T h e C l e r k o f th e C o u r t i s d i r e c t e d t o a m e n d th e o f f i c i a l c a p t i o n t o r e a d a s s h o wn * above. 07- 4735
- pr Chav is v . F er

ris UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER
RUL I NGS BY SUM M A R Y O R D ER D O NO T H A V E PREC EDEN TI A L EFFEC T. CI TATI ON TO S UM M ARY O R D E R S F ILE D A F T E R JA N U A R Y 1, 20 0 7 , IS P E R M ITT E D A N D I S G O V E R N E D B Y T H IS C O U R T ’S LO C A L RU LE 32 . 1 AN D FED ERA L RU LE O F AP PELLA TE PRO C EDU R E 32 . 1. I N A B R I EF O R O TH ER P A P E R I N WH I C H A L I T I G A N T C I T E S A S U M M A R Y O R D E R , I N E A C H P A R A G R A P H I N WH I C H A C I T A T I ON A P P E A R S , A T L E A S T ON E C I T A T I ON M U S T E I T HE R BE T O T HE F E D E R A L A P P E N D I X OR BE ACCOM PA NI E D BY T HE NOT AT I ON: “ ( S UM M ARY ORDE R) . ” A PA RT Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY O R D E R M U S T S E R V E A C O P Y O F T H A T S U M M A R Y O R D E R T O G E T H E R W IT H T H E P A P E R IN W H I C H TH E S U M M A R Y O R D ER I S C I T E D O N AN Y PAR TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL U N L E S S T H E S U M M A R Y O R D E R IS A V A IL A B L E IN A N E L E C T R O N IC D A T A B A S E W H IC H IS PU BL I CL Y ACC E S S I BL E W I T HO UT P AYM E NT OF F E E ( S UCH AS T HE DA T ABAS E AVAI L ABL E AT H TTP: // W W W . C A 2. U SCO U R TS. GO V / ) . I F NO C O PY I S SERV ED B Y REA SO N O F TH E AV A I LAB I LI TY OF T HE ORDE R ON S UCH A DAT ABAS E , T HE CI T ATI O N M U ST I N CL UDE RE FE RE NCE T O THAT DAT ABAS E AND T HE DOCKET NUM BE R OF T HE CA S E I N W HI CH THE ORDE R W AS E NT E RE D. A ta s t at ed t erm of the U ni t ed St at es C our t of A ppeal s forthe Second Ci r cui t , hel d at the D ani el Patr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C our thous e, 500 Pear l St r eet , i n the C i tyof N ew Y or k, on the 23 dayof D ece m ber , tw o thous and ni ne. rd P RES ENT : RALP H K. W I NTE R,

R E E N A R A G G I, DE BR A ANN L I VI NGS T ON,

C i r cui tJudges
.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- G EO RG E M
. CH A V I S, P lai nt i f f

-Appel lant , v. N o. 07- 4735- pr THOM AS F ERR I S , J AM ES W AI TE , RI CHARD D O N A H U E , P A U L T IT U S , D ef endant s -Appel l ees . *

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- F O R A P P E L L A N T : G e o rg e M . C h a v is , pro se , E l m i r a, N ew Y or k. F O R A P P E L L E E S : A n d re w M . C u o m o , A tto rn e y G e n e ra l o f th e S tate of N ew Y or k; B arbar a D
. U nderw ood, Sol i ci t orT he part i es cons ent ed t o have thi s cas e hea r d bya m agi s tr at e j udge pur s uantt o 28 2 U
. S
. C
. § 6 3 6 (c). 2 G e n e ra l; A n d re a O se r, D e p u tyS o licito r G e n e ra l; A n d re w B . A y e rs, A ss ist a n t S o licito r G e n e ra l, A l bany , N ew Y or k. A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e W estern D istri ct of N ew Y o rk (J e re m ia h J . M c C a rt h y , Magis tr at e Judge ). 2 UP ON DUE CO NS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJ UDGE D, AND DE CR E E D th a tth e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s S e p t e mb e r2 8 , 2 0 0 7 j u d g me n ti s AF F I RMED
. N ew Y or k St at e pr i s onerG eor ge M
. C havi s appea l s pr o s e from a dec i s i on of the di s tr i ctcourtgr ant i ng defe ndant s su m m aryj udgm enton C havi s ’ s § 1983 cl ai m s al l egi ng d e lib e ra te in d if

f e re n c e to h is se rio u s m e d ica l n e e d s in v io latio n o f th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t, Fi r s t A m en d m en t ret al i at i on, and vi ol at i on of hi s due pr oces s r i ght s . W e r evi ew a di s tr i ct
court ’ s rul i ng on s um m ary j udgm ent de novo, s ee D i l l on v. M or ano, 497 F. 3d 247, 251 ( 2d C i r. 20 07 ), and w e w i l l affirm on l yi f t he record evidence, construed i n the l i gh tm ost f a v o ra b le to C h a v is, sh o w s n o g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial fa c t a n d d e f e n d a n ts’ e n tit lem e n t to j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw , s ee Fed. R
. C i v. P. 56( c) ; W hi t e R i verA m us ementPub, I nc. v. To wn o f Ha r t f o r d , 4 8 1 F
. 3 d 1 6 3 , 1 6 7 ( 2 d Ci r . 2 0 0 7 )
. I n a p p l y i n g th i s s t a n d a r d , we a s s u me the part i es ’ fami l i ar i tyw i th t he fa ct s and t he re cor d of pr i orpr ocee di ngs , w hi ch w e r efe r ence
o n l ya s n e c e s s a r yt o e x p l a i n o u rd e c i s i o n t o a f f i rm. 1. D el i ber at e I ndi ffe r ence T o es t abl i s h del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence t o hi s s er i ous m edi cal needs , C havi s w as r equi r ed3

t o adduce evi dence of ( 1) a medi cal need c ons t i tut i ng “a co n d it ion o f urge ncy ” thatm i ght

r es ul ti n “dea th, degene r at i on, orextr eme pai n, ” and ( 2) defe ndan t’ s know l edge a nd di s r egar d of “a n exce s s i ve r i s k t o [C havi s ’ s ] heal th or s afe ty . ” J ohns on v. W r i ght , 412 F. 3d 398 , 4 0 3 ( 2 d Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n ma r k s o mi t t e d )
. As s u mi n g a r g u e n d o t hat C havi s ’ s t oe s ur ger i es s at i s fyt he form err equi r ement , he fai l ed t o pr es entevi dence p e rm itt in g a f

in d in g in h is f

a v o r o n th e latte r. It is u n d isp u ted th a t d e f e n d a n t F e rris is n o t a

m e d ica l p ro f

e ss io n a l, an d n o o ther e v iden ce ind icates h is pe rson al kn o w ledg e o f C h av is’ s
m edi cal needs
. T o the contr ary , Ferr i s ’ s onl yknow l edge w as that– acc or di ng t o m edi cal

s t aff – C havi s di d notneed t he spec i al footw ear he dem anded. A s C havi s ci t es no evi dence t o the contr ary , hi s chal l enge t o the aw ar d of sum m ary j udgm ent on hi s E i ghth A m endment

c laim is w ith o u t m e rit. 2. Fi r s tA m endmentR et al i at i on T o est abli sh a pri m a facie cas e o f F i rs tA m end m ent r et al i at i on , C hav i s m ust demonstr at e “( 1) t hatt he s peec h orconductat issu e w as pr ot ect ed, ( 2) thatthe def endant t ook a d v e r s e a c t i o n a g a i n s t [ h i m] , a n d ( 3 ) th a t th e r e was a c a u s a l c o n n e c t i o n b e twee n t he p rotec ted s p ee ch an d the a d v erse ac ti o n . ” S c o ttv . C o u g h li n , 3 4 4 F
. 3 d 2 8 2 , 2 8 7 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 3 ) ( in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). C h a v is s u b m its th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in

c o n c l u d i n g th a t h i s c l a i ms f a i l e d a t th e f

i r s t s t e p o f th i s a n a l y s i s b e c a u s e th e r e c o r d s h o ws that defe ndant s ’ chal l enged act i ons fol l ow ed hi s r efe r ence s t o hi s r i ght t o s eek j udi ci al r el i ef. I n fac t , the r ecor d cl ear l ydemonstr at es C havi s ’ s vi ol at i on of a num berof pr i s on rul es t hat i ndepende nt l ys uppor t ed i ni t i at i ng the cha l l enged di s ci pl i narypr ocee di ngs . See i d. at287-4

88. Forthatr eas on, the di s tr i ctcourtappr opr i at el yaw ar ded def endant s s um m aryj udgm ent
o n the F ir st A m en d m en t r etali ati o n claim s. S ee W ri g h t v . S m ith , 2 1 F
. 3 d 4 9 6 , 5 0 1 (2d C ir
. 1 9 9 4 ). 3. D ue P rocess C havi s’s co n tent i on thatthe di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n fai l i ng t o addr es s hi s cl ai m t hat defe ndantD onahue vi ol at ed hi s due pr oces s r i ght s i s w i thout m erit
. C havi s ’ s compl ai nt al l eged thatdefe ndantW ai t e vi ol at ed hi s due pr oces s r i ght s , butatt ri b u ted no s uch

w r ongdoi ng t o D onahue. A s C havi s nevers oughtl eave t o amend t he compl ai nt , the di s tr i ct
c o u r t ’ s r e f

u s a l t o c o n s i d e rh i s d u e p r oc e s s c l a i m a g a i n s tDo n a h u e , r a i s e d f o rth e f i r s tt i me
o n s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t, w a s n o t a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . S e e G re e n id g e v . A lls ta te In s . C o ., 4 4 6 F .3 d 3 5 6 , 3 6 1 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (“ [ A ] d is tr ic t co u rt d o e s n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n w h e n it f a ils to g ra n t le a v e to a m e n d a c o m p la in t w ith o u t b e in g a s k e d to d o s o .” ). A ny ar gum ent that the di s tr i ct court err ed i n gr ant i ng W ai t e s um m aryj udgm enton t he due proc es s cl ai m thatw as s t at ed i n C havi s ’ s compl ai nti s s i m i l ar l ym er i t l es s . A l though C h a v is a rg u e s t h a t h e w a s e n tit led to se p a ra te r e so lu tio n o f tw o a d m in istra tiv e a p p e a ls chal l engi ng di s ci pl i nary deci s i ons , s t at e s t atut es and r egul at i ons governi ng pr i s on di s ci pl i ne
c r e a t e c o g n i z a b l e l i b e r tyi n t e r e s t s o n l yi n n a rr o w ci r c u ms t a n c e s . Se e Acr e v . W a l k e r , 1 39 F. 3d 329, 334 ( 2d C i r . 1998) ( “[T] he i nm at e m us t es t abl i s h that hi s confi nementorr es tr ai nt ( 1) cr eat es an atypi ca l an d sign if i canthar ds hi p . . . i n r el at i on t o the or di naryi nci dent s of p ri s o n lif

e , a n d (2 ) t h a t th e s ta te h a s g ra n te d its in m a te s , b yre g u la tio n o r b ys ta tu te , a pr ot ect ed l i bertyi nt er es ti n r emai ni ng fr ee f r om that c o n fi nementorr es tr ai nt
. ” ( i nt ernal5

quot at i on m arks and ci t at i ons om i t t ed) )
. E ven as s um i ng thatC havi s ’ s 60 day s of “ke epl ock” t i m e w oul d s at i s fy the fi r s t pr ong of thi s t es t , s ee H anr ahan v. D ol i ng, 331 F. 3d 93, 97 ( 2d C i r . 2003) ( not i ng that “[t ] he l ength of di s ci pl i nary confi nement i s one of th e g u i di ng f a c t o r s ” i n th e h a r d s h i p d e t e r mi n a t i o n ) , Ch a v i s d o e s n o t s h o w h o w t h e r e s o l u t i o n o f h i s t wo ap p ea ls bya sin g le w ri tt en d ec isi o n v iolated a n yrule g o v e rn in g p ri so n d isci p li n ary pr ocee di ngs , or otherw i s e s ugges thow s uch r es ol ut i on r ender ed the pr oces s he w as aff or ded i ns uffi ci ent
. O n thi s r ecor d, the di s tr i ct court pr oper l y gr ant ed s um m ary j udgm ent i n favor of W ai t e. 4. M ot i on forD efa ul tJ udgm ent A s defen d an ts ti m el yfi l ed and s erved thei rbr i ef a nd appendi x, C havi s ’ s pendi ng
mo t i o n f o rd e f a u l tj u d g me n ti s DE NI E D. 5. C oncl us i on W e have cons i der ed C havi s ’ s r e ma i n i n g a r g u ment s and conc l ude thattheyar e w i thout

m e ri t. A c c o rd in g ly, th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t is A F F IR M E D
. FOR TH E CO UR T: C A T H E R IN E O ’H A G A N W O L F E , C lerk o f C o u rt
B y :