NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________
No. 23-1562 ___________
JOHN W. WILLIAMS, Appellant
v.
JOHN WETZEL; BARRY SMITH; REBECCA REIFER; M. STRAW; R. WESTOVER; S. HNATKOVICH; PERSONS UNIDENTIFIED; TOM WOLF; GEORGE LITTLE, SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS; TIMOTHY A. HOLMES, CHIEF COUNSEL; DEBRA SUE RAND, ASSISTANT COUNSEL, PENNSYLVANIADEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; BARRY SMITH, SUPERINTENDENT; BRODIE URBAN, STAFF LAW LIBRARIAN; ROBERT PARKS, STAFF LAW LIBRARIAN; T. LITTLE, F- BLOCK UNIT MANAGER; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER STEWART; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER RIEG; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER ISENBURG; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER SMITH; F. NUNEZ, DISCIPLINARY HEARING EXAMINER; TERRI SECHRENGOST, HEALTHCARE SERVICE ADMINISTRATOR, SCI HOUTZDALE; THOMAS PLACEY, COMMON PLEAS JUDGE; EDWARD E. GUIDO, PRESIDENT JUDGE; RHONDA J. SMITH, COURT REPORTER; DENIS LEBO, CLERK OF THE COURT; MERLE L. EBERT, CLERK OF THE COURT; KIMBERLY A. METZGER, ASSISTANT DISSTRICT ATTORNEY,CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE; SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, (MIDDLE DISTRICT); B. CIVIELLO, F-BLOCK PSYCHOLOGY COUNSELOR; MICHELE A. ELINE, COURT REPORTER
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 3:20-cv-00061) District Judge: Honorable Stephanie L. Haines ____________________________________
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 on July 13, 2023 Before: HARDIMAN, RESTREPO, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: July 24, 2023)
_______________________________________________
OPINION* ___________
PER CURIAM
Pro se appellant John W. Williams, proceeding in forma pauperis, appeals from the District
Court’s judgment in favor of the Defendants in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Since Wil-
liams does not present a substantial question, we will summarily affirm.
I.
Williams alleges violations of his constitutional rights arising from prison policies re-
lated to prison law library access and the costs of printing and mailing legal documents. A
subset of the 28 named Defendants (herein the “Commonwealth Defendants”)1 filed a mo-
tion to dismiss for failure to state a claim that was converted into a motion for summary
judgment on the issue of exhaustion of available administrative remedies. A Magistrate
Judge issued a show cause order indicating that the amended complaint would be dismissed
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 1 These Defendants are: Tom Wolf, John Wetzel, George Little, Timothy Holmes, Debra Rand, Barry Smith, Rebecca Reifer, Melissa Straw, Susan Hnatkovich, Robert Westover, Brodie Urban, Robert Parks, T. Little, Brooke Civiello, CO Stewart, CO Rieg, CO Isen- burg, CO Smith, Freddy Nunez, and Terri Sechrengost. The Defendants not part of this group are: Thomas Placey, Edward Guido, Rhonda Smith, Michele Eline, Denis Lebo, Merle Ebert, Kimberly Metzger, and Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Middle District). 2 without prejudice as to the other Defendants due to Williams’ failure to provide the neces-
sary service documents, unless Williams could show good cause for the District Court to
refrain from taking such action. The Magistrate Judge gave Williams until January 9, 2023,
to respond to the show cause order. Williams filed a request to extend the time to re-
spond—which the Magistrate Judge granted, extending his deadline to January 25, 2023—
but failed to respond to the show cause order.
The Magistrate Judge issued a report recommending that the District Court grant
the Commonwealth Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Magistrate Judge
also recommended dismissing all claims against the other Defendants for failure to serve.
Williams filed his objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report. The District Court overruled
those objections and agreed with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. It granted the
Commonwealth Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims
against the other Defendants. The District Court also decided, in line with another of the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendations, that granting Williams leave to file a second
amended complaint would be futile, given his failure to properly exhaust his administrative
remedies. This appeal followed. Williams filed both his argument in support of appeal
and a motion for enlargement of page limitation for his argument in support of appeal.2
The matter is now ready for review.
II.
