Court Opinion

ID: 9410793
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-24 17:00:52.406001+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:00.426562
License: Public Domain

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                         FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                              ___________

                                  No. 23-1562
                                  ___________

                             JOHN W. WILLIAMS,
                                             Appellant

                                        v.

JOHN WETZEL; BARRY SMITH; REBECCA REIFER; M. STRAW; R. WESTOVER;
  S. HNATKOVICH; PERSONS UNIDENTIFIED; TOM WOLF; GEORGE LITTLE,
  SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS; TIMOTHY A. HOLMES, CHIEF COUNSEL;
DEBRA SUE RAND, ASSISTANT COUNSEL, PENNSYLVANIADEPARTMENT OF
 CORRECTIONS; BARRY SMITH, SUPERINTENDENT; BRODIE URBAN, STAFF
  LAW LIBRARIAN; ROBERT PARKS, STAFF LAW LIBRARIAN; T. LITTLE, F-
       BLOCK UNIT MANAGER; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER STEWART;
    CORRECTIONAL OFFICER RIEG; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER ISENBURG;
    CORRECTIONAL OFFICER SMITH; F. NUNEZ, DISCIPLINARY HEARING
        EXAMINER; TERRI SECHRENGOST, HEALTHCARE SERVICE
  ADMINISTRATOR, SCI HOUTZDALE; THOMAS PLACEY, COMMON PLEAS
 JUDGE; EDWARD E. GUIDO, PRESIDENT JUDGE; RHONDA J. SMITH, COURT
 REPORTER; DENIS LEBO, CLERK OF THE COURT; MERLE L. EBERT, CLERK
      OF THE COURT; KIMBERLY A. METZGER, ASSISTANT DISSTRICT
 ATTORNEY,CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE; SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA, (MIDDLE DISTRICT); B. CIVIELLO, F-BLOCK PSYCHOLOGY
           COUNSELOR; MICHELE A. ELINE, COURT REPORTER

                 On Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Western District of Pennsylvania
                             (D.C. No. 3:20-cv-00061)
                  District Judge: Honorable Stephanie L. Haines
                  ____________________________________

     Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or
       Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
                                on July 13, 2023
             Before: HARDIMAN, RESTREPO, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges

                               (Opinion filed: July 24, 2023)

                _______________________________________________

                                        OPINION*
                                       ___________

PER CURIAM

Pro se appellant John W. Williams, proceeding in forma pauperis, appeals from the District

Court’s judgment in favor of the Defendants in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Since Wil-

liams does not present a substantial question, we will summarily affirm.

                                             I.

    Williams alleges violations of his constitutional rights arising from prison policies re-

lated to prison law library access and the costs of printing and mailing legal documents. A

subset of the 28 named Defendants (herein the “Commonwealth Defendants”)1 filed a mo-

tion to dismiss for failure to state a claim that was converted into a motion for summary

judgment on the issue of exhaustion of available administrative remedies. A Magistrate

Judge issued a show cause order indicating that the amended complaint would be dismissed

*
  This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
1
  These Defendants are: Tom Wolf, John Wetzel, George Little, Timothy Holmes, Debra
Rand, Barry Smith, Rebecca Reifer, Melissa Straw, Susan Hnatkovich, Robert Westover,
Brodie Urban, Robert Parks, T. Little, Brooke Civiello, CO Stewart, CO Rieg, CO Isen-
burg, CO Smith, Freddy Nunez, and Terri Sechrengost. The Defendants not part of this
group are: Thomas Placey, Edward Guido, Rhonda Smith, Michele Eline, Denis Lebo,
Merle Ebert, Kimberly Metzger, and Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Middle District).
                                              2
without prejudice as to the other Defendants due to Williams’ failure to provide the neces-

sary service documents, unless Williams could show good cause for the District Court to

refrain from taking such action. The Magistrate Judge gave Williams until January 9, 2023,

to respond to the show cause order. Williams filed a request to extend the time to re-

spond—which the Magistrate Judge granted, extending his deadline to January 25, 2023—

but failed to respond to the show cause order.

         The Magistrate Judge issued a report recommending that the District Court grant

the Commonwealth Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Magistrate Judge

also recommended dismissing all claims against the other Defendants for failure to serve.

Williams filed his objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report. The District Court overruled

those objections and agreed with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. It granted the

Commonwealth Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims

against the other Defendants. The District Court also decided, in line with another of the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendations, that granting Williams leave to file a second

amended complaint would be futile, given his failure to properly exhaust his administrative

remedies. This appeal followed. Williams filed both his argument in support of appeal

and a motion for enlargement of page limitation for his argument in support of appeal.2

The matter is now ready for review.

                                            II.

2
    We grant the motion.
                                             3
       We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review

under § 1915(e)(B)(ii) with respect to the grant of summary judgment. See Tri-M Grp.,

LLC v. Sharp, 638 F.3d 406, 415 (3d Cir. 2011); see also Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist.,

767 F.3d 247, 265 (3d Cir. 2014).

       We must dismiss this appeal if we conclude that it is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(B)(i). We may summarily affirm the District Court’s order if we conclude that

Williams has not presented a substantial question or that subsequent precedent or a change

in circumstances warrants such action. See 3d Cir. LAR 27. 4 and IOP 10.6.

   The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) states that a prisoner cannot bring an ac-

tion under § 1983 “until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42

U.S.C. § 1997e(a). This mandatory exhaustion requirement applies to “all inmate suits

about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and

whether they allege excessive force or some other wrong.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516,

532 (2002). A prison’s grievance policy “define[s] the boundaries of proper exhaustion.”

Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218 (2007). A failure to exhaust available administrative

remedies is an affirmative defense. Id., at 216. A failure to comply with this exhaustion

requirement results in the procedural default of the prisoner’s claim. Woodford v. Ngo,

548 U.S. 81, 92-93 (2006). “But once the defendant has established that the inmate failed

to resort to administrative remedies, the onus falls on the inmate to show that such remedies

were unavailable to him.” Rinaldi v. United States, 904 F.3d 257, 268 (3d Cir. 2018).

                                            III.

                                             4
       As a threshold matter, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires dismissal with-

out prejudice of an action if a defendant is not served within 90 days of the complaint.

Since Williams failed to provide the necessary service documents, the District Court

properly dismissed the complaint as to the non-Commonwealth Defendants.

       Turning to the Commonwealth Defendants, the case revolves around Williams’ fail-

ure to exhaust his available administrative remedies. Exhaustion in this case requires fol-

lowing the policy of the State Correctional Institution (“SCI”) at Houtzdale, where Wil-

liams is incarcerated. The Magistrate Judge explained in detail how Williams fell short in

this matter, the District Court agreed with this explanation, and so do we.

       Williams failed to follow the three-step process for advancing a grievance through

the prison’s administrative system, and several of his claims are not present in the two

grievances that he did file. Since Williams failed to follow the proper procedures for filing

a grievance, he failed to properly exhaust his administrative remedies, and therefore his

claims are procedurally barred. We agree with the District Court that Williams failed to

provide a persuasive reason to excuse this procedural bar. Finally, Williams’ failure to

exhaust also renders futile an allowance to file a second amended complaint.

       Williams’ objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report do not change these funda-

mental facts. The same is true for the arguments presented by Williams on appeal. His

case is clearly one related to the conditions of his confinement, and his attempt to brand it

otherwise does not negate this fact.

                                             5
   In sum, we agree with the determinations and decisions of the Magistrate Judge and

District Court. Since Williams has not presented a substantial question, we will summarily

affirm the judgment of the District Court.

                                             6