Filed: Oct. 14, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 10-14-2008 Robert Holbrook v. Jeffrey Beard Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-2080 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008 Recommended Citation "Robert Holbrook v. Jeffrey Beard" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 368. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/368 This decision is brought to you for free and open acce
Summary: Opinions of the United 2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 10-14-2008 Robert Holbrook v. Jeffrey Beard Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-2080 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008 Recommended Citation "Robert Holbrook v. Jeffrey Beard" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 368. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/368 This decision is brought to you for free and open acces..
More
Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
10-14-2008
Robert Holbrook v. Jeffrey Beard
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 08-2080
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Robert Holbrook v. Jeffrey Beard" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 368.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/368
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.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-2080
___________
ROBERT HOLBROOK,
Appellant
v.
SCOTT WALTERS, UNIT MANAGER, SCI-HUNTINGDON;
SUPERINTENDENT KENNETH KYLER; DPTY. SUPERINTENDENT
A.S. WILLIAMSON; LT. K. HOLLIBAUGH; R.M. LAWLER; A. LOVETT;
J. BEARD, SECRETARY PA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
D.C. Civil Action No. 03-cv-0033
(Honorable Thomas I. Vanaskie)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
October 10, 2008
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, HARDIMAN and COWEN, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: October 14, 2008)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
PER CURIAM.
Robert Holbrook, a Pennsylvania state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from
the District Court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. For the
following reasons, we will affirm.
I.
Holbrook alleges that, while imprisoned at SCI-Huntingdon, prison personnel
retaliated against him for filing certain grievances and for his religious affiliation by
placing him in administrative custody and ultimately transferring him to a different
prison. The District Court’s Memorandum of April 4, 2008, thoroughly sets forth the
background of this matter, and we summarize only those facts necessary to our decision.
Holbrook was transferred to SCI-Huntingdon from another prison in April 2000
for reasons that the parties dispute. What is not disputed is that Holbrook arrived at SCI-
Huntingdon with a lengthy institutional file documenting his involvement in stabbings,
assaults and other misconduct, and his suspected affiliation with the Fruit of Islam,1 while
incarcerated in at least six different prisons. Defendant Walters, the Unit Manager of
Holbrook’s cell block, reviewed his file on intake and made a notation indicating security
concerns and suggesting that he be “monitored closely.” In January and April 2001,
respectively, Holbrook received misconducts for writing a Fruit of Islam slogan on his
cell wall and the discovery of a “shank” in his cell.
After these incidents, Holbrook began filing the grievances for which he claims he
was retaliated against. In July 2001, Holbrook filed a grievance accusing a prison guard
of racial intimidation. In October 2001, Holbrook filed a grievance against a different
1
According to defendants, the Fruit of Islam is the paramilitary wing of the Nation of
Islam. Holbrook claims to be a member only of the Nation of Islam and not of the Fruit
of Islam, but that point is not relevant to our disposition.
2
prison guard who had confiscated certain items from his cell. (The guard, following the
attacks of September 11, had confiscated a map of Afghanistani terrorist camps, a picture
of a “militant,” and other materials. The guard’s supervisor returned the items to
Holbrook that same day after determining that they did not pose a threat to security.)
Then, in December 2001, Holbrook and six other prisoners sent an informal complaint to
the DOC Office of Professional Responsibility accusing still another prison guard of
racially-motivated mistreatment.
Holbrook alleges that defendants’ retaliatory conduct began after this incident, and
his allegations relate primarily to defendant Walters. According to Holbrook, Walters
learned of the informal complaint in January 2002, told Holbrook that he did not like
prisoners “going over his head,” and demanded that Holbrook withdraw the complaint or
that “he would see to it that plaintiff goes under for a long time.” In March 2002, Walters
asked another prisoner whether Holbrook had “put him up to” joining in the informal
complaint and told him that whoever was “behind” it would be “sitting in the hole for a
long time.” Holbrook later helped another prisoner file a formal grievance against the
same prison guard. Walters asked Holbrook whether he had done so and, when Holbrook
admitted that he had, Walters said that he was “fed up” with Holbrook’s grievances and
“was not going to tolerate them or plaintiff causing trouble on his block.”
Nothing further occurred until June 10, 2002, when Holbrook requested that
Walters grant him an override of his custody level that would allow him to work in the
3
prison’s electrical power plant. Walters thought the request odd because Holbrook
previously had refused to work. On June 20, Walters attended an operations meeting
where staff were briefed on “the recruitment of inmates in American prisons by radical
Islamic groups.” Walters then spoke with other prison staff regarding Holbrook’s
“sudden” interest in the power plant. A corrections officer advised him that Holbrook
was rumored to have risen to the rank of Major in the Fruit of Islam and that Holbrook
had been telling other prisoners that he was “in the American Taliban.”
These circumstances, together with Holbrook’s history, prompted Walters to raise
concerns with security personnel by memorandum dated June 21, 2002. The
memorandum suggested that Holbrook be monitored more closely or placed in
administrative custody and stated that “this information is being provided to you for any
action you deem appropriate.” On June 26, a Major Weaverling (not a defendant) asked
Walters to arrange for Holbrook’s placement in administrative custody, which Walters did
that same day. On July 3, 2002, a Program Review Committee composed of defendants
Hollibaugh, Lawler and Williamson reviewed Holbrook’s custody status. After
reviewing Walter’s memorandum and receiving additional information, the committee
deemed Holbrook a threat to the security of the institution and approved his retention in
administrative custody pending a transfer to a long term segregation unit. Holbrook
administratively challenged this determination to no avail. Holbrook also filed a
grievance against Walters, alleging that Walters had falsified information in his file in
4
retaliation for Holbrook’s past grievances and complaints. Major Weaverling
investigated the grievance and concluded that it lacked merit. Walters, acting on the
committee’s recommendation, thereafter filed two petitions for Holbrook’s transfer to
another prison. Those petitions were denied, but a different prison employee filed a third
petition on the basis of which Holbrook ultimately was transferred to SCI-Greene.
