Gerald West v. Shultz
712 F. App'x 176
3rd Cir.2017Background
- Gerald West, pro se federal inmate at USP-Lewisburg, sued prison staff under Bivens and the FTCA alleging assaults, failure to protect, falsified misconduct report, and retaliation.
- West alleged a cellmate sexually assaulted him twice; he submitted a written complaint (a “cop‑out”) and claims Officer Spade later told him he didn’t believe it and threw it away.
- West also alleged Unit Manager Adami threatened restraints for not finding a cellmate and that Officer Shade falsified a conduct report leading to two days in restraints.
- Defendants moved to dismiss/for summary judgment arguing limited exhaustion: only claims against Officer Shultz (assault) and Officer Shade (false report) were exhausted; they treated “Spade” and “Shade” as the same person.
- West moved to amend to clarify that Spade and Shade are different and that Spade was a proper defendant; the District Court denied amendment, substituted Shade for Spade in its summary, and granted summary judgment for defendants on exhaustion and merits.
- The Third Circuit sua sponte questioned appellate jurisdiction because the District Court’s order omitted adjudication of West’s claim against Officer Spade and directed supplemental briefing; it concluded the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the district court’s order was not final as to all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court issued a final, appealable order | West contends the judgment is unclear as to Officer Spade and seeks correction under Rule 60(a); he maintains a claim against Spade remains | Appellees say no claim against Spade was before the court (they treated Spade and Shade as same), or West abandoned any Spade claim | Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the district court did not finally adjudicate the claim against Officer Spade |
| Whether West abandoned his claim against Officer Spade | West insists he did not abandon the claim and raised it on appeal | Appellees argue West’s filings effectively abandoned or never properly asserted a Spade claim | Court found West’s statements insufficient to show abandonment; claim appears unadjudicated |
| Whether clerical error/clarification remedies permit appellate review | West sought correction and amendment to clarify defendant identity | Appellees relied on district court’s substitution and treatment of names | Court indicated Rule 60(a) could be invoked but did not reach merits; jurisdictional defect remained |
| Finality under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and Rule 54(b) | West did not obtain entry of final judgment as to all claims/parties | Appellees pointed to district court rulings as final | Court held no final order because at least one claim (against Spade) was unresolved; dismissed appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (recognizing implied damages action against federal agents)
- Aluminum Co. of America v. Beazer East, Inc., 124 F.3d 551 (3d Cir. 1997) (explaining finality requirement for appellate jurisdiction)
- Bethel v. McAllister Bros., Inc., 81 F.3d 376 (3d Cir. 1996) (discussing voluntary abandonment of claims that can render an order final)
- Tierman v. Devoe, 923 F.2d 1024 (3d Cir. 1991) (example of plaintiff renouncing claims where abandonment deemed clear)
- Fassett v. Delta Kappa Epsilon, 807 F.2d 1150 (3d Cir. 1986) (same: abandonment of claims dismissed without prejudice)