Gabriel Rosa-Diaz v. Dow
683 F. App'x 103
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Rosa-Diaz, a Pennsylvania DOC inmate, alleged that Sgt. Dow knew of another inmate Robinson’s violent history but allowed him access to the wing where Rosa-Diaz was housed; Robinson assaulted and stabbed Rosa-Diaz and Rosa-Diaz stabbed Robinson in self-defense.
- Corrections Officer Sheridan issued a misconduct report charging Rosa-Diaz with fighting; Dow issued a separate misconduct report charging Rosa-Diaz with threatening Dow.
- Hearing Examiner Reed found Rosa-Diaz guilty on both reports after a Holloway hearing and assessed disciplinary time and two‑thirds of Robinson’s medical costs ($31,414.30). Chief Grievance Officer Varner and other supervisors affirmed the decisions on appeal.
- Rosa-Diaz sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (failure to protect, due process, and supervisory liability) and state tort claims; the district court dismissed most claims on a 12(b)(6) basis, leaving only the failure-to-protect claim against Dow for trial.
- A jury found Dow not deliberately indifferent; district court entered judgment for defendants, and Rosa-Diaz appealed pro se.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure-to-protect by Sheridan (exhaustion) | Sheridan witnessed attack and failed to protect; claim proceeds | Plaintiff did not name Sheridan in grievance; failed to exhaust administrative remedies | Dismissed for failure to exhaust; grievance did not put officials on notice of Sheridan’s conduct |
| Failure-to-protect by Dow (Eighth Amendment) | Dow knew of Robinson’s dangerousness and allowed access, showing deliberate indifference | Dow acted reasonably; no deliberate indifference | Jury verdict for Dow; court affirmed judgment for defendants |
| Due process re: Reed’s adjudication of misconduct reports (weight of evidence) | Reed disregarded evidence pointing to Robinson and improperly credited staff reports | Reed relied on staff reports; hearing provided required process | Dismissed; Hill ‘some basis in fact’ standard satisfied — Reed’s decision upheld |
| Supervisory liability and grievance-handling (various supervisors) | Supervisors failed to properly supervise, investigate, and correct violations | Supervisors only reviewed grievances/appeals and did not create policy or personally participate in violation | Dismissed; no policy/custom alleged and after‑the‑fact grievance review insufficient for § 1983 liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (PLRA exhaustion applies to all inmate suits about prison life)
- Brown v. Croak, 312 F.3d 109 (failure to grieve is affirmative defense properly raised in motion to dismiss)
- Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218 (grievance must identify persons alleged to be guilty; purpose is notice)
- Denny v. Schultz, 708 F.3d 140 (prison disciplinary decisions reviewed for ‘some basis in fact’ under Hill)
- Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (prison disciplinary due process standard)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (due process requirements in prison disciplinary proceedings)
- Parkell v. Danberg, 833 F.3d 313 (supervisory liability requires participation, direction, or acquiescence with knowledge)
- Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121 (requirements for supervisory liability)
- Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195 (administrative grievance rulings insufficient to establish personal involvement)
- George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (ruling on grievance does not cause constitutional violation)
- Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394 (appellate relief limited where no post‑verdict motions were filed)