Nifas v. Beard

Citation: 374 F. App'x 241Docket: No. 09-4219

Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; March 25, 2010; Federal Appellate Court

Lead Opinion SummaryLead Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Rasheed Nifas, a prisoner at SCI-Fayette, appeals a summary judgment from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, which dismissed his civil rights complaint regarding his placement in administrative custody (AC) and on the restricted release list (RRL) in 2007 and 2008. Nifas, serving a life sentence without parole, had a history of misconduct, including harassment of female staff, leading to his transfer from SCI-Dallas to SCI-Fayette. He was placed in AC for three days in September 2006 following a complaint from staff member Debra Mahlmeister and subsequently filed a grievance against her. Over the next year, he was repeatedly placed in and out of the general population, AC, and disciplinary custody. In August 2007, after a hearing, he was again placed in AC due to concerns for safety. His RRL status was approved in April 2008.

In his June 2008 complaint, Nifas alleged retaliation for his 2006 grievance, claiming false misconduct charges and wrongful placements based on alleged harassment of female staff. He asserted violations of the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that many of Nifas’s claims were unexhausted and meritless. The Magistrate Judge agreed, ruling against Nifas on multiple claims, including access to courts, retaliation, equal protection, and Eighth Amendment issues. Nifas's motions were denied, leading to this appeal, where he contends he did exhaust his claims regarding access to courts, retaliation, equal protection, and procedural due process.

The Magistrate Judge concluded that Nifas's claims lack merit, even if they were exhausted. A delay of 120 days in his civil rights complaint does not constitute the actual injury necessary for a denial of access to the courts claim, as established in Lewis v. Casey. Nifas's history of misconduct justified his placement in Administrative Custody (AC) and on the Restricted Release List (RRL), which would have occurred irrespective of any retaliatory motive. His retaliatory discipline claim is unsupported due to 'some evidence' backing the disciplinary charges against him, as per Henderson v. Baird. Nifas's procedural due process claim fails because his confinement for 178 days in AC and 90 days on RRL does not represent an 'atypical and significant hardship' compared to normal prison life, and he received due process through hearings conducted by the Program Review Committee (PRC) regarding his AC and RRL status.

Nifas's equal protection claim is also without merit, as he did not prove that other inmates were similarly situated. The Eighth Amendment claim is deemed unexhausted, with no grievances indicating psychological harm from AC confinement. The 'Individual Treatment Plan' noted no significant risk to Nifas's mental health and thus does not support a claim of deliberate indifference. His religious exercise claims under RFRA/RLUIPA were dismissed for non-exhaustion, as he filed a grievance regarding his right to practice his faith only on the day he initiated the lawsuit, failing to comply with the exhaustion requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The dismissal of these claims is without prejudice.

The District Court's judgment is affirmed, modified to dismiss Nifas’s religious exercise and RFRA/RLUIPA claims without prejudice. The Restricted Release List (RRL) is a designation for inmates who require the Secretary's approval to be released from Administrative Control (AC) status, based on security concerns. Nifas was placed on the RRL after being disciplined for various infractions, including possession of a weapon and making inappropriate comments to female staff. He spent approximately eleven days in AC in June 2007 pending an investigation into his conduct, and he attempted suicide on the same day he was disciplined in July 2007. Nifas requested a transfer in August 2007. The appeal is under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and despite Nifas's argument against the Magistrate Judge's authority, both parties consented to the Magistrate's involvement in proceedings as per 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). Nifas has not claimed exhaustion of his Eighth Amendment, religious exercise, or RFRA/RLUIPA claims, and no opinion is offered on whether his continued confinement after June 16, 2008, constitutes a protected liberty interest.