Peter Bistrian v. Troy Levi, 696 F.3d 352

Bistrian, a pretrial detainee at FDC Philadelphia, spent multiple periods in the SHU totaling about 447 days while awaiting sentencing.
The SHU confinement is highly restrictive, with inmates housed largely in isolation for 23–24 hours daily and limited access to interaction, medical care, and legal materials.
Bistrian alleges that Warden Levi and other officials violated procedures by failing to issue timely administrative detention orders and to provide required reviews for SHU placement.
In 2006, Bistrian cooperated with the FBI in an intercept-note operation involving Northington and other inmates, which led to threats against him.
Officials allegedly continued SHU confinement and later placed Bistrian back in SHU during a note-copying operation, despite risks and repeated warnings from Bistrian.
The district court dismissed some counts but allowed Counts I–V and X to proceed; on appeal, most but not all later claims against defendants were affirmed, reversed, and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Personal involvement of defendants in constitutional violations	Bistrian argues multiple named defendants personally participated	Defendants contend lack of specific involvement, group pleading	Pleading suffices to allege personal involvement
Failure to protect from inmate violence (Northington)	Deliberate indifference by officials placed him with known threats	Officials acted reasonably; risk not clearly established	Plausible claim against certain Prison Management Defendants and others survives dismissal
Failure to protect from inmate violence (Taylor)	Threats known; placement in recreation yard with violent inmate violated rights	No clear link between Taylor and Northington; risk speculative	Claims regarding Taylor attack not clearly established; question remains for discovery/summary judgment guidance
Punitive detention of a pretrial detainee	447 days in SHU punished him prior to guilt adjudication	Detention justified for security/processing purposes	Material, pretrial-detainee due process issue; some confinement aspects plausibly punitive under Bell v. Wolfish
Procedural due process for pretrial detention changes	Needed explanation and opportunity to respond before restrictive housing	Earlier decisions do not require same process for pretrial detainees	Procedural due process claim survives as to some defendants; Stevenson framework applied

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (duty to protect from inmate violence; deliberate indifference standard)
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (U.S. 1979) (no punishment of pretrial detainees; due process protections; totality of circumstances)
Iqbal v. Aramark Corp., 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard; plausibility requires more than mere speculation)
Stevenson v. Carroll, 495 F.3d 62 (3d Cir. 2007) (pretrial detainee procedural due process; minimal process for transfer to restrictive housing)
Fuentes v. Wagner, 206 F.3d 335 (3d Cir. 2000) (distinction between pretrial and sentenced detainees; due process and punishment)
Young v. Quinlan, 960 F.2d 351 (3d Cir. 1992) (adequacy of responses to inmate safety concerns; group pleading considerations)
Hubbard v. Taylor, 538 F.3d 229 (3d Cir. 2008) (pretrial detainee due process and confinement standards)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (contextual framework for Eighth Amendment analyses (relevant to punishment discussions))