-AD M 8 04 , which se rves as a pri soner’ s adm inis tr at ive r em edy . See Sp ruil l v. Gil li s, 37 2 F .3d 2 18 , 232 (3d C ir . 200 4). I n o rder to avoid a procedural default , an inm at e i s r equire d at the init ia l l evel to, i nter al ia ,

“ i de nt i fy any pe r s ons who m ay

have i nform at i on that

c oul d be he l pful i n r e s ol vi ng the gr i e vanc e , ” and t o s ubm i t the gr i e vanc e “ wi thi n fi ft e e n ( 15) worki ng day s a ft e r the e ve nt s on whi c h the c l a i m s ar e ba s e d. ” I d. at 234, quot i ng DC- ADM 804, Part VI . A. 1. d and V I. A.1.e. P o rter ap p ears to co n ten dth at h e ex h au stedh is ad m in istrativ e rem ed ies b ecau se h e ap p ealedG riev an ce # 2 6 0 7 0 to f in al rev iew . T h at co n ten tio n , h o w ev er, is erro n eo u s. W hi l e Port e r

di d i n fa c t

pr oc e e d wi th hi s gr i e vanc e thr ough a l l thr e e t i e r s of the g riev an ce sy stem , th e g riev an ce o f f icer rej ectedG riev an ce # 2 6 0 7 0 as un tim ely w h ile also n o tin g th at P o rter f

ailedto p ro v id e a d ate o nw h ich th e m ed ical issu e alleg ed ly o ccu rred . T h e S up erin ten d en t th ereaf ter d en iedP o rter’s ap p eal, sp ecif ically f in d in g th at,4

i ns ofar a s Port e r a l l e ge d he r e c e i ve d hi s He pat i t i s bl ood t e s t r e s ul t s on Apr i l 11, 2002, his gri evance dat ed July

13 , 200 2 w as cl earl y

ou ts ide the ti m e r equire m ents es ta blis hed by DC- ADM 804. The r e s pons e s Port e r r e c e i ve d on i ni t i a l r e vi e w and fr om the Superi ntendent were upheld on final r evie w b y the Chief Grie vance Coo rdinat or. See D e f e n d an t s ’ B r i e f

i nS up p o rt

o f S u mmary

Ju d g me n t , E x h i b i t

A 1 - 6 . A s th e S up r e me Court ha s e xpl i c i t l y

he l d, an unt i m e l y

“ or othe rwi s e pr oc e dur a l l y

de fe c t i ve a dm i ni s tr at i ve gr i e vanc e or

a ppe a l ” doe s not

s at i s fy the m andat ory

e xhaus t i on r e qui r e m e nt

of the Pr i s on Li t i gat i on Re form

Ac t . W oodfor d v. Ngo, 548 U. S. 81, 83 ( 2006) . Se e a l s o Spr ui l l , 372 F. 3d at 230. Fi na l l y , Port e r ’ s c ont e nt i on that he i s e nt i t l e d t o an e xc e pt i on t o the e xhaus t i on re qu ir em ent bec ause “defendants’ m is conduct e vaded [ his] perc epti on ,” and b ec ause , a ft e r r e c e i vi ng hi s t e s t

r e s ul t s on Apr i l 11, 2002, he ha d “ t o r e c ol l e c t ba c k t o the i nc i de nt o f b ein g g iv ena f

u n n y tastin g m ilk ,” is u n av ailin g . A s d ef en d an ts assertedinth eir summ ar y ju dg m ent m otions, Porte r’ s own al le gati on s i nd ic at e that he s uspect ed d ef en d an ts B lak e an dWrig h t o f co n tam in atin g h is m ilkinM arch 2 0 0 2 o r, at th e latest, in A p ril af ter h e learn edth e resu lts o f h is b lo o dtest. T h is is a f u ll th ree m o n th s p rio r to h is s ubm i s s i on of Gr i e vanc e # 26070, whe r e i n he c l a i m e d the s our c e of hi s c ontr a c t i on of H ep atitis w as u n kn o w n . M or eover , des pi t e Por t er ’ s ar gum ent t o t he cont r ar y , t he exhausti on re qu ir em ent i s not excuse d m er el y beca use a pris on er alle

ges that the c or r e c t i on a l de fe nd ant s e ng a ge d i n m i s c on du c t ( un r e l at e d t o the gr i e vanc e pr oc e s s i t s e l f)5

and sho uld b e e st op ped f rom ra is ing the exhausti on defense. Th e Sup re m e Cou rt has stated , “[ t] h e b en ef

its o f ex h au stio ncanb e realizedo n ly if th e p riso ng riev an ce sy stem is g iv ena f air o p p o rtu n ity

to co n sid er th e g riev an ce.” Wo o d f o rdv . N g o , 5 4 8 U .S . at 9 5 . The a dm i ni s tr at i ve s y s t e m wa s s i m pl y ne ve r gi ve n that

opport uni ty wi th r e s pe c t

t o a ti m el y grie vance agai nst t

he nam ed defend ants in this ca se . The r e c or d c l e ar l y

r e fl e c t s that

Port e r di d not pr ope r l y e xhaus t a dm i ni s tr at i ve rem ed ies as requ iredb y

4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 9 7 e(a). S u mm ary j u d g m en t w as th u s ap p ro p riate beca use Porte r fai le d to com e forward with any evidence to re bu t t

he re cord evidence that he c omm i tt e d a

pr oc e dur a l de faul t . Se e Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 56( e ) ; s e e a l s o Spr ui l l , 372 F .3 dat 2 3 0 . W e , the re f o re , d isc e rn n o e rro r in the Di s tr i c t Court ’ s de c i s i on gr ant i ng summ ar y ju dg m ent i n f

avor of defend ants . Acc ording ly , we wil l dis m is s the appeal as la cking in m er it

pu rs uant to 28 U.S.C. § 1 91 5(e) (2)( B)(i ). See N ei t zke v. W i l l i ams, 490 U . S . 3 1 9 (19 8 9 ). A p p ellan t’s m o tio nf o r th e ap p o in tm en t o f

co u n sel is d en ied . T abr on v . G rac e, 6 F . 3 d 1 4 7 , 1 5 5 -58 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ).