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 2-3-2009 

# M cKinney v

. Guthrie 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 . 07-2348

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 author i 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 " M cKinney v

. G uthr ie " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1942. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/19421 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- 2348

__________ DE RR I CK M CK I NNE Y, A ppel l ant

v. C. O. GUTHRI E; C. O. ZI HM ER; C. O. BLOOR; C. O. S TE NDER; C. O. W I S E; UNI T M ANA GER WI LL I AM W ARD

____________________________________ 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 M id d le 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. 01- 02088) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Sy l vi a H . R ambo

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

February2, 2009 B efor e: B A R R Y , SM I T H and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: February03, 2009)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM P lain tiff D e rric k M c K in n e ya p p e a ls p ro se f ro m se v e ra l D istric t C o u rt o rd e rs: a2

Ja n u a ry1 0 , 2 0 0 5 , o rd e r d e n y in g a n d d e e m in g a s w ith d ra w n h is re q u e st f o r d isc o v e ry ; a M ar ch 20, 2007, or dergr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof D efe ndant s Z i hm er , W i s e, S t e n d e r , a n d Bl o o rf

o rM c Ki n n e y ’ s f

a i l u r e t o e x h a u s ta d mi n i s t r a t i v e r e me d i e s ; a n d two A pr i l 3, 2007, j udgm ent s , one ent er i ng s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof D efe ndantW ar d, and a s econd e nt er i ng a j udgm entupon a j uryver di cti n favorof D efe ndantG uthr i e. For t he r eas ons t hatfol l ow , w e w i l l aff i r m i n par t , vaca t e i n par tand r emand forfur t her proceed i ng s. I . B ackgr ound B e c a u se w e w rite s o lelyf o r th e b e n e f

it o f th e p a rties , w e w ill se t f o rth b rie f

lyo n ly t hos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o ouranal y s i s . M cK i nneyfi l ed a pr o s e compl ai ntpur s uantt o 42 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 ag ains t SC I-C am p H il l pri so n em p loy ee s G u thri e, W ard , W ise, S tend er, Z i hm er , and B l oor , cl ai m i ng vi ol at i ons of hi s Fi r s t , E i ghth, and Four t eenth A m endment ri g h ts b a s e d o n a s e ri e s o f a lle g e d p h y s ic a l a s s a u lts th a t to o k p la c e in D e c e m b e r 1 9 9 9 . A ccor di ng t o M cK i nney , t hes e as s aul t s occurr ed i n r et al i at i on aft erM cK i nneyfi l ed a gr i evanc e aga i ns tG ut hr i e forent er i ng hi s cel l and di s pos i ng of hi s bel ongi ngs , i ncl udi ng no t es and legal m at eri al s. T h e D istri ct C o u rtd ispo sed o f th e m ajorityo f M cK inn ey ’s claim s o n su m m ary ju d g m e n t. O n lyo n e – M c K in n e y ’s E ig h th A m e n d m e n t cla im a g a in st D e f e n d a n t G u th rie

– p roc ee d ed to a ju rytr ial , at w h ich M cK inn eyw as re p rese n ted b yco u n sel. T h e jury re tu rn e d a v e rd ict a g a in st M c K in n e ya n d M c K in n e yp u rsu e d a tim e lya p p e a l to th is C o u rt.3 II. A n a ly sis A . D i sm i ssal of C l ai m s A gainstZ i hm er, W i se, S t end er, & B l oo r For Fail ure t o E xh aust T h e P r i s o n L i t i g a t i o n Re f o r m A c to f

1 9 9 5 p r o v i d e s , i n r e l e v a n tp a r t , th a t : “ No act i on s hal l be br oughtw i t h r es pectt o pr i s on condi t i ons unders ect i on 1983 of thi s t i t l e, oranyot herFeder al l aw , bya pr i s onerconfi ned i n anyj ai l , pr i s on, orot hercorr ect i onal f a c i l i t yu n t i l s u c h a d mi n i s t r a t i v e r e me d i e s a s a r e a v a i l a b l e a r e e x h a u s t e d . ” 4 2 U. S . C. § 1997e( a) . T hi s r equi r ement“appl i es t o al l i nm at e s ui t s aboutpr i s on l i fe, w hetherthey i nvol ve gene r al ci r cumst ance s orpart i cul arepi s odes , and w hethertheyal l ege e xces s i ve for ce ors om e otherw r ong. ” Por t erv. N us s l e, 534 U . S. 516, 532 ( 2002) . H ow ever , t he PL R A r equi r es exhaus t i on onl yof s uch admi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es “as ar e ava i l abl e, ” 42 U .S .C . § 1 9 9 7 e (a ), an d a n a d m in istra tiv e re m e d ym a yb e u n a v a ilab le if a p riso n e r is pr event ed bypr i s on author i t i es fr om pur s ui ng the pr i s on gr i evanc e pr oces s . See C amp v. B r ennan, 219 F. 3d 279, 280- 81 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . I n addi t i on, pr i s on author i t i es m ayw ai ve t he exha us t i on r equi r ementi f the ul t i m at e admi ni s t r at i ve author i t yful l yexami nes the i nm at e’ s compl ai nton t he mer i t s , r egar dl es s of w hetherthe compl ai ntcompl i ed w i t h t he pr i s on gr i evanc e pr oces s . See i d. at281. In th is c a se , the iss u e o f w h e th e r M c K in n e ya d e q u a telyp u rsu e d a n d e x h a u ste d h is admi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es befor e i ni t i at i ng hi s § 1983 act i on i s nots tr ai ght forw ar d, and has been r ai s ed r epea t edl yt hr oughoutt hi s l i t i gat i on. Fi r s t , i n an or derent er ed on N ovember 30, 2001, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed M cK i nney ’ s ent i r e § 1983 compl ai ntw i t houtR ather , t hatgr i evanc e compl ai ned of a di ffe r entas s aul tagai ns tM cK i nneyby 1 D e f e n d a n t G u th ri e th a t a lle g e d ly o c c u rr e d in F e b ru a ry 2 0 0 0 . 4 pr ej udi ce f

orfai l ur e t o exhaus tadmi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es . See D ocketN o. 9. M cK i nney appea l ed, and on J une 4, 2003, t hi s C our tvaca t ed the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al or derand r emanded t he mat t erforfur t herpr ocee di ngs . A tthatt i m e, w e not ed thatM cK i nneyhad s ubm i t t ed a l et t erfr om t he pr i s on’ s C hi ef H ear i ng E xami ner , R ober tB i t ner , w hi ch i ndi cat ed the pos s i bi l i t yt hatM cK i nneym ayhave i ndeed e xhaus t ed hi s admi ni s t r at i ve re m e d ie s . A s d ire c ted b yth is C o u rt, M c K in n e yre -se rv e d h is c o m p lain t u p o n D e f e n d a n ts al ong w i t h t he B i t nerl et t er . D efe ndant s m oved t o di s m i s s , agai n ar gui ng thatM cK i nney fai l ed t o exhaus tadmi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es . T r eat i ng the B i t nerl ett eras evi dence out s i de the p lead ing s, the D istri ct C o u rtco n stru ed the D ef en d an ts’ m o ti o n as o n e f o r sum m ary jud g m en t. In a m em o ran d u m o p inion an d o rde r da ted A p ri l 8, 20 0 4 , the D istri ct C o u rt found M cK i nney ’ s cl ai m s had notbeen e xhaus t ed bec aus e, al t hough M cK i nneyhad fi l ed an i ni t i al admi ni s t r at i ve gr i evanc e, thatgr i evanc e di d notconce r n the D ece m ber1999 assa u lt s u n d erly ing h is § 1 9 8 3 co m p lai n t. T h e D istri ct C o u rtalso rejected M cK inn ey ’s 1 a rg u m e n t th a t h e w a s p re v e n ted f ro m e x h a u stin g th e c laim s b e c a u se o f th e m isc o n d u c ts i s s ued aga i ns thi m , fi ndi ng t hatM cK i nneys houl d have, butdi d not , pur s ue admi ni s t r at i ve re m e d ie s c o n c e rn in g th o s e m is c o n d u c ts . H o w ev er, i n that sam e m em o ran d u m , the D istri ct C o u rtcre d it ed M cK inn ey ’s5

ar gum entt hatpr i s on offi ci al s had thw art ed hi s eff or t s t o pur s ue admi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es conce r ni ng t he mi s conduct s , fi ndi ng thatthi s al l egat i on r ai s ed a tr i abl e i s s ue conc erni ng w hetheradmi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es w er e ac tual l y“ava i l abl e” t o hi m . I n addi t i on, the D i s t r i ctC our tfound that , al t hough M cK i nneydi d notr ai s e hi s cl ai m s conce r ni ng the as s aul t s i n hi s i ni t i al gr i evanc e, pr i s on author i t i es m ayhave a l l ow ed hi m t o amend t he g rie v a n c e o n a p p e a l to in c o rp o ra te a t lea st s o m e o f th o se c laim s. T h e re f

o re , ac c o rd in g to t he D i s t r i ctC our t , t her e w as a ques t i on of fa ctconce r ni ng w hetherpr i s on author i t i es had ul t i m at el ys ubj ect ed M cK i nney ’ s cl ai m s t o fi nal admi ni s t r at i ve r evi ew , ther ebyw ai vi ng t he exha us t i on r equi r ement . T hes e di s put ed i s s ues pr ecl uded s um m aryj udgm enton t he admi ni s t r at i ve exha us t i on i s s ue, and the D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed the D efe ndant s ’ m ot i on on th a t b a s is . H ow ever , on M ar ch 20, 2007, aft era pr e- t r i al confe r ence , the D i s t r i ctC our ti s s ued a su a sp o n te ord er rev ersing it s p ri o r de n ial o f su m m aryjud g m en t. T h e D istri ct C o u rt st at ed, w i t ho ut fur ther el abo rat i on , that “[a] ft er further r eview of the recor d an d the past b rie f s, it is th is c o u rt’s r u lin g th a t ad m in istra tiv e re m e d ies h a v e n o t b e e n e x h a u ste d a s to D efe ndant s Z i hm er , W i s e, St ender , and B l oor . T her efor e, theyar e di s m i s s ed. ” T he St at e cont ends t he D i s t r i ctC our tr ever s ed i t s pr i ordeci s i on on t he exha us t i on i s s ue bec aus e i tacc ept ed the ar gum ent , r ai s ed forthe fi r s tt i m e i n t he St at e’ s pr etr i al m e m o ra n d u m , tha t M c K in n e yh a d p ro c e d u ra llyd e f a u lted h is c laim s b yf

a ili n g to stric tlyC ont r aryt o t he St at e’ s ar gum ent s , the dec i s i ons i n W oodfor d v. N go, 548 U . S. 81 2 ( 2006) and Sprui l l v. G i l l i s , 372 F. 3d 218 ( 3d C i r . 2004) , do notdi ct at e the out come on t hi s i s s ue. N ei t hercas e addr es s es t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s pr evi ous gr ounds fordeny i ng s u mma r yj u d g me n t– i . e . , wh e t h e ra r e me d yi s a c tu a l l y“ a v a i l a b l e ” u n d e r4 2 U. S . C. § 1997e( a) , and w hetherpr i s on author i t i es m ayw ai ve the exha us t i on r equi r ementunder cert ai n ci r cumst ance s . See C amp, 219 F. 3d at280- 81. M c K in n e y ’s p re -tria l m e m o ra n d u m d id n o t ad d re ss th e p ro c e d u ra l d e f a u lt arg u m e n t. 3 6 a d h e re to th e p ri s o n ’s g ri e v a n c e p ro c e d u re s . H o w e v e r, t h is is n o m o re th a n c o n je c tu re . 2 T he part i es di d notful l ybr i ef the pr ocedur al defa ul ti s s ue and the D i s t r i ctC our tdoes not 3 i ndi cat e thati tfound the St at e’ s l ogi c per s uas i ve. I ndeed, the D i s t r i ctC our tdi d not p r o v i d e i t s r e a s o n i n g a ta l l , a n d t h u s f a i l e d t o c o n f

o r m w i t h o u rd i r e c t i o n i n Va d i n o v . A. V a le yE n g in e e rs , 9 0 3 F .2 d 2 5 3 , 2 5 9 (3 d C ir .1 9 9 0 ), t h a t “ g ra n ts o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t ... [ sh o u ld b e a c c o m p a n ied ] w ith a n e x p lan a tio n su f f icie n t to p e rm it th e p a rties a n d th is c o u rt to u n d e rsta n d th e leg a l p re m ise f o r th e c o u rt’s o rd e r.” S e e a lso C a p rio v . B e ll A tla n tic S ic k n e s s a n d A c c id e n t P la n , 3 7 4 F .3 d 2 1 7 , 2 2 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). A l t hough w e maydet erm i ne thi s m att eron t he mer i t s w i t houtr emandi ng, s ee V adino, 90 3 F . 2d at25 9-60, our r eview of the recor d leads us t o co nclude t hat, i n the fi rs t i ns t ance , i tw oul d be more appr opr i at e forthe D i s t r i ctC our tt o pr ovi de the r eas ons u n d erly ing it s d ec isi o n . S ee G il li s v . H o ec h st C elan ese C o rp., 4 F . 3 d 1 1 3 7 , 1 1 4 9 (3d C ir . 1993) . W e ther efor e w i l l vaca t e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or dert o t he ext entthati tdi s m i s s ed the c lai m s ag ains t D ef

en d an ts Z ihm er, W ise, S tend er, an d B loo r fo r M cK inn ey ’s fa il u re t o exhaus tadmi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es , and w i l l r emand t he i s s ue t o t he D i s t r i ctC our tfor further proceedings.T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi s cus s ed i t s fi ndi ngs i n i t s m emora ndum opi ni on and or derof 4 D ece m ber8, 2006, butdefe r r ed ent er i ng j udgm entunt i l A pr i l 3, 2007. 7 B . S u m m aryJu d g m en t i n F av o r of D ef en d an t W ard Sum m aryj udgm enti s appr opr i at e w her e the movi ng par t ys how s “ther e i s no gen uine i ssue as t o an ym at eri al factand the m ov i ng partyi s ent i t l ed to j ud gm ent as a m at t erof l aw . ” Fed. R . C i v. P. 56( c) . T o avoi d s um m aryj udgm ent , M cK i nneycoul d not r es ton al l egat i ons i n t he compl ai nt , and w as r equi r ed t o “go bey ond the pl eadi ngs and by [hi s ] ow n aff

i davi t s , orbyt he depos i t i ons , ans w er s t o i nt err ogat or i es , and admi s s i ons on fi l e, des i gnat e s peci fi c fa ct s s how i ng thatther e i s a genui ne i s s ue fortr i al . ” C el ot ex C orp. v. C atr et t , 477 U . S. 317, 324 ( 1986) . W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof D efe ndantW ar d. See W i l l i ams v. C o n s o v o y , 4 5 3 F .3 d 1 7 3 , 1 7 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). T he D i s t r i ctC our tfound thatno genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac texi s t ed r egar di ng M cK i nney ’ s cl ai m s agai ns tD efe ndantW ar d beca us e the document aryevi dence M cK i nneypr es ent ed i n oppos i t i on t o s um m aryj udgm ent– i ncl udi ng var i ous decl ar at i ons and af fi davi t s – di d nots ubs t ant i at e M cK i nney ’ s cl ai m thatW ar d di r ect ed the other D efe ndant s t o as s aul thi m . M cK i nneyhas notdi r ect ed us t o anys uch evi dence , and our 4 r evi ew of the r ecor d r evea l s none. W e ther efor e w i l l aff i r m the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s A pr i l 3, 2 0 0 7 , ju d g m e n t to th e e x te n t th a t it g ra n te d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n th is c la im .

C . Ju ryV e rd ict in F a v o r o f D e f e n d a n t G u th rie T he s ol e i s s ue t o pr ocee d t o t r i al w as M cK i nney ’ s cl ai m agai ns tG uthr i e undert he8

E i ght h A m endment . A tt r i al , M cK i nneyw as r epr es ent ed bycouns el . H e pr es ent ed four w i t nes s es i n addi t i on t o hi s ow n t es t i m ony , and had the oppor tuni t yt o cr os s - exami ne the th re e d e f e n se w itn e ss e s. A f

ter tw o d a y s o f

p ro c e e d in g s, th e ju ryre tu rn e d a v e rd ict in G u thri e’s f

av o r. N ei t herM cK i nney ’ s openi ng br i ef norhi s r epl ybr i ef s peci fi es anyerr ori n t he tr i al pr ocee di ngs . W e have r evi ew ed the tr i al tr ans cr i pt s and fi nd no bas i s forover turni ng t he jury ’s ve rdict. W e the ref o re w il l aff

irm the ju d g m en t i n fa v o r of G u thri e o n M cK inn ey ’s Ei g h t h Ame n d me n tc l a i m. D . D e n ial o f D isc o v e ryR e q u e st Fi nal l y , M cK i nneycl ai m s t hatthe D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n deny i ng hi s m ot i on for d isco v ery . W e n o te th at “m att ers o f d o ck et co n tr o l and co n d u ct of d isco v eryare comm i t t ed t o t he s ound di s cr et i on of the tr i al cour t . ” I n r e Fi ne A nt i t rus tL i t i g. , 685 F. 2d 810, 817 ( 3d C i r . 1982) . M cK i nneyar gues that , beca us e he i s a pr o s e l i t i gant , the D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d have e xcus ed hi m fr om fol l ow i ng the l ocal rul e r equi r i ng su b m iss io n o f

a su p p o rtin g b rie f

w ith in ten d a y s o f

a m o tio n . W e d isa g re e . S e e M c N e il v. U ni t ed St at es , 508 U . S. 106, 113 ( 1993) ( “[W ] e have nevers ugges t ed thatpr ocedur al rul es i n o rdi naryci vil l i t i gati on shou l d b e i nterpret ed so as t o ex cuse m i st akes bytho se w h o p ro c e e d w ith o u t c o u n s e l.” ). I ndeed, w e ar e doubt ful of M cK i nney ’ s cl ai m thathe w as unaw ar e of the s uppor t i ng br i ef r equi r ement . O n M ay6, 2004, the daythatM cK i nneyfi l ed hi s m ot i on9

fordi s covery , he al s o fi l ed a mot i on forpr oduct i on of document s w hi ch w as a c c o m p a n ied b yth e re q u ire d b rie f in su p p o rt. M o re o v e r, o n c e th e C o u rt issu e d its J anuary10, 2005, or ders et t i ng for t h t he br i efi ng r equi r ement , M cK i nneycoul d no l onger cl ai m i gnor ance of the rul e. Y etM cK i nneydi d notr enew the di s coveryr eques tor at t empt t o fi l e anys uppor t i ng br i ef. T hus , w e fi nd no abus e of di s cr et i on i n t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt’s o rd e r d e e m in g M c K in n e y ’s m o tio n f o r d isc o v e ryw ith d ra w n d u e to h is f a ilu re to s ubm i ta s uppor t i ng l egal br i ef. I I I . C oncl us i on Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l vaca t e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derent er ed M ar ch 2 0 , 2 0 0 7 , to the ex tent that itg ran ted s u m m aryjud g m en t i n fa v o r of D ef en d an ts Z ihm er, W i s e, St ender , and B l oorforM cK i nney ’ s fai l ur e t o exhaus tadmi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es , and w il l r em an d this m att er f o r fu rth er p roc ee d ing s. W e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s orders and j ud gm ents enter ed A pri l 3, 20 07 , i n all otherres pects .