2009 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 Third C irc uit 4-27-2009 

# C l a y C aldwell v

. J eff rey B e ard P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-3286

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://digit alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc ircuit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s by 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 Third C irc uit at V ill 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 2009 D e c i sion s by an authori z e d a dmini s trat or of V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or more inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " C l a y C aldwell v

. J eff rey Be ard " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1475. http://di git alc ommon s .l a

w . vill anova . e du/thirdc ircuit_2009/1475B L D - 140 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- 3286

___________ CLA Y C ALD W ELL,

A ppel l ant v . JE F F R E Y A . B E A R D , S ecret aryof C orr ect i on s; L O U I S FO L I N O , Super i nt endent , SC I G r eene ; W A L L A C E D I T T SW O R T H , Food Ser vi ce M anage r , SC I G r eene ; M A R K D I C A R L O , A s s t . Food Ser vi ce M anage r , SC I G r eene ; L I N D A V A R N E R , R . H , I T M edi cal D i r ect or , SC I G r eene

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri 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 vi l A ct i on N o. 07- cv- 00727) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le T erren ce F . M cV erry

____________________________________ S u b mi tt e d f

o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l P u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) o r S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 M ar ch 19, 2009 B efor e: M cK E E , FI SH E R and C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: A pr i l 27, 2009)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM2

C l ayC al dw el l appea l s fr om an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC ourtforthe W estern D istri ct of

P en n sy lvan ia gra n ti n g D ef en d an ts’ m o ti o n to d ism iss C aldw ell ’s c o m p lain t f

o r f a ilu re to sta te a c laim . F o r th e re a so n s s e t f o rth b e lo w , w e w ill su m m a rily aff i rm . See I . O . P. 10. 6. O n M ay29 , 20 07 , C al dw el l , a pri soner proceed i ng pro se, fi l ed an act i on against J eff r eyA . B ear d, Secr et aryof The D epartm entof C orr ect i ons ( “D O C ”) ; L oui s Fol i no, Super i nt endent , SC I - G r eene ; W al l ace D i t t s w orth, Food Ser vi ce M anage r , SC I - G r eene ; M ark D icarlo, A sst. F o o d S erv ice M an ag er, SC I-G ree n e; an d L ind a V arn er, R . H , IT M e d ica l D ire c to r, S C I-G re e n e . In h is c o m p lain t, C a ld w e ll alle g e d v io latio n s o f h is F irst, Fi fth, E i ghth and Four t eenth A m endmentr i ght s i n connec t i on w i th an i nj uryhe s uffe r ed w hi l e w orki ng i n the Food Servi ces D epartm entatSC I - G r eene . C al dw el l cl ai m ed thaton Ja n u a ry1 5 , 2 0 0 7 , w h ile f ill in g p las tic c u p s w ith so a p a n d w a terin o rd e r to c lea n h is as s i gned ki t chen a r ea, he w as s cal ded byextr emel yhotw at er . A s a r es ul t , he w as t aken to th e m e d ica l d e p a rtm e n t w h e re h e w a s tre a ted f o r a sm a ll b u rn o n h is h a n d . In h is compl ai nt , C al dw el l al l eged thatthe Food Servi ces D epartm entr ai s ed the w at er tem p e ra tu re p rio r to h is c lea n in g th e k itch e n in o rd e r to p re p a re f o r a n u p c o m in g sta te i ns pect i on. II. W e have j ur i s di ct i on overthi s appea l pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. O urr evi ew of th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s d is m is s a l f o r f a ilu re to s ta te a c la im is p le n a ry. P o rtA u th . o f N .Y . &3

N . J . v. A r cadi an C orp. , 189 F. 3d 305, 311 ( 3d C i r . 1999) . W hen cons i der i ng a di s tr i ct court ’ s gr antof a mot i on t o di s m i s s underR ul e 12( b) ( 6) , w e “a cce ptal l fac tual al l egat i ons as true and c ons true the compl ai nti n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the pl ai nt i ff. ” P h il li p s v . C o u n tyo f A ll eg h en y , 5 1 5 F . 3 d 2 2 4 , 2 3 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). III . A. Ei g h th Ame n d me n tCl a i m T he D i s tr i ctC ourtpr oper l ydi s m i s s ed C al dw el l ’ s E i ghth A m endmentcl ai m as the a lleg a tio n s a g a in st D e f

