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 10-14-2008 

# Rob e r t H olbro ok v

. J eff rey B e ard 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 . 08-2080

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_2008

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 2008 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 H o lbr oo k v

. J eff r ey Be ar d " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 368. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/368NOT 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- 2080

___________ RO BE RT HOL BR OOK,

A ppel l ant v . S C O T T W A L T E R S , U N IT M A N A G E R , S C I-H U N T IN G D O N ; SUPERI NTEN DEN T KEN NETH KY LER; DPTY . SUPERI NTEN DEN T A .S . W IL L IA M S O N ; L T . K . H O L L IB A U G H ; R .M . L A W L E R ; A . L O V E T T ; J . BE AR D, S E CR E T AR Y P A DE P AR T M E NT OF CO RR E CT I ONS

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt forthe M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 03- cv- 0033 ( H onor abl e Thom as I . V anas ki e)

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

O ct ober10, 2008 B efore: S C IR IC A , C hief J ud ge, H A R D IM A N and C O W E N , C i rcui tJudg es. ( Fi l ed: O ct ober14, 2008)

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ P E R C U R I A M. R obertH ol br ook, a Penns y l vani a s t at e pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s fr om the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s entr yof s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof the def endant s . Forthe f o l l o wi n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l a f f i r m.A ccor di ng t o defe ndant s , the Frui tof I s l am i s the par ami l i t aryw i ng of the N at i on of 1 Isla m . H o lb ro o k c laim s to b e a m e m b e r o n lyo f th e N a tio n o f

Isla m a n d n o t o f

th e F ru it of I s l am, butthatpoi nti s notr el evantt o ourdi s pos i t i on. 2 I. H ol br ook al l eges that , w hi l e i m pr i s oned atSC I - H unt i ngdon, pr i s on per s onnel r et al i at ed aga i ns thi m forfi l i ng cert ai n gr i evanc es and forhi s r el i gi ous aff i l i at i on by pl aci ng hi m i n admi ni s tr at i ve cus t odyand ul t i m at el ytr ans ferr i ng hi m t o a di ffe r ent pr i s on. T he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s M emora ndum of A pr i l 4, 2008, thor oughl ys et s for th the b a c k g ro u n d o f

th is m a tte r, a n d w e s u m m a ri z e o n ly th o s e f a c ts n e c e s s a ry to o u r d e c is io n . H ol br ook w as tr ans ferr ed t o SC I - H unt i ngdon fr om anotherpr i s on i n A pr i l 2000 fo r reaso n s tha t th e p arti es d ispu te. W h at i s n o t dispu ted is tha t H o lbro o k arrived at S C IH un t i ng do n w i th a lengt hyi nst i tuti on al fi l e do cum enti ng his i nv olvem ent i n st abb i ng s, a ss a u lts a n d o th e r m isc o n d u c t, an d h is s u sp e c ted a f f ili a tio n w ith th e F ru it o f Isla m , w h ile

1 i ncar cer at ed i n atl eas ts i x di ffe r entpr i s ons . D efe ndantW al t er s , the U ni tM anage rof H o lb ro o k ’s c e ll b lo c k , rev iew e d h is f ile o n in tak e a n d m a d e a n o tatio n in d ica tin g se c u rity conce rns and s ugges t i ng thathe be “ m oni t or ed cl os el y . ” I n J anuaryand A pr i l 2001, re sp e c tiv e ly , H o lb ro o k re c e iv e d m isc o n d u c ts f o r w riting a F ru it o f

Isla m slo g a n o n h is c e ll w a ll a n d th e d is c o v e ry o f a “ s h a n k ” in h is c e ll. A ft erthes e i nci dent s , H ol br ook began f i l i ng the gr i evanc es forw hi ch he c l ai m s he w as re tal iat ed ag ains t. In Ju ly2 0 0 1 , H o lbro o k fil ed a g ri ev an ce ac cu sing a p ri so n g u ard of r aci al i nt i m i dat i on. I n O ct ober2001, H ol br ook fi l ed a gr i evanc e aga i ns ta di ffe r ent3

