Opinion ID: 1042347
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Williams‟s Remaining Arguments

Text: Williams raises two other challenges that warrant brief discussion. First, he takes issue with the discovery process. In particular, he asserts that defendants failed to provide complete responses. He also claims that he did not receive a copy of the District Court‟s order granting him an extension of time to take discovery in response to defendants‟ initial summary judgment motion until after that time had passed. Williams did not seek any relief on these grounds in the District Court, however, and we will not address them in the first instance. Williams (a sophisticated litigant by pro se standards) also has not developed any meaningful argument on this point on appeal and instead 6 No party has claimed otherwise, but we note that defendants‟ voluntary cessation of their challenged conduct has not rendered this case moot. See Burns v. Pa. Dep‟t of Corr., 544 F.3d 279, 283 (3d Cir. 2008). 8 merely invokes our plenary review and states that “[t]he argument in support of this issue remains undeveloped.” (Appellant‟s Br. at 47.) Second, Williams challenges the District Court‟s resolution of his retaliation claim. In his amended complaint, Williams alleged various instances of retaliation from 1992 through 2005, which he alleged continued at unspecified times thereafter. (ECF No. 23 at 14-17.) These alleged incidents included defamatory statements and the adulteration of his food and drink, and he requested an injunction against these alleged activities. The District Court held that these claims are barred by the statute of limitations. Williams does not contest that ruling as to any claims he may have had between 1992 and 2005. Instead, he argues that he sought relief on the basis of ongoing retaliation, including retaliation for filing this lawsuit, and that the District Court failed to address his claims in that regard. We perceive no error. Williams‟s amended complaint does not specify any discrete post-2005 incidents, let alone when they occurred or who perpetrated them. Nor did he request leave to further amend his complaint or otherwise identify these claims in response to defendants‟ summary judgment motion. Williams argues on appeal that the alleged retaliation remains ongoing, and his reply brief attaches grievance forms referencing an incident allegedly occurring in 2013, after this appeal was filed. Any claims that Williams may have in that regard are beyond the scope of this appeal and he should have asserted them, if at all, in a separate civil action. For these reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. Williams‟s 9 motion for leave to file his reply brief out of time is granted, and we have considered the arguments raised therein. 10