Charles Whitney v. M. Lamas ( 2023 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 19-2683
___________
CHARLES WHITNEY, Appellant
v.
M. LAMAS; MAJOR TOD ROBINSON; DEPUTY BOYLES; DEPUTY MILLER;
CPT. DYKE; LT. HOOVER; SGT. T. ROGERS; SGT. POWELL; LT. HARDY; C/O 1
PORTERS; C/O 1 OSBOURNE; J. HORTON; CPT. ETON; MAJOR SNEDEKER;
MAJOR MCNAHON; D.A. KUHN; C/O 1 NEARHOOD; C/O 1 M. ANTHONY; LT.
BAILEY; C/O 1 DRUCKIMILLER; FED RIEBSOME; MR. DOUGHERTY; C/O 1
CEPRISHA; C/O 1 TAYLOR; C/O 1 ANNSKI; CFSI JEDRZEJIK; C/O 1 SULLIVAN;
NURSE JANE DOE; C/O 1 JOHN DOE 1-5
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(M.D. Pa. Civil Action No. 3-14-cv-00357)
District Judge: Honorable James M. Munley
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
July 1, 2021
Before: MCKEE, SHWARTZ, and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: August 3, 2023)
___________
OPINION*
___________
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
PER CURIAM
Charles Whitney, proceeding pro se, appeals an order of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granting the defendants’ motion for
summary judgment in his civil rights action. We will dismiss the appeal for lack of
appellate jurisdiction.
Whitney, a Pennsylvania state prisoner, filed a lengthy complaint against more
than 30 defendants, most of whom worked at the Rockview State Correctional Institution.
Whitney claimed that prison staff conspired and retaliated against him for filing a lawsuit
and grievances. The alleged retaliation included, among other things, false misconduct
charges and a transfer to SCI-Benner Township, where Whitney was incarcerated when
he filed his complaint. Whitney also averred that he was confined in extremely cold
cells, assaulted, and denied medical treatment for his injuries. He claimed violations of
his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights and asserted state law claims,
including defamation, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The District Court partially granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the
complaint. The defendants successfully moved to dismiss Whitney’s claims against
several defendants whose liability was premised on the handling of his grievances or who
lacked personal involvement in the alleged violations. The District Court also dismissed,
among other claims, Whitney’s retaliation claims related to his lawsuit because that suit
was too remote in time to support his claims. The District Court denied the defendants’
motion to dismiss Whitney’s Eighth Amendment claim of intentional confinement in an
2
extremely cold cell, his retaliation claims related to his filing of grievances, and his claim
of a conspiracy to deny his civil rights.
The District Court required Whitney to submit an amended complaint “solely
regarding his surviving claims . . . .” 2/13/15 Memorandum at 21. It explained that the
amended complaint “should provide a brief factually specific description of each
surviving alleged unconstitutional act,” and it advised him of the requirements for stating
a viable civil rights claim. Id. The District Court stated in its order that Whitney’s
claims of a conspiracy to retaliate for filing grievances by falsifying misconduct charges
and engaging in other retaliatory acts, and his Eighth Amendment claims of excessive
force, denial of medical treatment, and confinement in an extremely cold cell, survived.
The District Court did not address Whitney’s state law claims, which the defendants had
noted in their filing but did not move to dismiss.
Whitney filed an amended complaint raising his constitutional and state law
claims as well as a federal statutory claim involving his right to practice his religion. The
District Court allowed the defendants to file bifurcated motions for summary judgment,
first addressing exhaustion of administrative remedies and then addressing the merits of
Whitney’s claims.
The District Court granted the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment
on many of Whitney’s claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, which is
required before a prisoner may pursue claims regarding prison conditions under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 or any other federal law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The claims included,
among others, those related to the alleged cold cell conditions, assault, and denial of
3
medical treatment. The District Court ruled that Whitney had properly exhausted his
administrative remedies as to several grievances involving damage to his property and
tampering and interference with his mail. Whitney’s claims related to these grievances,
as well as his claims related to two alleged false misconduct reports, were allowed to
proceed. Thereafter, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the
defendants on the merits of these claims. This appeal followed.
Our appellate jurisdiction “is conferred and limited by Congress’s grant of
authority.” Berckeley Inv. Grp., Ltd. v. Colkitt, 259 F.3d 135, 139 (3d Cir. 2001).
Appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, the applicable statute here, requires a
“final decision” by a district court. Id. at 139-40. “‘Ordinarily, an order which
terminates fewer than all claims, or claims against fewer than all parties, does not
constitute a ‘final’ order for purposes of appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.’” Id. at 140(quoting Carter v. City of Philadelphia, 181 F.3d 339, 343 (3d Cir. 1999)).
As noted above, the defendants did not move to dismiss Whitney’s state law
claims and the District Court did not address these claims in adjudicating the motion to
dismiss. Although the District Court did not identify the state law claims as surviving
claims in its order partially granting the motion to dismiss, its memorandum reflects that
it was specifying Whitney’s surviving civil rights claims.
The defendants also recognized in their motions for summary judgment that
Whitney had raised state law claims in his amended complaint, but they did not move for
summary judgment as to those claims. When the District Court granted the summary
judgment motions, it did not address the state law claims or direct the entry of a final
4
judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). In addition, there is no
indication that Whitney abandoned his state law claims. See Bethel v. McAllister Bros.,
81 F.3d 376, 382 (3d Cir. 1996) (stating a non-appealable order may become final where
the plaintiff voluntarily abandons his claims). Because the District Court has not issued a
final order resolving all of Whitney’s claims, appellate jurisdiction is lacking.
It is also not entirely clear whether the District Court decided all of Whitney’s
claims under § 1983 against all of the defendants. The District Court granted partial
summary judgment and then summary judgment in favor of some, but not all, of the
named defendants. While claims against the other named defendants may have been
implicitly encompassed in its decision granting partial summary judgment, the District
Court should clarify its decision when it addresses Whitney’s state law claims. To the
extent Whitney contends in his brief that the District Court has not decided all of his
federal claims, he should raise this contention when the case proceeds in the District
Court.
Accordingly, we will dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
5