e n d a n ts a m o u n ted to , at m o st, a c laim f o r n e g lig e n c e . In o rd e r to estab li sh a c o g n izab le E igh th A m en d m en t cl aim , a p ri so n er is req u ir ed to allege “m o re than ordi naryl ack o f du e care for the p ri soner’ s i nter est s or s afety . ” W hit l eyv. A l bers, 4 7 5 U . S . 3 1 2 , 3 1 9 (19 8 6 ). C al dw el l cl ai m ed thatD efe ndant s vi ol at ed hi s E i ghth A m endmentr i ght s byr ai s i ng the tem p era ture o f th e w ater in the p ri so n k it ch en w h ich re su lt ed in injuryto h is ha n d . In hi s oppos i t i on t o D efe ndant s ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s , C al dw el l s peci fi cal l ys t at ed that“[a ] pri soner m aybe ab l e t o recov er dam ages fo r pr i soner personne l ’s negl igence thro u g h tort act i ons . Pr i s on offi ci al s and per s onnel have at ortl aw dutyt o pr ovi de s afe l i vi ng and w o rkin g co n d it ion s fo r prison ers.” P lai n ti ff ’s O p p o sit ion at 1 (e m p h asis ad d ed ). A p riso n o f

f icia l v io late s th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t w h e n th e o f f icia l is d e lib e ra tely i ndi ffe r entt o i nm at e hea l th ors afe tyand w hen thi s actorom i s s i on r es ul t s i n the deni al of

“ the mi ni mal c i vi l i z e d mea s ur e of l i fe ’ s ne c e s s i t i e s . ” Se e Fa rmerv. Br e nn a n, 51 1 U. S.T h e D istric t C o u rt’s a ltern a tiv e g ro u n d f o r d ism iss a l o f

C a ld w e ll’s E ig h th 1 A m endmentcl ai m s agai ns tD efe ndant s Fol i no and B ear d w as al s o pr oper . I n a s ect i on 1 9 8 3 c a s e , a d e f

e n d a n t m u s t h a v e b e e n p e rs o n a lly in v o lv e d in th e a lle g e d w ro n g d o in g s . R ode v. D el l ar ci pr et e, 845 F. 2d 1195, 1207 ( 3d C i r . 1988) . H er e, C al dw el l does not al l ege thatD efe ndant s Fol i no and B ear d w er e per s onal l yi nvol ved i n the i nci dentw hi ch b rou g h t abo u t his i n

jury . T h u s, the E igh th A m en d m en t cl aim s ag ains t th em w ere p ro p e rlyd ism iss e d o n th a t alte rn a tiv e g ro u n d . W e a d d re ss b e lo w th e ro les o f D e f e n d a n ts B eard and F oli no i n the gri evan ce process. 4 8 2 5 , 8 3 4 (1 9 9 4 ). T h e re f o re , a p riso n o f

f icia l ca n b e h e ld liab le u n d e r th e E ig h th A m endmentfordeny i ng hum ane c ondi t i ons of conf i nementi f he know s thati nm at es fac e a su b sta n tial risk o f

se rio u s h a rm a n d d isre g a rd s th a t risk b yf a ili n g to tak e re a so n a b le m eas ur es t o abat e i t . I d. at847. C l ai m s of negl i gence , w i thouta more cul pabl e s t at e of m in d , d o n o t c o n s titu te “ d e lib e ra te in d if f e re n c e .” S e e S in g le ta ry v . P a . D e p t. o f C o rr ., 266 F. 3d 186, 193 n. 2 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . A l though i ncr eas ed w at ert emper atur e i n the p riso n ’s k itch e n m a yp o se a risk , C a ld w e ll’s a lleg a tio n s d o n o t re f lec t th e d e lib e ra te i n d i f f e r e n c e r e q u i r e d t o i mp o s e l i a b i l i tyu n d e rth e E i g h th Am e n d me n t . Be c a u s e we 1 a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t C a ld w e ll’s c laim a m o u n ts m e re lyto n e g lig e n c e , h is al l egat i ons ar e notact i onabl e unders ect i on 1983. B . F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t C laim C al dw el l al s o as s ert ed a c l ai m agai ns tD efe ndantV arnerforal l eged i m pr oper d isc lo su re o f

h is c o n f id e n tial m e d ica l in f

o rm a tio n in v io latio n o f C a ld w e ll’s F o u rte e n th A m endments ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s r i ght s . Speci fi cal l y , C al dw el l cl ai m ed thatT o the ext entthatC al dw el l cl ai m s thathi s equal pr ot ect i on r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed 2 underthe Four t eenth A m endment , he has notal l eged a nyfac t s s ugges t i ng thathe w as tr e a te d d if

f e re n tly f ro m s im ila rl ys itu a te d in m a te s – a s is re q u ir e d to s u s ta in s u c h a c la im . S ee W il so n v . S ch il li n g er, 76 1 F . 2 d 9 2 1 , 9 3 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 5 ). 5 D efe ndantV arneri m pr oper l ys har ed hi s m edi cal r ecor ds w i th the D O C offi ci al i n char ge of i nves t i gat i ng and r es pondi ng t o C al dw el l ’ s admi ni s tr at i ve gr i evanc e. W e a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t C a ld w e ll w a iv e d h is rig h t to c o n f id e n tiality w hen he i ni t i at ed hi s gr i evanc e w i th the D O C . I n hi s gr i evanc e, C al dw el l compl ai ned aboutthe ext ens i venes s of the i nj uryt o hi s hand as w el l as the numberof t i m es thathe so u g h t m e d ica l trea tm e n t f o llo w in g th e in c id e n t. W hi l e a pr i s onerdoes nots hed al l fundament al pr ot ect i ons of the C ons t i tut i on at the pr i s on gat es , i nm at es r et ai n onl ythos e r i ght s thatar e noti ncons i s t entw i th thei rs t atus a s p ri s o n e rs o r w ith th e le g itim a te p e n o lo g ic a l o b je c tiv e s o f

