Brian Paladino v. K. Newsome
885 F.3d 203
3rd Cir.2018Background
- Brian Paladino, a state prisoner, sued prison employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging (among other claims) three incidents of excessive force, various conditions-of-confinement deprivations, and inadequate medical care.
- The Prison’s grievance process uses paper Inmate Remedy System Forms; inmates must appeal within ten days and an appealed response means administrative exhaustion.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment asserting Paladino failed to exhaust administrative remedies and produced prison records of all forms for various time periods (May 2011–June 2012; Aug. 2010–May 2011).
- The District Court initially granted summary judgment on many claims for failure to exhaust, treating the prison records as complete because Paladino did not identify specific missing forms; it later granted additional summary judgment in March 2015 after a second records submission.
- Paladino repeatedly asserted (including in sworn deposition testimony) that he submitted multiple grievances about the October 2010 alleged assault and that grievances or appeals were lost or not processed by prison staff.
- The Third Circuit affirmed most exhaustion dismissals but vacated the grant as to the 2010 excessive-force claim, finding a genuine factual dispute (records v. Paladino’s sworn testimony) and that the district court erred by resolving that dispute without providing notice/opportunity to respond as contemplated by Small v. Camden Cnty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper for failure to exhaust generally | Paladino said records were incomplete; grievances/appeals were lost or not processed | Prison records are complete and show no grievance or appeal for many claims | Affirmed for most claims: conclusory assertions insufficient to create a genuine dispute where plaintiff identified no specific missing grievances |
| Sufficiency of Paladino’s testimony about missing grievances | Deposition: he submitted at least six forms about excessive force and protective custody; some appeals got no response | Testimony is self-serving and contradicted by comprehensive prison records | For most claims, plaintiff’s vague/unspecific assertions fail; but specific sworn testimony can create a genuine factual dispute |
| 2010 excessive-force claim: did Paladino exhaust? | He swore he filed multiple grievances about the October 2010 assault; record may be missing forms | Prison records contain other forms from period but no form for that assault; absence is dispositive | Vacated grant as to 2010 excessive-force claim: deposition testimony creates a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment |
| Procedure required when district court resolves exhaustion facts under Small | Paladino argues an evidentiary hearing / opportunity to respond was required | Defendants relied on Small to permit court to decide exhaustion on paper record | Court holds Small allows judges to resolve exhaustion facts but district courts must give notice and an opportunity to respond (not always a live hearing); remand to allow defendants to show recordkeeping reliability or for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Small v. Camden Cnty., 728 F.3d 265 (3d Cir. 2013) (judges may resolve factual disputes about exhaustion; discussed need for factfinding)
- Kirleis v. Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C., 560 F.3d 156 (3d Cir. 2009) (non-conclusory, self-serving testimony can create genuine factual disputes to defeat summary judgment)
- Lupyan v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., 761 F.3d 314 (3d Cir. 2014) (single, non-conclusory affidavit or testimony may suffice to defeat summary judgment)
- Marino v. Indus. Crating Co., 358 F.3d 241 (3d Cir. 2004) (district courts may not resolve credibility or weigh evidence on summary judgment)
- Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804 (7th Cir. 2006) (grievances sometimes can be deemed lost; exhaustion inquiry may require resolution of lost-grievance claims)