Court Opinion

ID: 9949498
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-11 20:00:31.329332+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:49.157924
License: Public Domain

BLD-076                                                        NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                      No. 23-2835
                                      ___________

                                  KAREEM BLOUNT,
                                            Appellant

                                             v.

           B. MASON, Superintendent SCI-Mahanoy; HEENAN, Unit Manager;
                   L. WHITE; STETLER, Deputy Superintendent;
                  ZACHARY MOSLAK, Chief Hearing Examiner
                    ____________________________________

                     On Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
                          (D.C. Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-00056)
                     District Judge: Honorable Malachy E. Mannion
                      ____________________________________

       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
                                  February 22, 2024

                 Before: BIBAS, MATEY, and CHUNG, Circuit Judges

                             (Opinion filed: March 11, 2024)
                                       _________

                                        OPINION*
                                        _________

       *
        This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does
not constitute binding precedent.
PER CURIAM

       Pro se appellant Kareem Blount appeals from the District Court’s grant of summary

judgment in favor of the Defendants in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Because we conclude that no substantial question is presented on appeal, we will

summarily affirm. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.

                                            I.

       We write primarily for the parties, so we will recite only the facts necessary for our

discussion. On April 28, 2021, Blount, who was then confined at the Mahanoy State

Correctional Institution (“SCI-Mahanoy”), received a misconduct report for assault and, as

a result, was placed in the Restricted Housing Unit (“RHU”). Following a unanimous staff

vote and approval, on September 22, 2021, he was then placed on the Restricted Release

List (“RRL”) due to his “extensive history of assaultive behavior towards inmates and staff

and presentation of an overall threat to the orderly operation of any facility.” Defendants’

Statement of Facts and Exhibits in Support of Summary Judgment (“Def. SOF”), Dkt No.

27-2, at 2. Placement on the RRL meant that he was “restricted from release from

[Administrative Custody       (“AC”)] status without the prior           approval of     the

Secretary/designee.” Def. SOF, Dkt No. 27-3, at 23.

       In January 2022, Blount, who is now confined at the Greene State Correctional

Institution in Waynesburg, Pennsylvania, initiated this civil rights suit based on the events

that took place at SCI-Mahanoy. He later filed an Amended Complaint which included

Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment claims based on his prolonged isolation

                                             2
in the RHU and placement on the RRL, against several SCI-Mahanoy employees.

Specifically, Blount alleged that placing him in the RHU had a “punitive effect,” that

prolonged isolation may result in the development of serious mental illness and psychiatric

decompensation, and that the “combination of dehumanizing conditions may lead to an

extreme form of isolation manifestly at odds with the 8th Amendment.” Amended

Complaint (“Am. Compl.”), Dkt No. 14, at 2–3.

       Defendants moved for summary judgment and Blount responded in opposition. On

September 26, 2023, the District Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment,

denied Blount’s request to file a second amended complaint, and entered judgment in favor

of all Defendants. Blount appeals.

                                           II.

       We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review

over the District Court’s grant of summary judgment. Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist.,

767 F.3d 247, 265 (3d Cir. 2014). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows

that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A genuine dispute of material fact

exists if the evidence is sufficient for a reasonable factfinder to return a verdict for the

nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). We review

the denial of Blount’s motion to file a second amended complaint for abuse of discretion.

Great W. Mining & Min. Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159, 163 (3d Cir. 2010).

                                             3
We may summarily affirm if the appeal presents no substantial question. See 3d Cir.

L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.

                                            III.

       We agree with the District Court’s disposition of Blount’s claims. We begin by

addressing Blount’s Eighth Amendment claim. “To determine whether prison officials

have violated the Eighth Amendment, we apply a two-prong test: (1) the deprivation must

be objectively, sufficiently serious; a prison official’s act or omission must result in the

denial of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities; and (2) the prison official must

have been deliberate[ly] indifferen[t] to inmate health or safety.” Porter v. Pa. Dep’t of

Corr., 974 F.3d 431, 441 (3d Cir. 2020) (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks

and citation omitted).