th e c o rr e c tio n s in s titu tio n . S e e D o e v . D e lie, 2 5 7 F .3 d 3 0 9 , 3 1 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). In D o e , w e e x p licitlyh e ld th a t a pr i s onerhas a cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o pr i vacyi n hi s m edi cal i nform at i on. I d. at316. H ow ever , he pl ace d hi s m edi cal condi t i on ati s s ue byfi l i ng a gr i evanc e al l egi ng thathe had be en s ever el yi nj ur ed. D i s cl os ur e of Cal dw el l ’ s m edi cal r ecor ds by D e f e n d a n t V a rn e r to th e g rie v a n c e o f f ice r re sp o n sib le f

o r re sp o n d in g to C a ld w e ll’s c laim w as r eas onabl yr el at ed t o the l egi t i m at e penol ogi cal i nt er es tof adj udi cat i ng the gr i evanc e an d asse ssing the s ev erityo f C aldw ell ’s all eg ed injury . T h ere fo re, th e D istri ct C o u rt p rop erlyd ism issed C aldw ell ’s F o u rt ee n th A m en d m en t cl aim ag ains t D ef en d an t V arn er. 26

C. F i r s ta n d F i f

th Ame n d me n tCl a i ms A lth o u g h C a ld w e ll also a lleg e d th a t D e f e n d a n ts v io late d h is F irst a n d F if th A m end m ent r i gh t s, he o ffered ve ryfew fact s i n h i s com plai nt s up po rt i ng tho se cl ai m s. T h e D istric t C o u rt in terp re ted C a ld w e ll’s F irst A m e n d m e n t cla im a s o n e a rg u in g th a t h is r i ght s had bee n vi ol at ed w hen the D O C deni ed hi s admi ni s tr at i ve gr i evanc e. I n doi ng s o, th e D O C d e n ied h is rig h t to p e tit io n th e g o v e rn m e n t in v io latio n o f th e F irst A m e n d m e n t. T he D i s tr i ctC ourtcorr ect l ynot ed thatan i nm at e has no cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o a gr i evanc e pr ocedur e. See Fl i ck v. A l ba, 932 F. 2d 728, 729 ( 8th C i r . 1991) . T hus , w e agr ee thatthe D O C ’ s actof deny i ng C al dw el l ’ s gr i evanc e di d noti nfr i nge upon hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght t o p et i t i on the g ov ernm ent for r edress . T he D i s tr i ctC ourtal s o corr ect l ydet erm i ned thatC al dw el l di d notr ai s e a co g n izab le F ifth A m en d m en t cl aim . T h e c lai m ap p ea rs t o b e b ase d u p o n the D O C ’s al l eged de ni al of due pr oces s dur i ng the admi ni s tr at i ve gr i evanc e pr oces s . A s the D i s tr i ct C o u rt c o rre c tlyn o ted , the d u e p ro c e ss c lau se u n d e r th e F if th A m e n d m e n t o n lyp ro tec ts agai ns tfede r al governm ent al act i on and does notl i m i tthe ac t i ons of s t at e off i ci al s . See R il eyv . C am p , 1 3 0 F . 3 d 9 5 8 , 9 7 2 n . 1 9 (11 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). T he D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s deci s i on t o denyC al dw el l l eave t o amend hi s compl ai ntw as al s o pr oper . G r ant i ng a pl ai nt i ff l eave t o amend i s notnece s s aryw her e amendm ent w o u ld b e f

u tile . S e e G ra y s o n v . M a yv ie w S ta te H o s p ., 2 9 3 F .3 d 1 0 3 , 1 1 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). B as ed on the above di s cus s i on of C al dw el l ’ s cl ai m s , w e ar e s at i s fi ed thati tw oul d have7

b e e n a n e x e rc ise in f

u til ityf o r th e D istric t C o u rt to h a v e p e rm itt e d C a ld w e ll t o a m e n d h is c o m p lain t. Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e conc l ude thatthe D i s tr i ctC ourtpr oper l ygr ant ed D e f e n d a n ts’ m o tio n to d ism iss . A s th e re is n o su b sta n tial q u e stio n p re se n ted b yth is appea l , w e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff i rm . See Thi r d C i r . L A R 27. 4; I . O . P. 10. 6.