pr i s on guar d w ho had conf i s cat ed ce r t ai n i t ems fr om hi s cel l . ( T he guar d, fol l ow i ng t he att ac k s o f S ep tem b er 1 1 , h ad co n fisca ted a m ap o f A fg h an ist an i t erro ri st cam p s, a p ictu re o f a “ m ili tan t,” a n d o th e r m a ter ials . T h e g u a rd ’s s u p e rv iso r re tu rn e d th e item s to H o lbro o k that sam e d ayaf ter de term ining that theyd id n o t po se a threa t t o sec u ri ty . ) T h e n , in D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 1 , H o lb ro o k a n d six o th e r p riso n e rs s e n t an in f o rm a l co m p lain t to the D O C O ffi ce of

Pr ofes s i onal R es pons i bi l i tyacc us i ng s t i l l anotherpr i s on guar d of ra c ia lly-m o tiv a te d m is tr e a tm e n t. H ol br ook al l eges thatdefe ndant s ’ r et al i at oryconductbegan a ft erthi s i nci dent , and h is al lega ti o n s relate p ri m aril yto d ef en d an t W alt ers. A cc o rdin g to H o lbro o k , W alt ers l earned of the i nform al compl ai nti n J anuary2002, t ol d H ol br ook thathe di d notl i ke pr i s oner s “goi ng overhi s head, ” and de m anded thatH ol br ook w i thdr aw the compl ai ntor that “h e w o u ld se e to it th at plaintiff g o es u n d er f o r a lon g ti m e.” In M arc h 2 0 0 2 , W alt ers as ked anotherpr i s onerw hetherH ol br ook had “puthi m up t o” j oi ni ng i n the i nform al co m p lai n t and told h im that w h o ev er w as “ b eh ind ” itw o u ld b e “ sitti n g in the h o le fo r a l ong t i m e. ” H ol br ook l at erhel ped anotherpr i s onerfi l e a f or m al gr i evanc e aga i ns tthe s ame pr i s on guar d. W al t er s as ked H ol br ook w hetherhe had done s o and, w hen H ol br ook admi t t ed thathe had, W al t er s s ai d t hathe w as “fe d up” w i th H ol br ook’ s gr i evanc es and

“ w a s n o t g o in g to to le ra te th e m o r p la in tif f c a u s in g tr o u b le o n h is b lo c k .” N othi ng fur theroccurr ed unt i l J une 10, 2002, w hen H ol br ook r eques t ed that W al t er s gr anthi m an overr i de of hi s cus t odyl evel thatw oul d al l ow hi m t o w or k i n the4

pr i s on’ s el ectr i cal pow erpl ant . W al t er s thoughtthe r eques todd beca us e H ol br ook pr evi ous l yhad r efus ed t o w or k. O n J une 20, W al t er s att ended a n oper at i ons m eet i ng w her e s t aff

w er e br i efe d on “the r ecrui t m entof i nm at es i n A m er i can pr i s ons byr adi cal Isl am ic gro u p s. ” W alt ers the n sp o k e w ith o ther p ri so n staff reg ard ing H o lbro o k ’s “s udden” i nt er es ti n t he pow erpl ant . A corr ect i ons offi ceradvi s ed hi m thatH ol br ook w as rum or ed t o have r i s en t o t he r ank of M aj ori n the Frui tof I s l am and t hatH ol br ook h a d b e e n te llin g o th e r p ri s o n e rs th a t h e w a s “ in th e A m e ri c a n T a lib a n .” T hese ci rcum st ances, t og et her w i th H olbr oo k’s hi st ory , prom pted W al t ers t o rai se conce rns w i th s ecur i typer s onnel bym emora ndum dat ed J une 21, 2002. T he m e m o ra n d u m su g g e ste d th a t H o lb ro o k b e m o n ito re d m o re c lo se lyo r p lac e d in admi ni s tr at i ve cus t odyand s t at ed that“thi s i nform at i on i s bei ng pr ovi ded t o y ou forany act i on y ou deem appr opr i at e. ” O n J une 26, a M aj orW eave r l i ng ( nota def endant ) as ked W a lters to a rra n g e f

