Miles Lee v. Strada

Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
10-30-2008
Miles Lee v. Strada
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 08-2274
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Miles Lee v. Strada" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 293.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/293
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 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
DLD-10 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-2274
___________
MILES ORLANDO LEE,
Appellant
v.
Mr. STRADA; Mr. SHILO; Mr. ADAMI; Mr. RICE; Mr. ROGERS;
Mr. LOFTON; Mr. CHAMBERS; Mr. HOEKMAN
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 07-cv-0437)
District Judge: Honorable John E. Jones III
____________________________________
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
October 17, 2008
Before: BARRY, AMBRO and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: October 30, 2008)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Miles Orlando Lee, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from the District
Court’s order granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. For the reasons
that follow, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order.
This case arises from Lee’s confinement at the United States Penitentiary at
Lewisburg (“USP-Lewisburg”) in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania.1 In March 2007, Lee
commenced an action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S.
388 (1971), in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
against several USP-Lewisburg employees (the “Federal Defendants”). In the complaint,
Lee alleged, among other things, that he had been harassed for refusing to take part in a
Food Services conspiracy, and that prison officials had physically and verbally assaulted
him in retaliation for his failing to participate in the scheme.
The Federal Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, or, in the alternative, motion for
summary judgment on the ground that Lee had not exhausted his administrative remedies
prior to commencing the present action. On November 27, 2007, Magistrate Judge
Andrew Smyser recommended that the District Court grant the Federal Defendants’
motion. By order entered February 20, 2008, the District Court adopted the Magistrate
Judge’s report and recommendation over Lee’s objections and granted summary judgment
in favor of the Federal Defendants. The present appeal followed.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise
plenary review over the District Court’s order granting summary judgment to the
1
Lee is no longer incarcerated at USP-Lewisburg; he is presently confined at the
United States Penitentiary in Pollock, Louisiana.
2
appellees. See Whitfield v. Radian Guar., Inc., 501 F.3d 262, 265 (3d Cir. 2007). After a
careful review of the record, we conclude that the appeal presents “no substantial
question” under Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 and will, therefore, summarily
affirm the District Court’s order.
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (the “PLRA”), a prisoner is
required to pursue all avenues of relief available within the prison’s grievance system
before bringing a federal civil rights action concerning prison conditions. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e(a); Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). This “exhaustion 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).
The Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) has established an administrative remedy
procedure through which an inmate can seek formal review of any complaint regarding
any aspect of his imprisonment. 28 C.F.R. § 542.10. In order to exhaust an appeal under
the administrative remedy process, an inmate must first raise his complaint with his unit
team through an informal resolution attempt. Id. at § 542.13. If the concern is not
informally resolved, the inmate may file an appeal to the warden of the institution where
he is confined. Id. at § 542.14. The inmate must then further appeal an adverse decision
to the Regional Director and then to the Central Office of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
Id. at § 542.15. No administrative grievance is considered to have been fully and finally
3
exhausted until denied by the Bureau of Prisons's Central Office. Id. at § 542.15(a).
Upon review of the record, we agree with the District Court that summary
judgment was appropriate because the record revealed that Lee did not properly exhaust
his administrative remedies. In support of its summary judgment motion, the Federal
Defendants submitted a declaration on behalf of L. Cunningham, the Supervisory
Attorney at USP-Lewisburg. In her declaration, Cunningham stated that Lee had filed
five requests for administrative relief to the Warden at USP-Lewisburg. The Warden
granted one of the requests but denied the rest. According to Cunningham, Lee did not
appeal any of the decisions denying relief to the second or third stages of administrative
review. Lee failed to come forward with any evidence to rebut the Federal Defendants’
assertions. Therefore, the District Court properly granted summary judgment in favor of
the Federal Defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56(e).2
For the foregoing reasons, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order
dismissing the complaint. See Third Cir. LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.
2
In its order awarding summary judgment to the Federal Defendants, the District Court
also denied as moot Lee’s outstanding motion for discovery. We see no error in the
District Court’s disposition of the discovery motion.
4