Young v. Beard , 227 F. App'x 138 ( 2007 )

Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-20-2007
Young v. Beard
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-3621
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Young v. Beard" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 1454.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/1454
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
ALD-149 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 06-3621
________________
RICHARD YOUNG,
Appellant,
v.
JEFFREY BEARD, ROBERT BITNER, PHILIP JOHNSON, FRANK COLE,
MALCOLM MCCOWN, PAM TEETER, CHARLES J. SIMPSON, CLARENCE W.
BLAKEY, WILLIAM BENNETT, RICHARD CULP, SHAWN HOOD, BILL YATES,
JOHN YONLISKY, SHAWN SWARTZ, JOHN KRANAK, TONYA EDWARDS,
MICHAEL FERSON, M. JAMES MATTHEWS, ED KERN, KOOLIE, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF PENNSYLVANIA
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 03-cv-00551)
District Judge: Honorable Joy Flowers Conti
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
March 1, 2007
Before: SLOVITER, CHAGARES AND NYGAARD, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed March 20, 2007)
_______________________
OPINION
_________________
PER CURIAM
Richard Young, an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Labelle,
Pennsylvania, appeals various orders issued by the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania pertaining to his civil rights complaint. We conclude
the appeal is without merit and we will therefore dismiss it under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B).
In 2003, Young filed a complaint asserting numerous constitutional claims against
some twenty-one individual defendants, including nineteen Commonwealth employees
and two prison psychiatrists not employed by the Commonwealth. These claims arose
from a series of disciplinary actions that took place while Young was incarcerated at the
now-closed State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh. From 2002 to 2003, prison
officials filed nine misconduct reports against Young alleging various violations of the
prison disciplinary code. Young was found guilty of all but one of the charges, and was
sentenced to an aggregate of 930 days in disciplinary confinement. Young alleges that
his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated numerous times during
the course of these proceedings. He requests monetary relief.
In 2005, the District Court granted a motion for partial summary judgment filed on
behalf of the nineteen Commonwealth defendants.1 In 2006, the District Court granted a
motion to dismiss filed on behalf of the two prison psychiatrists. This appeal followed.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because Young is proceeding in forma
1
The Commonwealth’s motion did not address Young’s mail confiscation claims,
which remained pending until Young voluntarily withdrew them prior to filing the instant
appeal.
2
pauperis, we will dismiss the appeal if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. See 28
U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
First, we address Young’s claim that prison officials issued false misconduct
reports for retaliatory purposes. To state a prima facie retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, a plaintiff must show that he engaged in constitutionally protected activity, that he
suffered adverse action at the hands of a state actor, and that the protected activity was a
substantial factor in causing the adverse action. See Carter v. McGrady, 292 F.3d 152,
158 (3d Cir. 2002). The retaliation claim fails if the defendants demonstrate “that they
would have made the same decision absent the protected conduct for reasons reasonably
related to a legitimate penological interest.” Rauser v. Horn, 241 F.3d 330, 334 (3d Cir.
2001).
Although Young’s complaint does not clearly state the basis for his retaliation
claim, he suggests in his later filings that false reports were issued because he engaged in
conduct protected by the First Amendment, namely filing administrative grievances and
appeals. We conclude, however, that the District Court properly granted summary
judgment on this claim because the record shows that each disciplinary charge had an
evidentiary basis, and Young has not cited to any evidence undermining the
Commonwealth’s claim that the challenged conduct was motivated by legitimate
concerns.
Next, Young argues that prison officials violated his Fourteenth Amendment due
process rights at various stages of the disciplinary proceedings. He claims that the
3
hearing examiner improperly denied his requests to present witnesses at the hearings, and
he also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the hearing examiner’s
findings of guilt. Young presumes he is entitled to the procedural protections set forth in
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-67 (1974), which held that a prisoner facing the
deprivation of a constitutionally cognizable liberty interest following an administrative
hearing has a due process right to certain procedural protections, including notice of the
charges twenty-four hours prior to the hearing, an opportunity to call witnesses and
present documentary evidence, and a statement of the grounds for disciplinary action.
However, an inmate’s procedural due process rights are not triggered unless the prison
“imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary
incidents of prison life.” Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523, 531 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995)). We have held that fifteen months in
administrative custody in a Commonwealth prison does not amount to a deprivation of a
cognizable liberty interest, Griffin v. Vaughn, 112 F.3d 703, 708 (3d Cir. 1997), and it
appears from the policy statement attached to the Commonwealth’s summary judgment
motion that the conditions in disciplinary custody are not substantially different from
those experienced by a prisoner in administrative custody. See also Mitchell, 318 F.3d at
532, remanded to 2005 WL 1060658 (E.D. Pa. May 5, 2005) (noting this similarity).
Despite having ample opportunity to do so, Young has failed to state facts or submit
evidence showing that he was subject to conditions in disciplinary confinement that meet
the Sandin standard. We therefore agree with the conclusion of the Magistrate Judge, as
4
stated in her Report and Recommendation of December 6, 2004, that Young has not
shown a deprivation of a cognizable liberty interest.
Young next asserts Eighth Amendment claims challenging the conditions of his
confinement. He argues his Eighth Amendment rights were violated because he was
subject to inhumane conditions while confined for several days in an unclean holding cell.
This claim fails because Young has not alleged that prison officials acted with deliberate
indifference in subjecting him to the challenged conditions. See Young v. Quinlan, 960
F.2d 351, 359-61 (3d Cir. 1992). We also reject Young’s claim that placement in
disciplinary confinement itself amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. See Griffin,
112 F.3d at 708.
The District Court also properly granted the prison psychiatrists’ motions to
dismiss Young’s Eighth Amendment claims. Young argues that his Eighth Amendment
rights were violated by the psychiatrists’ denials of his repeated requests for a transfer
from disciplinary confinement. However, “only unnecessary and wanton infliction of
pain or deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of prisoners are sufficiently
egregious to rise to the level of a constitutional violation.” White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d
103, 108-09 (3d Cir. 1990) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); see also
Inmates of Allegheny County Jail v. Pierce, 612 F.2d 754, 763 (3d Cir. 1979) (holding
that failure to treat a prisoner’s serious mental or emotional illness may amount to an
Eighth Amendment violation). As explained by the Magistrate Judge in her Report and
Recommendation of June 8, 2006, this claim is meritless because Young has not alleged
5
facts indicating that he suffered from a serious mental illness when he received treatment
from the prison psychiatrists. Nor is it apparent from the complaint that the psychiatrists
were aware of such a condition and deliberately disregarded a substantial risk that serious
harm would result to Young if he were to remain in disciplinary confinement.
Finally, Young seeks appellate review of various interlocutory orders issued by the
District Court. He appeals the District Court’s denial of the motion for default judgment
he filed against the Commonwealth defendants. However, we fail to discern any grounds
for concluding that the District Court abused its discretion in denying this motion. See
Farzetta v. Turner & Newall, Ltd., 797 F.2d 151, 153 (3d Cir. 1986). Furthermore, we
reject Young’s appeal of the orders denying the motions for default judgment against the
prison psychiatrists, because these motions were filed before the defendants were
properly served. See Gold Kist, Inc. v. Laurinburg Oil Co., Inc., 756 F.2d 14, 18-19 (3d
Cir. 1985). We also conclude the District Court did not abuse its discretion by issuing
orders requiring Young to bear the costs of service. Finally, we conclude that Young’s
appeal of the District Court’s denial of his motion for preliminary injunction is without
merit.
For the foregoing reasons, we will dismiss the appeal under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). We deny Appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel.
6