Goode v. Nash

Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
7-20-2007
Goode v. Nash
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-1374
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Goode v. Nash" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 712.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/712
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.
DLD-292 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
No. 07-1374
________________
RONALD GOODE,
Appellant
v.
JOHN NASH, Warden
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 04-CV-01781)
District Judge: Honorable Christopher C. Conner
____________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
June 28, 2007
Before: BARRY, AMBRO and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: July 20, 2007)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Ronald Goode appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania, granting defendant John Nash’s motion for summary
judgment and entering judgment against Goode and in favor of Nash in Goode’s civil
rights case. Because we conclude that this appeal lacks arguable merit, we will dismiss it
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Goode, an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution at Schuykill, filed a
complaint in the District Court alleging that his constitutional rights were violated due to
his exposure to second-hand smoke at the prison. Defendant Nash filed a motion for
summary judgment arguing that he was entitled to qualified immunity and that Goode’s
complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Magistrate
Judge assigned to the case recommended that the motion be granted, but the District
Court declined to adopt the recommendation, noting that the record showed that Goode
had a history of infirmary visits for breathing and sinus problems that potentially could
have been caused by second-hand smoke, and that Goode had complained to Nash about
his exposure. The Court noted that “several of these elements are supported only by
minimal evidence, and sometimes by only the allegations of Goode’s brief in opposition
and those affidavits submitted into evidence,” but the Court determined that Goode was
entitled to develop his allegations through limited discovery. District Court order entered
9/26/05, doc. #27.
The Magistrate Judge thereafter granted the parties 90 days following the filing of
an answer to complete discovery and file dispositive motions. Nash filed an answer on
February 2, 2006, and on May 17, 2006, filed a motion for summary judgment, followed
by a supporting brief and statement of facts on June 1, 2006. Goode filed a brief in
opposition, an “appendix attachment,” and various other filings in response, but did not
2
submit any further support for his allegations. Aside from personal allegations, the only
evidence Goode submitted was the following: (1) two inmate affidavits indicating that
Goode’s possession and purchases of tobacco were on their behalf and not for Goode’s
personal use; (2) a case summary of Atkinson v. Taylor, 316 F.3d 257 (3d Cir. 2003)1;
and (3) an excerpt from an appendix in the FCI-Schuykill handbook setting forth certain
prisoner rights and responsibilities.2
As the Magistrate Judge noted, we have recently emphasized that although the
party opposing summary judgment is entitled to “the benefit of all factual inferences in
the court’s consideration of a motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must
point to some evidence in the record that creates a genuine issue of material fact,” and
“cannot rest solely on assertions made in the pleadings, legal memoranda or oral
argument.” Berckeley Inv. Group, Ltd. V. Colkitt, 455 F.3d 195, 201 (3d Cir. 2006)
(internal citations omitted). We agree with the District Court that Goode did not meet his
burden of pointing to some evidence in the record that creates a genuine issue of material
fact regarding his allegations that defendant violated his Eighth Amendment rights by
1
In Atkinson, we held that prison officials were not entitled to qualified immunity
from an inmate’s claim that they violated his Eighth Amendment rights by exposing him
to second-hand tobacco smoke.
2
Goode argued in his opposition to the second motion for summary judgment that
he was “NEVER ADVISED as to any [discovery] date deadline of May 3, 2006.” We
agree with the Magistrate Judge that Goode had ample notification that the discovery
period had commenced and that it would be necessary for him to engage in some
discovery in order to substantiate his claims.
3
exposing him to second-hand smoke.
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B).
4