2 We grant the motion. 3 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review
under § 1915(e)(B)(ii) with respect to the grant of summary judgment. See Tri-M Grp.,
LLC v. Sharp, 638 F.3d 406, 415 (3d Cir. 2011); see also Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist.,
767 F.3d 247, 265 (3d Cir. 2014).
We must dismiss this appeal if we conclude that it is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(B)(i). We may summarily affirm the District Court’s order if we conclude that
Williams has not presented a substantial question or that subsequent precedent or a change
in circumstances warrants such action. See 3d Cir. LAR 27. 4 and IOP 10.6.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) states that a prisoner cannot bring an ac-
tion under § 1983 “until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(a). This mandatory 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). A prison’s grievance policy “define[s] the boundaries of proper exhaustion.”
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218 (2007). A failure to exhaust available administrative
remedies is an affirmative defense. Id., at 216. A failure to comply with this exhaustion
requirement results in the procedural default of the prisoner’s claim. Woodford v. Ngo,
548 U.S. 81, 92-93 (2006). “But once the defendant has established that the inmate failed
to resort to administrative remedies, the onus falls on the inmate to show that such remedies
were unavailable to him.” Rinaldi v. United States, 904 F.3d 257, 268 (3d Cir. 2018).
III.
4 As a threshold matter, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires dismissal with-
out prejudice of an action if a defendant is not served within 90 days of the complaint.
Since Williams failed to provide the necessary service documents, the District Court
properly dismissed the complaint as to the non-Commonwealth Defendants.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________
No. 23-1562 ___________
JOHN W. WILLIAMS, Appellant
v.
JOHN WETZEL; BARRY SMITH; REBECCA REIFER; M. STRAW; R. WESTOVER; S. HNATKOVICH; PERSONS UNIDENTIFIED; TOM WOLF; GEORGE LITTLE, SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS; TIMOTHY A. HOLMES, CHIEF COUNSEL; DEBRA SUE RAND, ASSISTANT COUNSEL, PENNSYLVANIADEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; BARRY SMITH, SUPERINTENDENT; BRODIE URBAN, STAFF LAW LIBRARIAN; ROBERT PARKS, STAFF LAW LIBRARIAN; T. LITTLE, F- BLOCK UNIT MANAGER; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER STEWART; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER RIEG; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER ISENBURG; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER SMITH; F. NUNEZ, DISCIPLINARY HEARING EXAMINER; TERRI SECHRENGOST, HEALTHCARE SERVICE ADMINISTRATOR, SCI HOUTZDALE; THOMAS PLACEY, COMMON PLEAS JUDGE; EDWARD E. GUIDO, PRESIDENT JUDGE; RHONDA J. SMITH, COURT REPORTER; DENIS LEBO, CLERK OF THE COURT; MERLE L. EBERT, CLERK OF THE COURT; KIMBERLY A. METZGER, ASSISTANT DISSTRICT ATTORNEY,CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE; SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, (MIDDLE DISTRICT); B. CIVIELLO, F-BLOCK PSYCHOLOGY COUNSELOR; MICHELE A. ELINE, COURT REPORTER
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 3:20-cv-00061) District Judge: Honorable Stephanie L. Haines ____________________________________
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 on July 13, 2023 Before: HARDIMAN, RESTREPO, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: July 24, 2023)
_______________________________________________
OPINION* ___________
PER CURIAM
Pro se appellant John W. Williams, proceeding in forma pauperis, appeals from the District
Court’s judgment in favor of the Defendants in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Since Wil-
liams does not present a substantial question, we will summarily affirm.
I.
