Christian v. United States , 136 F. App'x 514 ( 2005 )

Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-22-2005
Christian v. USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-1552
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Christian v. USA" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 975.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/975
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 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
APS-268 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-1552
________________
WILLIAM CHRISTIAN,
Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 04-CV-01284)
District Judge: Honorable A. Richard Caputo
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action
Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
June 9, 2005
Before: SLOVITER, NYGAARD AND FUENTES, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed : June 22, 2005)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
William Christian appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania, which dismissed all claims against the Federal Bureau of
Prisons and granted the United States’ motion for summary judgment. Because this
appeal presents no substantial issues, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s
judgment.
As the parties are already familiar with the facts of this case, we limit our
discussion to those facts essential to our decision. On July 5, 2003, Christian attempted to
sit in a chair in the prison’s dining hall.1 Because the seat of the chair was not properly
bolted to its base, he fell to the floor and allegedly injured his back. After unsuccessfully
filing an administrative claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), Christian filed
a complaint in the District Court, seeking damages for negligence in failing to secure the
chair, and for allegedly negligent medical treatment.
Under the FTCA, the government’s duty of care towards federal prisoners is
governed by 18 U.S.C. § 4042. Jones v. United States, 91 F.3d 623, 624 (3d. Cir. 1996).
Courts have read this statute to mean that the government must exercise ordinary
diligence to keep prisoners safe and free from harm. Jones v. United States, 534 F.2d 53,
54 (5 th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 978. From a review of the record, it is clear that,
even given the facts as alleged by Christian, the Government did exercise ordinary
diligence.
1
Although Christian’s complaint referred to the accident occurring in the prison’s
“kitchen,” Defendants produced evidence below that the accident must have happened in
the dining hall, as the only prisoners allowed in the kitchen are those who are employed
there, and Christian was not so employed. Christian did not refute this correction.
2
First, the Government provided evidence of regular repair and maintenance on the
dining hall seats, including evidence that three days before the accident, the carpentry
shop spent half an hour repairing tables and replacing seats in the dining hall, and
tightening bolts on the bottoms of inmate chairs. We agree with the District Court that
Christian did not present “any evidence that an official or employee of the United States
had a hand in not bolting or in unbolting the chair or had actual knowledge of the chair
being unbolted.” Report and Recommendation at 16. Thus, the United States did not
breach any duty of care in providing safe seating.
Further, Christian was provided with regular medical care and diagnostic tests.2
We agree with the District Court that Christian did not present any “evidence that prison
medical employees deviated from acceptable medical standards in providing care for his
injuries.” Report and Recommendation at 18.
Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.
2
X-rays did not show any injury from the accident, but did show degenerative
changes. 3