2005 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 10-13-2005 

# F l an yak v . Ro s s 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 . 05-2868

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_2005

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 2005 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 " Fl an yak v . Ros s " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 412. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/412D PS-351 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. 05- 2868

________________ P E RR Y E . F L ANYAK , A ppel l ant v. T H O M A S R O SS, E l ectr oni cs

I ns truct or

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m 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 v. N o. 05- cv- 00285) D i stri ctJudg e: H on orabl e D on et t a W . A m brose

_______________________________________ S u b mi t t e d F o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l Un d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) Sept ember1, 2005 B efore: R O T H , B A R R Y A N D S M ITH , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: O ct ober13, 2005)

_______________________ OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM Perr yE . Fl any ak appe al s the or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe2

W e ste rn D istric t o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia d ism iss in g h is C o m p lain t f o r f a ilu re to sta te a c laim u p o n w h ich re lief

c a n b e g ra n ted . F o r th e re a so n s s tate d b e lo w , w e w ill d ism iss th is app eal as l egall yfri vo l ou s. F l a n ya k , c u r r e n t l y i n c a r c e r a t e d i n th e S t a t e C o rr e c t i o n a l I n s t i tu t i o n a tM a h a n o y, f iled th is c iv il righ ts la w su it ag a in st T h o m a s R o ss , h is e lec tro n ics in stru c to r a t th e S tate C orr ect i onal I ns t i tut i on atW aynes bur g, w her e he w as pr evi ous l yi ncar cer at ed. A ccor di ng t o Fl any ak, dur i ng the t i m e of hi s enr ol l m enti n thi s cl as s , he s uffe r ed fr om a medi cal c o n d iti o n c a lled C h ro n ic O b stru c tiv e P u lm o n a ryD ise a se , w h ich c a u se d p h leg m to acc um ul at e i n hi s thr oatand r equi r ed hi m t o cl earhi s thr oatfr equent l y . D ur i ng one s uch i ns t ance w hi l e att endi ng el ectr oni cs cl as s , R os s al l egedl ys ai d: “M r . Fl any ak, go t o the re stro o m a n d c lea n o u t y o u r n a sa l p a ss a g e s.” F lan y a k th e n in f o rm e d R o ss o f

h is c o n d iti o n , ex p lain in g th a t so m e tim e s h e d id n o t re a lize h e w a s c lea rin g h is th ro a t, t o w hi ch R os s r epl i ed: “I don’ tcar e, j us tgo t o the r es tr oom and cl ean outy ournas al passages. ” W hen F l any ak tol d R oss he didn’treal i ze t hat he w as botheri ng him , R oss s ai d Fl any ak w as bother i ng the ent i r e cl as s . Fl any ak r epl i ed thati f he w er e t o go t o t he r es tr oom everyt i m e he ha d t o cl earhi s thr oat , he w oul d m i s s m os tof the cl as s . T he next d ayF lany ak stop p ed att en d ing the e lectron ics class. F lany ak m aintains that R o ss’s c o m m e n ts e m b a rra ss e d h im in f ro n t o f th e e n tire c las s a n d th e re b yin f rin g e d o n h is E ig h th A m e n d m e n t rig h t to b e f re e o f c ru e l an d u n u su a l p u n ish m e n t. T he M agi s tr at e J udge r ecomm ended thatFl any ak’ s C om pl ai ntbe di s m i s s ed for3

f a ilu re to s ta te a c la im u p o n w h ic h re lie f c a n b e g ra n te d p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1915A ( b) ( 1) . Fl any ak fi l ed obj ect i ons t o the R eport& R ecomm endat i on i n w hi ch he m ai nt ai ned thatR os s ’ s behavi ornotonl ycons t i tut ed cruel and unus ual puni s hm entbut a lso d e p riv e d h im o f

th e rig h t to a n e d u c a tio n . T h e D istric t C o u rt a d o p ted th e R e p o rt & R e c o m m e n d a tio n a s th e o p in io n o f th e C o u rt a n d d is m is s e d F la n y a k ’s C o m p la in t. F la n y a k tim e ly f