In January 2003, Holbrook filed his complaint, alleging that defendants had placed
him in administrative custody in retaliation for his filing of grievances and complaints and
had denied him due process. The District Court dismissed Holbrook’s due process claim
but allowed his retaliation claim to proceed. The District Court also allowed Holbrook to
amend his complaint to assert that defendants had retaliated against him because of his
religious affiliation. Following discovery, defendants moved for summary judgment on
the retaliation claims, and the District Court granted their motion by order entered April
4, 2007.2 The District Court also denied Holbrook’s timely motion for reconsideration of
that ruling by order entered March 31, 2008. Holbrook appeals.3
2
In his January 2003 complaint, the only retaliatory action Holbrook alleged was his
placement in administrative custody at SCI-Huntingdon. In May 2003, he was transferred
to SCI-Greene. Thereafter, he argued in various briefs that the prison transfer was
retaliatory as well, but he never sought to amend his complaint to assert it as a discrete
claim. Nevertheless, the District Court addressed the prison transfer.
3
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. In his brief, Holbrook challenges
only the District Court’s entry of summary judgment and its application of law on
reconsideration. Our review of those rulings is plenary. See In re Tower Air, Inc., 416
F.3d 229, 235 n.7 (3d Cir. 2005); Carter v. McGrady,
292 F.3d 152, 157 (3d Cir. 2002).
“Summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine issue of material fact and if, viewing
(continued...)
5
II.
“A prisoner alleging that prison officials have retaliated against him for exercising
his constitutional rights must prove that: (1) the conduct in which he engaged was
constitutionally protected; (2) he suffered ‘adverse action’ at the hands of prison officials;
and (3) his constitutionally protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor in the
decision to discipline him.” Carter, 292 F.3d at 157-58. If the prisoner makes that
showing, “the burden shifts to the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence
that it ‘would have made the same decision absent the protected conduct for reasons
reasonably related to penological interest.’”
Id. at 158 (citation omitted). We have
explained that this element must be evaluated in light of the “great deference” generally
afforded to prison officials’ decisions regarding prison administration. See
id.
In this case, the District Court held that Holbrook had presented sufficient
evidence to show that his conduct was constitutionally protected and that the
administrative custody imposed on him was sufficiently adverse. It held, however, that
defendants prevailed as a matter of law on the issue of causation. Our careful review of
the record leads us to agree.
3
(...continued)
the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the moving party is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law.” Carter, 292 F.3d at 157 n.2. A party opposing summary
judgment may not rely on mere allegations, but must instead come forward with specific
facts “‘showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Lauren v. DeFlaminis,
480 F.3d
259, 266 (3d Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
6
The District Court’s analysis proceeded in two steps. First, the District Court held
that Holbrook had presented no evidence that any of the defendants save Walters had any
retaliatory motive. Our review of the record confirms that Holbrook, despite his
conclusory allegation that all other defendants “cooperated” with Walters, presented no
evidence that any of them did anything other than perform their ordinary administrative
functions in reliance on Walters’s memorandum.
Second, the District Court held that Holbrook had presented sufficient evidence to
raise an inference that Walters’s conduct was motivated by retaliation for filing
grievances and complaints (though not for his religious affiliation).4 It concluded,
however, that Walters had shown that he would have taken the same action, regardless of
Holbrook’s activities, for reasons related to penological interests. We agree with this
ruling as well.
Walters submitted a declaration explaining in detail the reasons for drafting his
June 21 memorandum, including Holbrook’s extensive history of misconduct and new-
found interest in working at the power plant after he was reported to have told other
prisoners that he was “with the American Taliban.” Holbrook never came forward with
any evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact with regard to these circumstances.
4
Holbrook does not challenge this second conclusion on appeal, but we note our
agreement with the District Court. The undisputed facts of record show that defendants
were aware of Holbrook’s religious affiliation in April 2000 but took no steps to place
him in administrative custody until June 2002. Moreover, Walter’s alleged threats related
solely to Holbrook’s filing of grievances, not his religious affiliation.
7
Moreover, Walters’s memorandum itself does not recommend Holbrook’s placement in
administrative custody per se, but instead lists such placement as one among other
security options. Under the circumstances, it is clear that Walters would have taken the
action he did regardless of Holbrook’s protected conduct and that his action was well
within the broad discretion afforded to prison personnel in matters of prison
administration. See Carter, 292 F.3d at 158-59 (affirming summary judgment in favor of
prison official who allegedly had threatened to place inmate in restricted custody for
conduct assumed to be protected where quantum of evidence showed that prisoner faced
discipline notwithstanding that protected activity).5
Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. Holbrook’s
motion to supplement the District Court record is denied.6
5
Holbrook argues that Walter’s retaliatory intent can be inferred from the “conflicting
rationales” given in the three petitions for his transfer to another prison. Walters,
however, prepared only the first two petitions, and they are perfectly consistent (the
statements in the second petition regarding asserted terrorist materials that were not
included in the first petition were included in Walters’s June 21 memorandum, which was
attached to the first petition). The third petition, which notes as an additional ground for
transfer the need to separate Holbrook and Walters and which resulted in Holbrook’s
transfer to SCI-Greene, was prepared by another individual who has not been named as a
defendant.
6
Holbrook seeks to supplement the record with a memorandum showing that he
continues to suffer adverse consequences as a result of Walters’s June 21 memorandum
and asks that we order the memorandum expunged from his institutional file. That
request is beyond the scope of this appeal.
8
