Troy Jackson v. Commonwealth of PA

DLD-375 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 16-2368
___________
TROY JOHN DANIELS JACKSON,
Appellant
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA;
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; SCI CAMP HILL;
LAURAL HARRY; KATHLEEN ZWIERZYNN;
JAMES MIENTEL; TIMOTHY HENRY;
LEVELL JENKINS; PAUL LEGGORE;
SCOTT MOORE; JT MOHN; T. LEWIS;
UNIT MANAGER KLOCK; BELTON;
GREEN; GILBERT; C.O. RIVERA;
C.O. BENNER; JOHN HORNER
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 3-15-cv-00049)
District Judge: Honorable Robert D. Mariani
____________________________________
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
August 11, 2016
Before: CHAGARES, GREENAWAY, JR. and GARTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: September 1, 2016)
_________
OPINION *
_________
PER CURIAM
Troy John Daniels Jackson appeals the District Court’s grant of summary
judgment. Because we conclude that this appeal presents no substantial question, we will
summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.
I.
Jackson, a prisoner formerly housed at SCI-Camp Hill and acting pro se, 1 filed this
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against fourteen employees of SCI-Camp Hill. 2 Jackson
alleged that, while housed at SCI-Camp Hill, they violated his rights against cruel and
unusual punishment and provided him with inadequate medical care. Jackson’s claims
stem from an incident in which he allegedly misused the water in his cell to flood the tier.
Following this allegation, Jackson alleged that he was placed on a water restriction after
being issued misconducts, denied food and water, and denied help when he passed out in
his cell. Jackson further alleged that he was denied “some type of medication” that was
purportedly recommended by an outside doctor.
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
1
Jackson is currently confined at SCI-Frackville. The relevant events occurred at SCI-
Camp Hill.
2
Claims against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Department of Corrections, and
SCI-Camp Hill were dismissed as legally frivolous early in this action.
2
The defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that Jackson had
not exhausted his administrative remedies with the prison system before filing the
Complaint. The District Court agreed and granted the motion. Jackson now appeals.
II.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of
orders granting motions for summary judgment is plenary. See McGreevy v. Stroup, 413
F.3d 359, 363 (3d Cir. 2005). We will summarily affirm the District Court’s order
granting summary judgment because Jackson’s appeal presents no substantial question.
3d Cir. LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.
The District Court properly granted summary judgment to all of the Appellees on
the ground that Jackson failed to exhaust his administrative remedies relative to his
claims. 3 The Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), requires that, before
bringing claims with respect to prison conditions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or any other
federal law, prisoners must first exhaust the administrative remedies that are available.
Put simply, to later sue a prison official, an inmate must first bring a grievance against
that official on the subject of the putative lawsuit. See Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218,
234 (3d Cir. 2004). Moreover, an inmate must substantially comply with all established
procedural requirements of the grievance review process in order to fully exhaust an
3
Defendants Green and Gilbert contended that they had never been timely served. They
were named in the Complaint but not served for over a year. The District Court
dismissed the action against them pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). To
the extent this aspect of the District Court’s decision is appealed, it will be affirmed.
3
issue. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 83-84 (2006). In Pennsylvania, those procedural
requirements involve a mandatory three-step grievance appeals process. See Booth v.
Churner, 206 F.3d 289, 292 n.2 (3d Cir. 2000).
The District Court correctly found that Jackson did not exhaust his administrative
remedies. Here, the undisputed record reflects that Jackson filed twelve grievances while
at SCI-Camp Hill. As the District Court correctly summarized, the grievances relate to
problems with staff, Jackson’s inmate account, property, and charges of misconducts.
Critically, Jackson did not appeal any of the initial review responses or grievance
rejections to the Facility Manager or Secretary’s Office of Inmate Grievances and
Appeals for final review. 4 Jackson is thus procedurally barred from raising the subjects
of those grievances by means of this federal lawsuit. Moreover, Jackson is prohibited
from raising new, related issues that were not subjected to the three-step grievance
process. Summary judgment was therefore properly granted in favor of the fourteen
individual SCI-Camp Hill appellees.
III.
For these reasons, we conclude that this appeal presents no substantial question.
Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order granting the defendants
summary judgment on Jackson’s complaint. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6. Given
our disposition of this appeal, we deny Jackson’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel.
4
Jackson failed to oppose the Motion for Summary Judgment on the ground that he did
not exhaust administrative remedies.
4