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 Thir d C ir c uit 11-25-2009 

# D arrell D ebrew v

. D oug Aum an 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 . 07-4673

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_2009

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 2009 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 " D arr ell D ebr ew v

. D ou g Aum an" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 199. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1991 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. 07- 4673

___________ D A R R E L L J A ME S D E B R E W, A ppel l ant v . M R . D O U G A U M A N , U n it M a n a g e r a t F C I L o re tto , in h is o f f icia l an d in d iv id u a l ca p a c itya n d a s in d iv id u a l; C O U N S E L O R C U S T O R , C o u n se ler a t F C I L o re tto , in h is o f f i c i a l a n d i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i tya n d a s i n d i v i d u a l ; LT. FE D O R K A , L i eut enantatFC I L or ett o, i n hi s offi ci al and i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i tya n d a s i n d i v i d u a l ; WARDE N J OHN Y O ST , W ar den atFC I L or ett o, i n hi s offi ci al and i ndi vi dual capa ci tyand as i ndi vi dual

_________________ 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 ( W . D . Pa. C i vi l A ct i on N o. 07- cv- 00179) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e K i m R . G i bs on

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

M ay5, 2009 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, C H A G A R E S and W E I S, C i r cui tJ udges (O p inion fil ed : N o v em b er 2 5 , 2 0 0 9 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________2

P E R C U R I A M.

P lain tiff D a rre ll D e B re w , a f

e d e ra l p riso n e r a n d se lf -d e sc rib e d “ p ro lific w r i t erof es s ay s , ” pr ocee di ng pro se , a p p e a ls th e d is m is s a l o f h is c iv il r ig h ts c o m p la in t. W e w i l l affirm i n p artand vacate i n p artand rem and for further proceedings.

A ccor di ng t o t he compl ai nt , pl ai nt i ff, w hi l e hous ed i n the Feder al C orr ect i onal I ns t i tut e ( FC I ) i n L or ett o, Penns y l vani a, r ece i ved an i nci dentr eporton M ay 30, 2006, fr om L i eut enantFedor ka forunauthor i zed us e of the t el ephone, runni ng a bus i nes s , and “[ r ] efus i ng t o pr ogr am. ” O n J une 5, 2006, U ni tM anage rD oug A um an and C ouns el orC us t erfound pl ai nt i ff gui l tyof runni ng a bus i nes s and unauthor i zed us e of the te le p h o n e . A um an and Cust erdi r ect ed pl ai nt i ff t o r emove hi s w ebpage fr om the in ter n e t an d p ro h ib ited h is u se o f th e m a il o r te lep h o n e in c o n n e c tio n w ith h is m a n u sc rip ts a n d b o o k s . O n J u n e 1 8 , 2 0 0 6 , p la in tif f a s k e d h is m o th e r t o te rm in a te h is w e b p a g e . D eb rew w as su cc essf

u l i n h is ad m inistrati v e a p p ea ls, an d the in cide n t r ep o rt w as expunged on A ugus t9, 2006.

Pl ai nt i ff w as ul t i m at el ytr ans ferr ed t o the FC I i n Pet er s bur g, V i r gi ni a, w her e, on J ul y16, 2007, he fi l ed thi s B i vens s ui tagai ns tL t . Fedor ka; A um an; C us t er ; and J o h n Y o s t, th e w a rd e n a t th e F C I i n L o re tto , in th e irin d iv id u a l a n d o f f ic ia l c a p a c itie s . Pl ai nt i ff s oughti nj unct i ve and de cl ar at oryr el i ef, as w el l as compensa t oryand puni t i ve d a m a g e s. H e 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 m e n d m e n t rig h ts b yiss u in g h im3

the i nci dentr eport , or der i ng hi m nott o us e the mai l ort el ephone, di r ect i ng hi m t o r emove h is w e b p a g e , a n d s a n c tio n in g h im .

A ft ers cr eeni ng the ca s e pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1915A and bef or e any pl eadi ngs had bee n fi l ed bydefe ndant s , a magi s tr at e j udge i s s ued a r eportand r ecomm ended thatthe compl ai ntbe di s m i s s ed. T he magi s tr at e j udge det erm i ned thatt he pl ai nt i ff’ s cl ai m s forequi t abl e r el i ef w er e moot , puni t i ve damages w er e i nappr opr i at e, and that , among ot herthi ngs , the def endant s ’ qual i fi ed i m m uni typr ecl uded the aw ar d of otherdam ages.

T h e d istric t ju d g e a d o p ted th e re p o rt, d ism iss e d th e p lain tiff ’s c o m p lain t, a n d d e n ie d re c o n s id e ra tio n . P la in tif f tim e ly ap p e a le d . O u r re v iew o f

th e re c o rd c o n v in c e s u s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rly det erm i ned thatthe cl ai m s fori nj unct i ve and de cl ar at oryr el i ef be came m ootw hen pl ai nt i ff w as tr ans ferr ed fr om the FC I i n L or ett o t o the FC I i n Pet er s bur g. See Sut t on v. R as heed, 323 F. 3d 236, 248 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . I n addi t i on, no cl ai m s coul d pr oper l ybe b ro u g h t ag a in st d e f

e n d a n ts in th e ir o f

f icia l ca p a c iti e s. S e e C o n se jo D e D e sa rro llo E conomi co D e M exi cal i , A . C . v. U ni t ed St at es , 482 F. 3d 1157, 1173 ( 9th C i r . 2007) ( expl ai ni ng thata “Bi vens act i on can be m ai nt ai ned aga i ns ta def endanti n hi s orher i ndi vi dual capa ci tyonl y , and noti n hi s orheroffi ci al capa ci ty ” ( quot i ng D al y - M urphyv. W in s to n , 8 3 7 F .2 d 3 4 8 , 3 5 5 (9 th C ir . 1 9 8 7 )) ).4 W e conc l ude, how ever , thatthe ca s e w as notm ade r i pe fora rul i ng on w h e th e r q u a lif

ie d im m u n ity p re c lu d e d p la in tif f f ro m s u in g d e f

e n d a n ts a s in d iv id u a ls .

“ [ T ]h e q u a lifie d -im m u n ityd e f e n se sh ield s g o v e rn m e n t ag e n ts f ro m liab ili tyf

o r c iv il damages i ns ofaras thei rconductdoes notvi ol at e cl ear l yes t abl i s hed s t atut oryor cons t i tut i onal r i ght s of w hi ch a r eas onabl e per s on w oul d have know n. ” Thom as v. I ndepende nce Tw p. , 463 F. 3d 285, 291 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng B ehr ens v. Pel l et i er , 516 U .S . 2 9 9 , 3 0 5 (1 9 9 6 )) .

It is w e ll es tab lish e d th a t “[ i]n c a rc e ra tio n . . . n e c e ss itate s th a t m a n yrig h ts and pr i vi l eges , i ncl udi ng r i ght s der i ved fr om the Fi r s tA m endment , be el i m i nat ed or c u rta iled .” A b u -Ja m a l v . P ric e , 1 5 4 F .3 d 1 2 8 , 1 3 2 -3 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). In o rd e r to m ai nt ai n s ecur i ty , pr i s ons m ayl i m i tan i nm at e’ s s peec h i f i t“i nci t e[s ] otherpr i s oner s ” or i nvol ves “es cape pl ans . ” I d. at134; s ee a l s o N as i rv. M or gan, 350 F. 3d 366, 368- 76 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( fi ndi ng cons t i tut i onal a pr i s on’ s r egul at i on pr ohi bi t i ng i nm at es fr om corr es pondi ng w i th otheri nm at es and form eri nm at es w i thoutw r i t t en appr oval of the p ri s o n ’s s u p e ri n te n d e n t) .

H ow ever , i nm at es “r et ai n[ ] thos e Fi r s tA m endmentr i ght s thatar e not i ncons i s t entw i th [thei r ] s t atus as . . . pr i s oner [s ] orw i th the l egi t i m at e penol ogi cal obj ect i ves of the corr ect i ons s y s t em. ” A bu- J amal , 154 F. 3d at134 ( quot i ng Pel l v. Pr ocuni er , 417 U . S. 817, 822 ( 1974) ) ; s ee a l s o i d. at130- 36 ( barr i ng pr i s on fr om enfor ci ng ant i - bus i nes s orpr ofes s i on rul e aga i ns tan i nm at e authorbas ed on the cont ent5

of h i s w ri t i ng s and b ecause the m at eri al did “not affectthe all ocati on of p ri son resources, otheri nm at es , orthe or der l yadmi ni s tr at i on of the pr i s on s y s t em anym or e than . . . the w ri tin g o f

o th e r i n m a te s ” ). T he r ecor d befor e us does notcont ai n s uffi ci enti nform at i on t o det erm i ne w hetherthe pl ai nt i ff’ s cas e i nvol ves the vi ol at i on of a c l ear l yes t abl i s hed cons t i tut i onal r i ght . T he compl ai ntal l eged thatpl ai nt i ff i s an author , m ai nt ai ned a w ebpage , w as found t o have vi ol at ed pr i s on rul es pr ohi bi t i ng a bus i nes s , w as or der ed t o r emove hi s w ebpage , and w as r es tr i ct ed i n hi s us e of the mai l and t el ephone r egar di ng hi s books and m a n u s c ri p ts . T he r ecor d l acks m or e det ai l ed al l egat i ons of fa ct s aboutthe eve nt s that pr om pt ed the def

endant s ’ act i ons agai ns tpl ai nt i ff. Suffi ci enti nform at i on aboutthe w ebpage , books and manusc r i pt s , as w el l as m ai l and t el ephone us age i s notavai l abl e for a pr operFi r s tA m endmentdet erm i nat i on thatcons i der s the pl ai nt i ff’ s s t atus as a pr i s oner a n d th e p ri s o n ’s le g itim a te p e n o lo g ic a l o b je c tiv e s . B eca us e the compl ai ntfai l ed t o di s cl os e w hetherthe def endant s ’ act i ons d id n o t v io late a c lea rlye sta b lish e d c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t, dis m iss a l o n q u a lifie d im m u n ity gr ounds w as pr ematur e. See Thom as , 463 F. 3d at291 ( a di s m i s s al bas ed on qual i fi ed i m m uni tyw i l l be uphel d “onl yw hen the i m m uni tyi s es t abl i s hed on the fa ce of the compl ai nt ” ( quot i ng L evet o v. L api na, 258 F. 3d 156, 161 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ) ) . O n r emand, the D i stri ctC ou rtm ayorder pl ai nti ff t o p rovi de a m ore defini t e st at em ent of his cl ai m s so6

thatthe qual i fi ed i m m uni tyi s s ue maybe r es ol ved expe di t i ous l yand w i thout“s ubj ect i ng the [i ] ndi vi dual [d] efe ndant s w ho m aybe i m m une fr om s ui tt o needl es s di s coveryand the o th e r b u rd e n s o f

litig a tio n .” Id . a t 2 9 9 -3 0 1 . S im ilarly , the iss u e o f

m o n e tar yd a m a g e s n e e d n o t b e re so lv e d u n til liab ili ty is d e te rm in e d .

A cc o rdin g ly , the c lai m s ag ains t def en d an ts fo r i n

jun cti v e a n d d ec laratory re lief a s w e ll as th e c laim s a g a in st d e f e n d a n ts in th e ir o f

f icia l ca p a c iti e s w e re p ro p e rly di s m i s s ed. T he j udgm enti n favorof def endant s on the r emai ni ng cl ai m s w i l l be vac at ed, a n d th e c a s e re m a n d e d f o r f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s .

____________________