o r H o lb ro o k ’s p lac e m e n t in a d m in istra tiv e c u sto d y , w h ich W a lters d id th a t sa m e d a y . O n Ju ly3 , 2 0 0 2 , a P ro g ra m R e v iew C o m m itt e e c o m p o se d o f d e f e n d a n ts H ol l i baugh, L aw l erand W i l l i amson r evi ew ed H ol br ook’ s cus t odys t atus . A ft er r evi ew i ng W al t er ’ s m emora ndum and r ece i vi ng addi t i onal i nform at i on, the comm i t t ee d e e m e d H o lb ro o k a th re a t to th e se c u rityo f th e in stitu tio n a n d a p p ro v e d h is re ten tio n in admi ni s tr at i ve cus t odypendi ng a tr ans fert o a l ong t erm s egr egat i on uni t . H ol br ook admi ni s tr at i vel ychal l enged thi s det erm i nat i on t o no avai l . H ol br ook al s o fi l ed a g rie v a n c e a g a in st W a lters , alle g in g th a t W a lters h a d f a lsif ied in f o rm a tio n in h is f

ile inIn h is J a n u a ry2 0 0 3 c o m p lain t, th e o n lyre talia to rya c tio n H o lb ro o k a lleg e d w a s h is 2 pl ace m enti n admi ni s tr at i ve cus t odyatSC I - H unt i ngdon. I n M ay2003, he w as tr ans ferr ed t o SC I - G r eene . T her eaf t er , he ar gued i n var i ous br i efs thatthe pr i s on tr ans ferw as re talia to rya s w e ll, b u t h e n e v e r so u g h t to a m e n d h is c o m p lain t to a ss e rt it as a d isc re te claim . N ev erthe less, the D istri ct C o u rtad d resse d the p ri so n tr an sfe r. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. I n hi s br i ef, H ol br ook chal l enges 3 onl ythe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s entr yof s um m aryj udgm entand i t s appl i cat i on of l aw on r econs i der at i on. O urr evi ew of thos e rul i ngs i s pl enary . See I n r e Tow erA i r , I nc. , 416 F .3 d 2 2 9 , 2 3 5 n .7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ); C a rt e r v . M c G ra d y , 2 9 2 F .3 d 1 5 2 , 1 5 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). “Sum m aryj udgm enti s pr operi f ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tand i f, vi ew i ng (c o n tin u e d ...) 5 r et al i at i on forH ol br ook’ s pas tgr i evanc es and compl ai nt s . M aj orW eave r l i ng i nves t i gat ed the gr i evanc e and c oncl uded thati tl acke d m er i t . W al t er s , act i ng on the c o m m itt e e ’s r e c o m m e n d a tio n , the re a f ter f iled tw o p e tit io n s f

o r H o lb ro o k ’s tra n sf

e r to an o ther p ri so n . T h o se p eti ti o n s w ere d en ied, bu t a diff ere n t pri so n em p loy ee fil ed a third pet i t i on on the bas i s of w hi ch H ol br ook ul t i m at el yw as tr ans ferr ed t o SC I - G r eene . I n J anuary2003, H ol br ook fi l ed hi s compl ai nt , al l egi ng thatdefe ndant s had pl ace d hi m i n admi ni s tr at i ve cus t odyi n r et al i at i on forhi s fi l i ng of gr i evanc es and compl ai nt s and h a d d e n ied h im d u e p ro c e ss . T h e D istric t C o u rt d ism iss e d H o lb ro o k ’s d u e p ro c e ss c laim b u t allo w e d h is re talia tio n c laim to p ro c e e d . T h e D istric t C o u rt a lso a llo w e d H o lb ro o k to a m e n d h is c o m p lain t to a ss e rt th a t d e f e n d a n ts h a d re talia ted a g a in st h im b e c a u se o f h is r el i gi ous aff

i l i at i on. Fol l ow i ng di s covery , defe ndant s m oved fors um m aryj udgm enton th e re talia tio n c laim s, a n d th e D istric t C o u rt g ra n ted th e ir m o tio n b yo rd e r e n ter e d A p ril 4, 2007. T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o deni ed H ol br ook’ s t i m el ym ot i on forr econs i der at i on of

2 that ruli ng byorder ent ered M arch 31 , 20 08 . H olbr oo k ap peals . 3( . . . cont i nued) 3 the fa ct s i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the nonmovi ng party , the movi ng partyi s ent i t l ed to jud g m en t as a m att er o f law . ” C arter, 2 9 2 F . 3 d at 15 7 n . 2 . A p artyo p p o sing su m m ary ju d g m e n t m a yn o t re lyo n m e re a lleg a tio n s, b u t m u st in ste a d c o m e f o rw a rd w ith sp e c if

ic fac t s “‘ s how i ng thatther e i s a genui ne i s s ue fortr i al . ’ ” Laur en v. D eFl ami ni s , 480 F. 3d 2 5 9 , 2 6 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) (cit ati o n o m itted). 6 II. “A pr i s oneral l egi ng thatpr i s on offi ci al s have r et al i at ed aga i ns thi m forexer ci s i ng hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s m us tpr ove that : ( 1) the conduc ti n w hi ch he e ngaged w as con st i tuti on al l yprot ect ed; ( 2) he suffe red ‘ adv ers e act i on ’ atthe h and s of pri son o ffi ci al s; and ( 3) hi s cons t i tut i onal l ypr ot ect ed conduc tw as a s ubs t ant i al orm ot i vat i ng fac t ori n t he deci s i on t o di s ci pl i ne hi m . ” C art er , 292 F. 3d at157- 58. I f the pr i s onerm akes that s how i ng, “the bur den s hi ft s t o t he def endantt o pr ove bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence thati t‘ w oul d have made the s ame deci s i on abs entthe pr ot ect ed conduc tforr eas ons r eas onabl yr el at ed t o penol ogi cal i nt er es t . ’ ” I d. at158 ( ci t at i on om i tt ed) . W e have e x p lain e d th a t th is e lem e n t m u st b e e v a lu a ted in lig h t o f th e “ g re a t d e f

e re n c e ” g e n e ra lly aff or ded t o pr i s on offi ci al s ’ deci s i ons r egar di ng pr i s on admi ni s tr at i on. See i d. I n thi s cas e, the D i s tr i ctC our thel d thatH ol br ook had pr es ent ed s uffi ci ent evi dence t o s how thathi s conductw as cons t i tut i onal l ypr ot ect ed and thatthe admi ni s tr at i ve cus t odyi m pos ed on hi m w as s uffi ci ent l yadver s e. I thel d, how ever , that defe ndant s pr evai l ed as a mat t erof l aw on the i s s ue of c aus at i on. O urcar eful r evi ew of the r ecor d l eads us t o agr ee.H ol br ook does notchal l enge thi s s econd c oncl us i on on appea l , butw e not e our 4 a g re e m e n t w ith th e D istric t C o u rt. T h e u n d isp u ted f a c ts o f re c o rd sh o w th a t d e f

e n d a n ts w er e aw ar e of H ol br ook’ s r el i gi ous aff i l i at i on i n A pr i l 2000 butt ook no s t eps t o pl ace hi m i n admi ni s tr at i ve cus t odyunt i l J une 2002. M or eover , W al t er ’ s al l eged thr eat s r el at ed s ol el yt o H ol br ook’ s fi l i ng of gr i evanc es , nothi s r el i gi ous aff i l i at i on. 7 T h e D istric t C o u rt’s a n a ly sis p ro c e e d e d in tw o ste p s. F irst, th e D istric t C o u rt h e ld thatH ol br ook had pr es ent ed no evi dence thatanyof the def endant s s ave W al t er s had any re talia to rym o tiv e . O u r re v iew o f th e re c o rd c o n f

irm s th a t H o lb ro o k , d e sp ite h is concl us oryal l egat i on thatal l ot herdefe ndant s “coope r at ed” w i th W al t er s , pr es ent ed no evi dence thatanyof them di d anythi ng otherthan per form thei ror di naryadmi ni s tr at i ve f u n c t i o n s i n r e l i a n c e o n W a l t e r s ’ s me mo r a n d u m. S e c o n d , the D istric t C o u rt h e ld th a t H o lb ro o k h a d p re se n ted su f f icie n t ev id e n c e to r ai s e an i nfer ence thatW al t er s ’ s conductw as m ot i vat ed byr et al i at i on forfi l i ng gr i evanc es and compl ai nt s ( though notforhi s r el i gi ous aff i l i at i on) . I tconcl uded,

4 how ever , thatW al t er s had s how n t hathe w oul d have t aken the s ame act i on, r egar dl es s of H o lb ro o k ’s a c tiv iti e s, f o r re a so n s re late d to p e n o lo g ica l in ter e sts . W e a g re e w ith th is ru lin g a s w e ll. W a lters su b m itt e d a d e c lar a tio n e x p lain in g in d e tail th e re a so n s f o r d ra f tin g h is J u n e 2 1 me mo r a n d u m, i n c l u d i n g Ho l b r o o k ’ s e x t e n s i v e h i s t o ryo f mi s c o n d u c ta n d n e wfound i nt er es ti n w or ki ng atthe pow erpl antaft erhe w as r eport ed t o have t ol d other p riso n e rs th a t h e w a s “ w ith th e A m e ric a n T a lib a n .” H o lb ro o k n e v e r c a m e f o rw a rd w ith a n ye v id e n c e ra is in g a g e n u in e is s u e o f m a te ri a l f

a c t w ith re g a rd to th e s e c ir c u m s ta n c e s .H ol br ook ar gues thatW al t er ’ s r et al i at oryi nt entcan be i nferr ed fr om the “c onfl i ct i ng 5 rat i on al es” gi ven i n the three peti t i on s for hi s transfert o an otherpri son. W al t ers , how ever , pr epar ed onl ythe fi r s ttw o pet i t i ons , and theyar e per fec t l ycons i s t ent( the s t at ement s i n t he s econd pe t i t i on r egar di ng as s ert ed t err or i s tm at er i al s thatw er e not i ncl uded i n the fi r s tpet i t i on w er e i ncl uded i n W al t er s ’ s J une 21 mem or andum, w hi ch w as att ache d t o the fi r s tpet i t i on) . T he thi r d pet i t i on, w hi ch not es as an addi t i onal gr ound for tr an sfe r th e n ee d to se p ara te H o lbro o k an d W alt ers a n d w h ich re su lt ed in H o lbro o k ’s transfert o S C I- G reene, w as prepared byano ther i nd i vidual w ho has no tbeen nam ed as a d e f e n d a n t. H ol br ook s eeks t o s uppl ementthe r ecor d w i th a mem or andum show i ng thathe 6 cont i nues t o s uffe radver s e cons equenc es as a r es ul tof W al t er s ’ s J une 21 mem or andum and as ks thatw e or derthe mem or andum expunged fr om hi s i ns t i tut i onal fi l e. T hat re q u e st is b e y o n d th e sc o p e o f th is a p p e a l. 8 M o re o v e r, W a lters ’s m e m o ra n d u m itse lf d o e s n o t re c o m m e n d H o lb ro o k ’s p lac e m e n t in admi ni s tr at i ve cus t odypers e, buti ns t ead l i s t s s uch pl ace m entas one among ot her s ecur i tyopt i ons . U nderthe ci r cumst ance s , i ti s cl earthatW al t er s w oul d have t aken the a c tio n h e d id re g a rd les s o f H o lb ro o k ’s p ro tec ted c o n d u c t an d th a t h is a c tio n w a s w e ll w i thi n the br oad di s cr et i on aff or ded t o pr i s on per s onnel i n m att er s of pr i s on admi ni s tr at i on. See C art er , 292 F. 3d at158- 59 ( aff i r m i ng s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof pr i s on offi ci al w ho al l egedl yhad thr eat ened t o pl ace i nm at e i n r es tr i ct ed cus t odyfor conductas s um ed t o be pr ot ect ed w her e quantum of evi dence s how ed thatpr i s onerfac ed d isci p li n e n o tw ith stan d ing that p rotec ted a cti v ity ). 5 A cc o rdin g ly , w e w il l aff irm the ju d g m en t of

the D istri ct C o u rt . H o lbro o k ’s m ot i on t o s uppl ementthe D i s tr i ctC our tr ecor d i s deni ed. 6