Haddrick Byrd v. Robert Shannon
715 F.3d 117
| 3rd Cir. | 2013Background
- Byrd, a prisoner at SCI-Frackville, sued multiple DOC employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference to glaucoma and state-law negligence.
- His claim centered on delays in providing prescription eye drops Timolol and Travatan during 2008, with communications from Spencer, Shannon, Robinson, and Stanishefski about pharmacy supply and call-outs.
- Byrd’s prescription expired July 31, 2008; renewal occurred September 22–23, 2008, after delays and Byrd’s notification; the self-medication program placed renewal responsibility on Byrd.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Stanishefski and Robinson, dismissed Shannon and Varner, and declined supplemental jurisdiction; it also held that Byrd failed to exhaust against Spencer.
- On appeal, Byrd sought to proceed IFP; after panel rehearing, the court concluded Byrd was eligible to proceed IFP and reached the merits, affirming the district court’s rulings on summary judgment, reconsideration, and supplemental jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) strikes can accrue in non-IFP actions | Byrd | Stanishefski/Robinson | Strikes accrue in all actions, regardless of fee status |
| Whether Byrd Gillis dismissal counts as a strike | Byrd argues it counts | Shannon/Varner | Gillis dismissal does not count as a strike |
| Whether Byrd exhausted administrative remedies against Spencer | Byrd | Spencer | Exhaustion not satisfied; summary judgment for Spencer affirmed |
| Whether delays in eye drops show deliberate indifference by Stanishefski/Robinson | Byrd | Stanishefski/Robinson | No deliberate indifference; delays attributed to self-medication and pharmacy |
| Whether the district court properly declined reconsideration and supplemental jurisdiction | Byrd | District Court | Affirmed; reconsideration and supplemental jurisdiction properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Santana v. United States, 98 F.3d 752 (3d Cir. 1996) (habeas context; ‘civil actions’ language lacks plain meaning there)
- Grayson v. Mayview State Hospital, 293 F.3d 103 (3d Cir. 2002) (IFP e‑2(2) limited to IFP claims; dicta on dismissal scope)
- Hafed v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 635 F.3d 1172 (10th Cir. 2011) (counts as strike when immunity or related grounds are dispositive)
- Tolbert v. Stevenson, 635 F.3d 646 (4th Cir. 2011) (bright-line rule: strike only if entire action dismissed on enumerated grounds)
- Turley v. Gaetz, 625 F.3d 1005 (7th Cir. 2010) (recognizes § 1915(g) accrual in full action or appeal)
- Thompson v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 492 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (PLRA purpose; reduces frivolous prisoner litigation)
- Duvall v. Miller, 122 F.3d 489 (7th Cir. 1997) (strikes accrue under § 1915(g) regardless of fee status)
- Burghart v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 350 Fed. App’x 278 (10th Cir. 2009) (non-IFP actions can count as § 1915(g) strikes)