McKinney v. Guthrie

Opinions of the United
2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
2-3-2009
McKinney v. Guthrie
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-2348
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009
Recommended Citation
"McKinney v. Guthrie" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1942.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1942
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 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________
No. 07-2348
__________
DERRICK MCKINNEY,
Appellant
v.
C.O. GUTHRIE; C.O. ZIHMER;
C.O. BLOOR; C.O. STENDER;
C.O. WISE; UNIT MANAGER WILLIAM WARD
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 01-02088)
District Judge: Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
February 2, 2009
Before: BARRY, SMITH and GARTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: February 03, 2009)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Derrick McKinney appeals pro se from several District Court orders: a
1
January 10, 2005, order denying and deeming as withdrawn his request for discovery; a
March 20, 2007, order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants Zihmer, Wise,
Stender, and Bloor for McKinney’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and two
April 3, 2007, judgments, one entering summary judgment in favor of Defendant Ward,
and a second entering a judgment upon a jury verdict in favor of Defendant Guthrie. For
the reasons that follow, we will affirm in part, vacate in part and remand for further
proceedings.
I. Background
Because we write solely for the benefit of the parties, we will set forth briefly only
those facts necessary to our analysis. McKinney filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against SCI-Camp Hill prison employees Guthrie, Ward, Wise, Stender,
Zihmer, and Bloor, claiming violations of his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment
rights based on a series of alleged physical assaults that took place in December 1999.
According to McKinney, these assaults occurred in retaliation after McKinney filed a
grievance against Guthrie for entering his cell and disposing of his belongings, including
notes and legal materials.
The District Court disposed of the majority of McKinney’s claims on summary
judgment. Only one – McKinney’s Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Guthrie
– proceeded to a jury trial, at which McKinney was represented by counsel. The jury
returned a verdict against McKinney and McKinney pursued a timely appeal to this Court.
2
II. Analysis
A. Dismissal of Claims Against Zihmer, Wise, Stender, & Bloor For Failure to Exhaust
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides, in relevant part, that: “No
action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title,
or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional
facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e(a). This 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). However, the
PLRA requires exhaustion only of such administrative remedies “as are available,” 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(a), and an administrative remedy may be unavailable if a prisoner is
prevented by prison authorities from pursuing the prison grievance process. See Camp v.
Brennan, 219 F.3d 279, 280-81 (3d Cir. 2000). In addition, prison authorities may waive
the exhaustion requirement if the ultimate administrative authority fully examines the
inmate’s complaint on the merits, regardless of whether the complaint complied with the
prison grievance process. See id. at 281.
In this case, the issue of whether McKinney adequately pursued and exhausted his
administrative remedies before initiating his § 1983 action is not straightforward, and has
been raised repeatedly throughout this litigation. First, in an order entered on November
30, 2001, the District Court dismissed McKinney’s entire § 1983 complaint without
3
prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See Docket No. 9. McKinney
appealed, and on June 4, 2003, this Court vacated the District Court’s dismissal order and
remanded the matter for further proceedings. At that time, we noted that McKinney had
submitted a letter from the prison’s Chief Hearing Examiner, Robert Bitner, which
indicated the possibility that McKinney may have indeed exhausted his administrative
remedies.
As directed by this Court, McKinney re-served his complaint upon Defendants
along with the Bitner letter. Defendants moved to dismiss, again arguing that McKinney
failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Treating the Bitner letter as evidence outside
the pleadings, the District Court construed the Defendants’ motion as one for summary
judgment. In a memorandum opinion and order dated April 8, 2004, the District Court
found McKinney’s claims had not been exhausted because, although McKinney had filed
an initial administrative grievance, that grievance did not concern the December 1999
assaults underlying his § 1983 complaint.1 The District Court also rejected McKinney’s
argument that he was prevented from exhausting the claims because of the misconducts
issued against him, finding that McKinney should have, but did not, pursue administrative
remedies concerning those misconducts.
However, in that same memorandum, the District Court credited McKinney’s
1
Rather, that grievance complained of a different assault against McKinney by
Defendant Guthrie that allegedly occurred in February 2000.
4
argument that prison officials had thwarted his efforts to pursue administrative remedies
concerning the misconducts, finding that this allegation raised a triable issue concerning
whether administrative remedies were actually “available” to him. In addition, the
District Court found that, although McKinney did not raise his claims concerning the
assaults in his initial grievance, prison authorities may have allowed him to amend the
grievance on appeal to incorporate at least some of those claims. Therefore, according to
the District Court, there was a question of fact concerning whether prison authorities had
ultimately subjected McKinney’s claims to final administrative review, thereby waiving
the exhaustion requirement. These disputed issues precluded summary judgment on the
administrative exhaustion issue, and the District Court denied the Defendants’ motion on
that basis.
However, on March 20, 2007, after a pre-trial conference, the District Court issued
a sua sponte order reversing its prior denial of summary judgment. The District Court
stated, without further elaboration, that “[a]fter further review of the record and the past
briefs, it is this court’s ruling that administrative remedies have not been exhausted as to
Defendants Zihmer, Wise, Stender, and Bloor. Therefore, they are dismissed.”
The State contends the District Court reversed its prior decision on the exhaustion
issue because it accepted the argument, raised for the first time in the State’s pretrial
memorandum, that McKinney had procedurally defaulted his claims by failing to strictly
5
adhere to the prison’s grievance procedures.2 However, this is no more than conjecture.
The parties did not fully brief the procedural default issue 3 and the District Court does not
indicate that it found the State’s logic persuasive. Indeed, the District Court did not
provide its reasoning at all, and thus failed to conform with our direction in Vadino v. A.
Valey Engineers, 903 F.2d 253, 259 (3d Cir.1990), that “grants of summary judgment ...
[should be accompanied] with an explanation sufficient to permit the parties and this
court to understand the legal premise for the court’s order.” See also Caprio v. Bell
Atlantic Sickness and Accident Plan, 374 F.3d 217, 220 (3d Cir. 2004).
Although we may determine this matter on the merits without remanding, see
Vadino, 903 F.2d at 259-60, our review of the record leads us to conclude that, in the first
instance, it would be more appropriate for the District Court to provide the reasons
underlying its decision. See Gillis v. Hoechst Celanese Corp., 4 F.3d 1137, 1149 (3d Cir.
1993). We therefore will vacate the District Court’s order to the extent that it dismissed
the claims against Defendants Zihmer, Wise, Stender, and Bloor for McKinney’s failure
to exhaust administrative remedies, and will remand the issue to the District Court for
further proceedings.
2
Contrary to the State’s arguments, the decisions in Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81
(2006) and Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218 (3d Cir. 2004), do not dictate the outcome on
this issue. Neither case addresses the District Court’s previous grounds for denying
summary judgment – i.e., whether a remedy is actually “available” under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e(a), and whether prison authorities may waive the exhaustion requirement under
certain circumstances. See Camp, 219 F.3d at 280-81.
3
McKinney’s pre-trial memorandum did not address the procedural default argument.
6
B. Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendant Ward
Summary judgment is appropriate where the moving party shows “there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). To avoid summary judgment, McKinney could not
rest on allegations in the complaint, and was required to “go beyond the pleadings and by
[his] own affidavits, or by the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on
file, designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). We exercise plenary review over the District
Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant Ward. See Williams v.
Consovoy, 453 F.3d 173, 178 (3d Cir. 2006).
The District Court found that no genuine issue of material fact existed regarding
McKinney’s claims against Defendant Ward because the documentary evidence
McKinney presented in opposition to summary judgment – including various declarations
and affidavits – did not substantiate McKinney’s claim that Ward directed the other
Defendants to assault him.4 McKinney has not directed us to any such evidence, and our
review of the record reveals none. We therefore will affirm the District Court’s April 3,
2007, judgment to the extent that it granted summary judgment on this claim.
C. Jury Verdict in Favor of Defendant Guthrie
The sole issue to proceed to trial was McKinney’s claim against Guthrie under the
4
The District Court discussed its findings in its memorandum opinion and order of
December 8, 2006, but deferred entering judgment until April 3, 2007.
7
Eighth Amendment. At trial, McKinney was represented by counsel. He presented four
witnesses in addition to his own testimony, and had the opportunity to cross-examine the
three defense witnesses. After two days of proceedings, the jury returned a verdict in
Guthrie’s favor.
Neither McKinney’s opening brief nor his reply brief specifies any error in the trial
proceedings. We have reviewed the trial transcripts and find no basis for overturning the
jury’s verdict. We therefore will affirm the judgment in favor of Guthrie on McKinney’s
Eighth Amendment claim.
D. Denial of Discovery Request
Finally, McKinney claims that the District Court erred in denying his motion for
discovery. We note that “matters of docket control and conduct of discovery are
committed to the sound discretion of the trial court.” In re Fine Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d
810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982). McKinney argues that, because he is a pro se litigant, the
District Court should have excused him from following the local rule requiring
submission of a supporting brief within ten days of a motion. We disagree. See McNeil
v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (“[W]e have never suggested that procedural
rules in ordinary civil litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those
who proceed without counsel.”).
Indeed, we are doubtful of McKinney’s claim that he was unaware of the
supporting brief requirement. On May 6, 2004, the day that McKinney filed his motion
8
for discovery, he also filed a motion for production of documents which was
accompanied by the required brief in support. Moreover, once the Court issued its
January 10, 2005, order setting forth the briefing requirement, McKinney could no longer
claim ignorance of the rule. Yet McKinney did not renew the discovery request or
attempt to file any supporting brief. Thus, we find no abuse of discretion in the District
Court’s order deeming McKinney’s motion for discovery withdrawn due to his failure to
submit a supporting legal brief.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we will vacate the District Court’s order entered March
20, 2007, to the extent that it granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants Zihmer,
Wise, Stender, and Bloor for McKinney’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and
will remand this matter for further proceedings. We will affirm the District Court’s
orders and judgments entered April 3, 2007, in all other respects.
9