ile d a n o tic e o f

a p p e a l. W e hav e j uri sdi ct i on ov er this app eal pu rs uan tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. B ecause Fl any ak has been gr ant ed in fo rm a p a u p e ris st atus pu rs uan tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 91 5, w e m ust f i r s tr e v i e w th i s a p p e a l f o rp o s s i b l e d i 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) . An appea l m aybe di s m i s s ed as fr i vol ous i f i thas no ar guabl e bas i s i n l aw orfac t . N ei t zke v. W i l l i ams, 490 U . S. 319, 325, 109 S. C t . 1827, 1831- 32, 104 L . E d. 2d 338 ( 1989) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded thatFl any ak’ s C om pl ai ntfai l ed t o s t at e a c l ai m on w hi ch r el i ef m aybe gr ant ed. Fors uch a di s m i s s al , i tm us tbe cl earas a mat t erof l aw that“‘ no r el i ef coul d be gr ant ed underanys etof fa ct s thatcoul d be pr oved cons i s t entw i th the a l l e ga t i on s . ’ ” I d. a t32 7, 10 9 S. Ct . a t18 32 ( qu ot i ng H i s ho n v . K i ng & Spa l di ng , 46 7 U. S. 69, 73, 104 S. C t . 2229, 2232, 81 L . E d. 2d 59 ( 1984) ) . I n r eac hi ng thi s det erm i nat i on, the D i s tr i ctC our tm us tacc eptas true al l of the fa ctual al l egat i ons s etfor th i n the compl ai ntand al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s thatcan be dr aw n fr om them. N ami v. Fauver , 82 F . 3 d 6 3 , 6 5 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). T hi s C our thas i nt erpr et ed the Ei ghth A m endmentas “pr ohi bi t [i ng] anyW e not e thatFl any ak di d fi l e a gr i evanc e w i th the pr i s on, w hi ch w as aff i r m ed by 1 th e G ri e v a n c e C o o rd in a to r, w h o c o n c lu d e d th a t R o s s ’s c o n d u c t w a s u n p ro f e s s io n a l. A ccordi ng t o F l any ak, despit e t his fi nd i ng , he saw no dis ci pli naryact i on t aken against R os s , and ther efor e fi l ed thi s l aw s ui ts eeki ng compensa t oryand puni t i ve damages “s o that [R os s ] m i ghtthi nk tw i ce be for e he s ubm i t s anotheri nm at e t o hi s cruel and unus ual unpr ofes s i onal behavi or . ” W hi l e R os s ’ s conductm ayhave be en an a ppr opr i at e s ubj ectof th e in ter n a l g rie v a n c e p ro c e d u re , n o t ev e ryp ro p e rly -g rie v e d c o m p lain t w ill f o rm th e b a sis f o r a S e c tio n 1 9 8 3 law su it. 4 puni s hm entw hi ch vi ol at es ci vi l i zed s t andar ds and conc ept s of hum ani tyand dec ency . ” Y o u n g v . Q u in la n , 9 6 0 F .2 d 3 5 1 , 3 5 9 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ), s upers eded by s tat ut e on other gr ounds , Pr i s on L i t i gat i on R eform A ctof 1996, Pub. L . N o. 104- 134, 110 St at . 1321- 71, a s r e c o g n ize d

in N yhui s v. R eno, 204 F. 3d 65 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . A s the M agi s tr at e J udge n o ted , a p riso n e r a lleg in g a v io latio n o f th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t m u st d e m o n stra te b o th (i) a n o b jec tiv e lyse rio u s d e p riv a tio n a n d (ii) th a t a p riso n o f f icia l ac ted w ith d e lib e ra te i ndi ffe r ence i n eff

ect i ng the depr i vat i on. See W i l s on v. Sei t er , 501 U . S. 294, 298- 99, 111 S. C t . 2321, 2324- 25, 115 L . E d. 2d 271 ( 1991) ; G r i ffi n v. V aughn, 112 F. 3d 703, 709 ( 3d C i r. 19 97 ). “Iti s cl ear that a pr i soner’ s cl ai m un der the E i gh th A m end m ent m ust es t abl i s h m or e egr egi ous conductthan thatadequa t e t o s uppor ta t or tatcomm on l aw . ” W i l l i ams v. M us s om el l i , 722 F. 2d 1130, 1134 ( 3d C i r . 1983) . T he conduc tcompl ai ned of byFl any ak undoubt edl ydoes notr i s e t o thi s l evel . A s forFl any ak’ s cl ai m thathe w as 1 depr i ved of a n educa t i on as a r es ul tof R os s ’ s act i ons , pr i s oner s do nothave a c o n stitu tio n a llyp ro tec ted rig h t to a n e d u c a tio n . W o m e n P riso n e rs o f D ist. o f C o lu m b ia D ep’ tof C orr . v. D i s tr i ctof C ol um bi a, 93 F. 3d 910, 927 ( D . C . C i r . 1996) ; M cFadden v.5

L eh m an , 9 6 8 F . S u p p . 1 0 0 1 , 1 0 0 4 (M . D . P a. 19 9 7 ). T h e D istri ct C o u rtthere fo re c o rr e c t l yd i s mi s s e d F l a n y a k ’ s Co mp l a i n tf o rf a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m. Ac c o r d i n g l y , we wi l l d i s mi s s th i s a p p e a l a s l e g a l l yf r i v o l o u s p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ).