2010 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 ir c uit 3-25-2010 

# Ra sheed Ni f

a s 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 . 09-4219

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2010

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 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 Third C irc 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 2010 D e c i sion s by 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 more 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 " R ashe e d Ni fas v

. J eff rey Be ard " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1633. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2010/1633A L D - 1 5 3 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. 09- 4219 RA SH EED N I FA S, A ppel l ant v . J E F F RE Y A. BE AR D; DAVI D J . WAKE F I E L D; HAR RY E . WI L S ON; BRI AN V. CO LEM AN ; DA NI EL P. BU RN S; ERI C T. AR M EL; DE BR A A. M AHL M E I S T E R; RH ONDA H OUS E ; DAVI D P . L I NK; S AM UEL P OPOVI CH; DAN I EL HOO P ER; M ARY A. KUSHNER; SHA RO N M . BU RK S; CI ND Y G . W ATSO N; W ALLA CE LEGG ETT

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 W e ste rn D istric t o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 08- cv- 00834) M agi s tr at e J udge: H onor abl e A m yR eynol ds H ay 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 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 18, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , A M B R O and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ar ch 25, 2010)

OP I NI ON P E R C UR I AM R a sh e e d N if

a s, a p riso n e r h o u se d a t th e F a y e tte S tate C o rre c tio n a l In stitu tio n inT he R R L i s a l i s tof i nm at es w ho m ayonl ybe r el eas ed fr om A C s t atus upon 1 pri or approv al of the S ecret ary . A n inm at e m aybe p l aced o n R R L “w hen he/s he p oses a thr eatt o the s ecur e oper at i on of the fa ci l i tyand w her e a tr ans fert o anotherfac i l i tyor j ur i s di ct i on w oul d notal l evi at e the s ecur i tyconce rn. ” The Secr et arym us tappr ove the des i gnat i on of the i nm at e t o the R R L . See D C - A D M 802, § 1. B , p. 1- 2 and § 4. B , p. 4- 2. N o tab ly , h e w a s d isc ip lin e d f o r p o ss e ss io n o f

a n 1 1 -in c h p iec e o f

ste e l in 2 N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 6 , fo r d iso b e y in g a n o rd e r o n Ju ly1 3 , 2 0 0 7 , an d f o r th re a ten in g a f

e m a le 2 P en n sy lvan ia (“S C I-Fa y ett e” ), ap p ea ls from the o rde r of 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 g ra n tin g su m m a ryju d g m e n t f o r th e d e f

e n d a n ts and di s m i s s i ng hi s ci vi l r i ght s compl ai ntal l egi ng, among ot herthi ngs , hi s w r ongful p lac e m e n t in a d m in istra tiv e c u sto d y(“ A C ” ) a n d o n th e re stric ted re lea se list (“ R R L ” ) in 2007 and 2008. B eca us e w e conc l ude thatno s ubs t ant i al ques t i on i s pr es ent ed on 1 appea l , w e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff i r m . See LA R 27. 4 and I . O . P. 10. 6. N i fas i s s ervi ng a l i fe s ent ence w i thoutel i gi bi l i tyforpar ol e. D ur i ng hi s fi r s tei ght y e a rs in p riso n , N if

a s re c e iv e d th irty -tw o m isc o n d u c ts a n d e lev e n o rd e rs d ire c tin g h is “s epar at i on” fr om tw o i nm at es and fi ve s t aff ( fourof w hom ar e fe m al es ) . H e w as tr ans ferr ed fr om SC I - D al l as t o SC I - Fay ett e i n M ay2006 beca us e of hi s har as s m entof thr ee f emal e s t aff

ther e. I n Sept ember2006, N i fas w as pl ace d i n A C forthr ee da y s pendi ng i nves t i gat i on of D e f e n d a n t D e b ra M a h lm e iste r’s c o m p lain t th a t h e h a d g iv e n h e r a n in a p p ro p ria te in m a te re q u e s t s lip . In O c to b e r 2 0 0 6 , N if a s f ile d a g ri e v a n c e (N o . 1 6 5 8 2 0 ) a g a in s t M a h lm e is te r. Fr om N ovember2006 t o A ugus t2007, N i fas bounced i n and outof the gene r al p o p u latio n , w ith sh o rt-te rm p lac e m e n ts in A C a n d d isc ip lin a ryc o n f in e m e n t. 2c o u n se lo r o n O c to b e r 3 , 2 0 0 7 . T h e p riso n p lac e d N if a s in A C f

o r a b o u t ele v e n d a y s in Ju n e 2 0 0 7 , p e n d in g a n in v e stig a tio n o f a c h a rg e th a t h e m a d e tw o in a p p ro p ria te comm ent s t o tw o femal e s t aff m ember s . O n J ul y13, 2007, he w as back i n A C pendi ng i nves t i gat i on of anothercompl ai ntbya di ffe r entfemal e s t aff m emberconce rni ng an i n a p p r o p r i a t e c o mm e n tNi f a s ma d e t o h e ra b o u ta l e t t e rh e wa n t e d t o s e n d h e r . He att empt ed s ui ci de i n A C on J ul y13, the s ame dayhe w as di s ci pl i ned. N i fas r eques t ed a tr ans fert o anotherfac i l i tyi n A ugus t2007. 3 Im m ed iat elyfo ll o w ing h is r elea se f rom d isci p li n arycu stod yin A u g u st 20 0 7 , an d af ter a hear i ng, the pr i s on pl ace d N i fas i n A C beca us e he pos ed a r i s k t o hi m s el f and other s . T he pr i s on al s o s oughta tr ans fert o anotherfac i l i ty . SC I - Fay ett e’ s tr ans ferpet i t i on w as d e n ied in Ja n u a ry2 0 0 8 . T h e re a f ter , S e c re tar yB e a rd a p p ro v e d th e p riso n ’s r e q u e st to have N i fas pl ace d on the R R L . N i fas ’ s R R L s t atus began i n A pr i l 2008. N ifas’s C o m p lai n t, fil ed o n Ju n e 1 6 , 2 0 0 8 (th e d ate h e sig n ed the C o m p lai n t) , al l eged thatthe def

endant s r et al i at ed aga i ns thi m forthe gr i evanc e he f i l ed i n 2006 r egar di ng defe ndantM ahl m ei s t er . Speci fi cal l y , he as s ert ed thatthe def endant s l odged th re e f a lse m isc o n d u c t ch a rg e s f o r v a rio u s in f

ra c tio n s o f

p riso n ru les a n d o rc h e stra ted h is pl ace m enti n A C and on the R R L atSC I - Fay ett e bas ed on fa l s e al l egat i ons thathe har as s ed fe m al e s t aff

. H e al s o cl ai m ed thatthe def endant s deni ed hi m pr ocedur al due pr oces s , acc es s t o the court s w hi l e i n A C , and pr i vi l eges thats i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed i nm at es had r ece i ved i n A C . H e al l eged f ur therthathi s confi nementi n A C cons t i tut ed cruel and unus ual puni s hm entbeca us e i texac erbat ed hi s document ed s er i ous ps y chi atr i c condi t i on, a n d th a t th e d e f

e n d a n ts w ro n g f

u llyd e n ied h im th e rig h t to p ra c tice h is M u slim re lig io n in A C . H e cl ai m ed vi ol at i ons of the Fi r s t , E i ghth and Four t eenth A m endment s ( E qualW e have j ur i s di ct i on over thi s appea l pur s uant t o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. A l though 3 N i fas ar gues thatthe M agi s tr at e J udge l acke d author i tyt o ent erj udgm enti n hi s cas e, the r ecor d i ndi cat es otherw i s e. Pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 636( c) ( 1) , both N i fas and the d e f e n d a n ts, o n Ju n e 1 6 a n d D e c e m b e r 1 0 , 2 0 0 8 , res p e c tiv e ly , v o lu n tar ilyc o n se n ted to have the M agi s tr at e J udge conduc tanyand al l furtherpr ocee di ngs i n the ca s e, i ncl udi ng trial a n d e n tryo f

f in a l ju d g m e n t. 4 Pr ot ect i on and D ue Pr oces s ) and of the R el i gi ous Fr eedom R es t or at i on A ct( “R FR A ”) and the R el i gi ous L and U s e and I ns t i tut i onal i zed Per s ons A ct( R L U I PA ”) . H e s ought d a m a g e s a n d a n o rd e r d ire c tin g th e d e f e n d a n ts to re lea se h im to a g e n e ra l p o p u latio n u n it atSC I - Fay ett e. F o llo w in g d isc o v e ry , the d e f e n d a n ts f iled a jo in t m o tio n f

o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t, claim ing that m o st of

N ifas’s c lai m s w ere n o t exh au sted an d that h is cl aim s w ere m e ri tle s s in a n ye v e n t. N if a s re s p o n d e d a n d f

ile d h is o w n m o tio n f

o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. T he M agi s tr at e J udge gr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entforthe def endant s , hol di ng thatthe ac ce ss to the co u rt s, retali ati o n , eq u al pro tecti o n , an d E igh th A m en d m en t cl aim s w ere both unexhaus t ed and mer i t l es s and thatN i fas fai l ed t o exhaus thi s Fi r s tA m endment r el i gi ous exer ci s e and RF R A / R L U I PA cl ai m s . B yor derent er ed Sept ember30, 2009, the M a g istra te J u d g e g ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t in th e d e f e n d a n ts’ f

a v o r a n d d e n ied a ll pendi ng m ot i ons , i ncl udi ng N i fas ’ s s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on. O n O ct ober6, 2009, the M a g is tr a te J u d g e d e n ie d N if a s ’s m o tio n f

o r R u le 1 1 s a n c tio n s a g a in s t th e d e f e n d a n ts . T hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed. 3 N i fas ar gues thathe exha us t ed hi s cl ai m s , l i s t i ng al l of the gr i evanc es he fi l edN i fas do es not cl ai m that he exh aust ed h i s E i gh th A m end m ent, rel i gious exerci se 4 and R F R A / R L U IPA cl ai m s. 5 conce rni ng hi s acc es s t o the court s , r et al i at i on, equal pr ot ect i on, and pr ocedur al due pr oces s cl ai m s . ( See “M emora ndum i n s uppor tof appe al , ” at2- 4. ) A s s um i ng, ar guendo, 4 thatthes e cl ai m s ar e exha us t ed, w e agr ee w i th the M agi s tr at e J udge’ s r eas oni ng and concl us i on thatthe cl ai m s l ack mer i t . T he fa ctthatN i fas ’ s ci vi l r i ght s compl ai ntw as d e layed b y1 2 0 d a y s d o e s n o t am o u n t to th e k in d o f a c tu a l in ju ryre q u ire d to m a k e o u t a d e n ia l o f a c c e s s to th e c o u rt s c la im . S e e L e w is v . C a s e y , 5 1 8 U .S . 3 4 3 , 3 5 1 (1 9 9 6 ). N i fas ’ s hi s t oryof m i s conduct s and pr obl ems w i th femal e s t aff m ember s both befor e and a f t e rh e a rr i v e d a tS CI - F a y e t t e wa s mo r e th a n s u f f i c i e n tt o s h o w th a th i s p l a c e me n ti n AC and on the R R L s erved a l egi t i m at e penol ogi cal i nt er es tand thati tw oul d have oc curr ed reg ard less o f a n yretali atorym o ti v e. S ee R au ser v . H o rn, 24 1 F . 3 d 3 3 0 , 3 3 4 (3d C ir . 2001) . N i fas ’ s r et al i at orydi s ci pl i ne cl ai m fai l s beca us e ther e i s “s om e evi dence ” s uppor t i ng the gui l tyfi ndi ngs forthe thr ee di s ci pl i narychar ges br oughtagai ns tN i fas aft erhe fi l ed hi s gr i evanc e i n O ct ober2006. See H ender s on v. B ai r d, 29 F. 3d 464, 469 (8th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) (st ati n g that a f ind ing o f “ so m e e v iden ce ” to s u p p o rta p ri so n d isci p li n ary det erm i nat i on “che ckmat es ” the pr i s oner ’ s r et al i at i on cl ai m ) . A s forhi s pr ocedur al due pr oces s cl ai m , confi nementi n A C for178 day s and a 90- daypl ace m enton the R R L does n o t am o u n t t o an “a typ ical an d sign ifi ca n t hard sh ip” w h en co m p are d to the o rdin aryW e expr es s no opi ni on as t o w hetherN i fas ’ s cont i nued conf i nementi n A C and 5 o n th e R R L a f

ter Ju n e 1 6 , 2 0 0 8 , g iv e s ris e to a p ro tec ted lib e rtyin ter e st. 6 i nci dent s of pr i s on l i fe, and thus , N i fas has no pr ot ect ed l i bertyi nt er es t . See Sandi n v. 5 C o n n er, 51 5 U . S . 4 7 2 , 4 8 4 (19 9 5 ); G ri ff in v . V au g h n , 1 1 2 F . 3 d 7 0 3 , 7 0 6 & n . 2 (3d C ir . 1997) . I n anyevent , N i fas r ece i ved al l of the pr oces s he w as due. Pr i ort o the i ni t i at i on of thi s l aw s ui t , the Pr ogr am R evi ew C om m i t t ee ( “PR C ”) had conduc t ed hea r i ngs r egar di ng N i fas ’ s A C s t atus on A ugus t16, 2007, February7 and A pr i l 10, 2008, and had r evi ew ed hi s R R L s t atus on A pr i l 10, 2008. N i fas ’ s equal pr ot ect i on cl ai m al s o l acks m erit . N ifas f

ail ed to d em o n str ate tha t th e inm ates w h o h ad su b m itted a ff idav it s w ere s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed t o hi m as ther e i s no evi dence thatthe i nm at es s har ed s i m i l ar i nst i tuti on al his t ori es. T h e M a g istra te J u d g e c o rre c tlyd e ter m in e d th a t th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t cla im is n o t ex h a u ste d . T h e re is n o g rie v a n c e in th is re c o rd , an d N if a s d o e s n o t p o in t to a n y , in w h ich h e c o m p lain e d a b o u t th e d e lete rio u s e f f e c t o f h is c o n f in e m e n t in A C o n h is p s y c h o l o g i c a l c o n d i t i o n . I n a n ye v e n t , th e c l a i m w a s p r o p e r l yd i s mi s s e d o n i t s me r i t s . As the M agi s tr at e J udge obs erved, the “I ndi vi dual T r eatm entPl an” f orN i fas dat ed O ct ober 15, 2007, s t at ed thathe w as i n l ong- t erm pl ace m enti n A C and l i s t ed tr eatm entobj ect i ves w h il e h e w as th ere . (S ee D ef en d an ts’ ap p d ’x to su m m aryjud g m en t m o ti o n , E x h . 1 at 9.) N othi ng i n the Pl an i ndi cat ed thatN i fas ’ s m ent al heal th w oul d be s er i ous l yaff ect ed by s uch conf

i nement . T hus , no r eas onabl e j ur orcoul d concl ude fr om the r ecor d evi dence7

th a t A C p lac e m e n t p o se d a su b sta n tial risk o f se rio u s h a rm to N if

a s o r th a t th e d e f

e n d a n ts w er e del i ber at el yi ndi ffe r entt o hi s ps y chol ogi cal condi t i on. T h at l ea v es th e re li g iou s ex erc ise an d R F R A /R L U IP A claim s, w h ich w ere di s m i s s ed fornon- exhaus t i on. Pr operexhaus t i on r equi r es thatan i nm at e pr ocee d thr ough a ll av a ilab le s tep s in th e a d m in istra tiv e re v iew p ro c e ss , an d th a t th e in m a te d o so in acc or dance w i th es t abl i s hed dea dl i nes and pr ocedur al rul es s o thatthe r evi ew i ng body c a n a d d re ss th e iss u e s ra ise d . S e e W o o d f o rd v . N g o , 5 4 8 U .S . 8 1 , 9 0 (2 0 0 6 ). A n in m a te cannots at i s fythe PL R A bycompl et i ng the pr i s on gr i evanc e pr oces s dur i ng the pende ncy o f th e D istri ct C o u rtp roc ee d ing . S ee e.g., Jo h n so n v . Jo n es, 34 0 F . 3 d 6 2 4 , 6 2 7 -28 (8 th C i r . 2003) ( hol di ng that“the di s tr i ctcourtm us tl ook t o the t i m e of f i l i ng, notthe t i m e the d istri ct co u rtis r en d ering it s d ec isi o n , to d eterm ine if e x h au sti o n h as o cc u rred . If exhaus t i on w as notcompl et ed atthe t i m e of f i l i ng, di s m i s s al i s m andat ory ”) . I ti s cl ear fr om N i fas ’ s ow n r epr es ent at i ons and s ubm i s s i ons thathe fi l ed a gr i evanc e r egar di ng the deni al of hi s r i ghtt o pr act i ce hi s M us l i m fai th ( G r i evanc e N o. 232345) on the dayhe fi l ed hi s C om pl ai nt . A ccor di ngl y , beca us e exha us t i on w as notcompl et ed bythe co m m en ce m en t date o f th e law su it , the M ag istrate Ju d g e p rop erlyg ran ted s u m m ary ju d g m e n t an d d ism iss e d th e re lig io u s e x e rc ise a n d R F R A /R L U IP A c laim s f o r f a ilu re to compl yw i th 42 U . S. C . § 1997e( a) . T he di s m i s s al of thes e cl ai m s , of cour s e, i s w i thout pr ej udi ce. Forthes e r eas ons , w e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entas8

m odi fi ed t o r efl ectthe di s m i s s al w i thoutpr ej udi ce of N i fas ’ s r el i gi ous exer ci s e and R F R A / R L U IPA cl ai m s.