       While Blount’s allegations fail to precisely describe his Eighth Amendment claim,

it appears to arise out of his placement in the RHU and on the RRL. However, such

confinement does not, standing alone, constitute cruel and unusual punishment. See Young

v. Quinlan, 960 F.2d 351, 364 (3d Cir. 1992) (explaining that “[s]egregated detention is

not cruel and unusual punishment per se, as long as the conditions of confinement are not

foul, inhuman or totally without penological justification”), superseded by statute on other

grounds as stated in Nyhuis v. Reno, 204 F.3d 65, 71 n.7 (3d Cir. 2000); see also Griffin

v. Vaughn, 112 F.3d 703, 709 (3d Cir. 1997). Blount has not pointed to any evidence to

suggest that he was denied the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities. While

Blount included allegations in his Amended Complaint that prolonged confinement in

                                               4
restricted housing poses a risk of the denial of adequate medical care and a risk of

developing mental illness and psychiatric decompensation, he has not asserted, let alone

demonstrated, that he has suffered any of these injuries. See Am. Compl., Dkt No. 14, at

2–3. Notably, Blount has indicated that he has not been diagnosed with any mental illness.

Id. For these reasons, Blount has not satisfied the first prong of an Eighth Amendment

claim.

         Even if he had, we agree with the District Court that no genuine issue of material

fact exists regarding the subjective second prong. Blount failed to point to any record

evidence to contradict the Defendants’ evidence that his confinement was due to a pattern

of violent behavior, including four misconducts for assault, six misconducts for fighting,

and twelve separations which involved violent and/or assaulting behavior. Def. SOF, Dkt

No. 27, at 4 ¶ 12; see Porter, 974 F.3d at 446 (explaining that “[i]n evaluating the subjective

prong of the Eighth Amendment test, we may . . . consider whether officials had a

legitimate penological purpose behind their conduct,” such as whether defendants “offered

any evidence about the risk that [the plaintiff] specifically poses”) (internal quotation

marks and citation omitted); see also Williams v. Borough of W. Chester, Pa., 891 F.2d

458, 460 (3d Cir. 1989) (noting that a nonmoving party “cannot simply reassert factually

unsupported allegations” to overcome summary judgment).1

         1
       Although Blount asserted in his brief in opposition to summary judgment that
Defendants disregarded his pleas to protect him by allowing him to keep his single cell
status—apparently asserting a failure-to-protect claim—this claim is not set forth in his
Amended Complaint. Because a party may not amend its complaint through its brief,

                                              5
       Next, Blount claims that placement in the RHU and on the RRL violated his

Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. However, changes in prison conditions do

not trigger procedural due process rights unless they result in an atypical or significant

hardship. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). As the District Court noted, it

appears that Blount was housed in the RHU for a total of approximately eight months. This

confinement, by itself, is insufficient to create a liberty interest and therefore implicate due

process. See Smith v. Mensinger, 293 F.3d 641, 654 (3d Cir. 2002) (holding that seven

months in disciplinary confinement did not implicate a liberty interest); Griffin, 112 F.3d

at 706–07 (confinement in administrative custody for fifteen months not atypical or

significant deprivation sufficient for a liberty interest). Blount has failed to point to any

additional evidence to demonstrate that his confinement in the RHU imposed an atypical

and significant hardship on him. See Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484.

       To the extent that Blount’s due process claim is based on his placement on the RRL,

we agree with the District Court that such placement does not implicate a constitutionally

protected due process right.2

Pennsylvania ex rel. Zimmerman v. PepsiCo, Inc., 836 F.2d 173, 181 (3d Cir. 1988), these
assertions play no role in our analysis.
       2
         In his brief in opposition to summary judgment, Blount argued that his due process
rights were violated when he was denied the right to appeal his RRL status. We do not
consider this claim because parties may not amend their pleadings in a brief. PepsiCo, 836
F.2d at 181.

                                               6
      Finally, we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying

Blount the opportunity to file a second amended complaint.

      For these reasons, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.

                                           7