423 F. App'x 169
3rd Cir.2011Background
- Wilson, an inmate at SCI-Cresson, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) violated his Eighth Amendment rights.
- He could not identify the specific smoking inmates due to limited ability to view others from his cell and prior conduct by officers when smoking was reported.
- Wilson has thyroid issues and received radiation treatment; doctors advised avoiding ETS, and he sought transfer to a non-smoking facility (SCI-Chester).
- SCI-Cresson had had a non-smoking policy since 2000, with occasional violations; disciplinary citations for smoking were relatively few (56 of 2442 in 2007-2008).
- The district court dismissed Krysevig and Reisinger for lack of personal involvement and granted summary judgment to Burks after a fact-finding process, including consideration of ETS exposure.
- Wilson timely appealed after a denial of a Rule 59(e) motion; the district court’s ruling was vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the motion is a Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) challenge | Wilson contends the motion was Rule 59(e) to relitigate the summary judgment ruling. | Burks argues the motion was a Rule 60(b) matter and thus not a vehicle to review the underlying judgment. | Jurisdiction proper; motion treated as Rule 59(e); appeal includes underlying order. |
| Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment on deliberate indifference | Wilson raised genuine issues about pervasive ETS exposure and enforcement failures. | Burks argues no evidence of deliberate indifference; exposure was not shown to be unreasonably high. | There is a genuine issue of material fact regarding deliberate indifference. |
| Whether there is sufficient evidence to show exposure level and policy enforcement failures | Affidavits from current/former cell-mates show daily lingering ETS and poor enforcement. | Magistrate Judge found evidence insufficient to prove unreasonably high exposure or repeated policy violations. | Fact questions exist on exposure level and enforcement, warranting remand. |
| Whether the case should be remanded with potential appointment of counsel | Remand for further proceedings is appropriate; counsel may be appointed. | No specific position beyond prior denial of summary judgment. | Remand for further proceedings; appointment of counsel contemplated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1993) (requires showing of substantial risk and deliberate indifference)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (standard for Eighth Amendment risk and knowledge)
- Browder v. Director, Dept. of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1978) (appeal from Rule 60(b) denial does not review underlying judgment)
- United States v. Fiorelli, 337 F.3d 282 (3d Cir. 2003) (function of motion governs applicable Rule, not caption)
- Sulima v. Tobyhanna Army Depot, 602 F.3d 177 (3d Cir. 2010) (jurisdiction over unspecified orders may be obtained where reasonable)
- Elfman Motors, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp., 567 F.2d 1254 (3d Cir. 1977) (notice of appeal can bring up unspecified orders when appropriate)
- DeHart v. Horn, 390 F.3d 262 (3d Cir. 2004) (plenary review standard for summary judgment)