Williams alleges violations of his constitutional rights arising from prison policies re-
lated to prison law library access and the costs of printing and mailing legal documents. A
subset of the 28 named Defendants (herein the “Commonwealth Defendants”)1 filed a mo-
tion to dismiss for failure to state a claim that was converted into a motion for summary
judgment on the issue of exhaustion of available administrative remedies. A Magistrate
Judge issued a show cause order indicating that the amended complaint would be dismissed
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 1 These Defendants are: Tom Wolf, John Wetzel, George Little, Timothy Holmes, Debra Rand, Barry Smith, Rebecca Reifer, Melissa Straw, Susan Hnatkovich, Robert Westover, Brodie Urban, Robert Parks, T. Little, Brooke Civiello, CO Stewart, CO Rieg, CO Isen- burg, CO Smith, Freddy Nunez, and Terri Sechrengost. The Defendants not part of this group are: Thomas Placey, Edward Guido, Rhonda Smith, Michele Eline, Denis Lebo, Merle Ebert, Kimberly Metzger, and Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Middle District). 2 without prejudice as to the other Defendants due to Williams’ failure to provide the neces-
sary service documents, unless Williams could show good cause for the District Court to
refrain from taking such action. The Magistrate Judge gave Williams until January 9, 2023,
to respond to the show cause order. Williams filed a request to extend the time to re-
spond—which the Magistrate Judge granted, extending his deadline to January 25, 2023—
but failed to respond to the show cause order.
The Magistrate Judge issued a report recommending that the District Court grant
the Commonwealth Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Magistrate Judge
also recommended dismissing all claims against the other Defendants for failure to serve.
Williams filed his objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report. The District Court overruled
those objections and agreed with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. It granted the
Commonwealth Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims
against the other Defendants. The District Court also decided, in line with another of the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendations, that granting Williams leave to file a second
amended complaint would be futile, given his failure to properly exhaust his administrative
remedies. This appeal followed. Williams filed both his argument in support of appeal
and a motion for enlargement of page limitation for his argument in support of appeal.2
The matter is now ready for review.
II.
2 We grant the motion. 3 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review
under § 1915(e)(B)(ii) with respect to the grant of summary judgment. See Tri-M Grp.,
LLC v. Sharp, 638 F.3d 406, 415 (3d Cir. 2011); see also Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist.,
767 F.3d 247, 265 (3d Cir. 2014).
We must dismiss this appeal if we conclude that it is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(B)(i). We may summarily affirm the District Court’s order if we conclude that
Williams has not presented a substantial question or that subsequent precedent or a change
in circumstances warrants such action. See 3d Cir. LAR 27. 4 and IOP 10.6.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) states that a prisoner cannot bring an ac-
tion under § 1983 “until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(a). This mandatory 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). A prison’s grievance policy “define[s] the boundaries of proper exhaustion.”
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218 (2007). A failure to exhaust available administrative
remedies is an affirmative defense. Id., at 216. A failure to comply with this exhaustion
requirement results in the procedural default of the prisoner’s claim. Woodford v. Ngo,
548 U.S. 81, 92-93 (2006). “But once the defendant has established that the inmate failed
to resort to administrative remedies, the onus falls on the inmate to show that such remedies
were unavailable to him.” Rinaldi v. United States, 904 F.3d 257, 268 (3d Cir. 2018).
III.
4 As a threshold matter, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires dismissal with-
out prejudice of an action if a defendant is not served within 90 days of the complaint.
Since Williams failed to provide the necessary service documents, the District Court
properly dismissed the complaint as to the non-Commonwealth Defendants.
Turning to the Commonwealth Defendants, the case revolves around Williams’ fail-
ure to exhaust his available administrative remedies. Exhaustion in this case requires fol-
lowing the policy of the State Correctional Institution (“SCI”) at Houtzdale, where Wil-
liams is incarcerated. The Magistrate Judge explained in detail how Williams fell short in
this matter, the District Court agreed with this explanation, and so do we.
Williams failed to follow the three-step process for advancing a grievance through
the prison’s administrative system, and several of his claims are not present in the two
grievances that he did file. Since Williams failed to follow the proper procedures for filing
a grievance, he failed to properly exhaust his administrative remedies, and therefore his
claims are procedurally barred. We agree with the District Court that Williams failed to
provide a persuasive reason to excuse this procedural bar. Finally, Williams’ failure to
exhaust also renders futile an allowance to file a second amended complaint.
Williams’ objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report do not change these funda-
mental facts. The same is true for the arguments presented by Williams on appeal. His
case is clearly one related to the conditions of his confinement, and his attempt to brand it
otherwise does not negate this fact.
5 In sum, we agree with the determinations and decisions of the Magistrate Judge and
District Court. Since Williams has not presented a substantial question, we will summarily
affirm the judgment of the District Court.