Terry Simonton, Jr. v. Franklin Tennis, 437 F. App'x 60

Simonton filed a 42 U.S.C. §1983 action arising from an April 12, 2008 assault at SCI-Rockview by Inmate Seaman after alleged provocations by corrections officers.
Seaman allegedly struck Simonton, causing a broken nose and ongoing headaches, hearing loss, and vision problems.
Simonton alleged violations of the Eighth Amendment by Sergeant Brian, Lieutenant Graham, Tennis, Thompson, and Marsh for failure to protect and for cover-ups, plus claims against Rackovan, Williams, Watson, and Woodring regarding grievance investigations and medical records access.
The District Court dismissed Inmate Seaman under §1915(e)(2)(B)(i), granted Rule 12(c) judgments for Rackovan, Williams, Watson, and Woodring, and later granted summary judgment for Tennis, Thompson, Marsh, Sergeant Brian, and Lieutenant Graham.
The Third Circuit summarily affirmed, holding that none of the asserted claims against the remaining defendants supported a §1983 violation; access to grievance procedures is not a constitutionally mandated right.
Woodring and Williams were conceded to have no valid claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Seaman can be sued under §1983 as a state actor.	Simonton contends Seaman acted under color of state law.	Seaman is a private individual, not a state actor.	Seaman cannot be sued under §1983; no state action.
Whether Rackovan, Williams, Watson, and Woodring were properly dismissed/granted judgment on the pleadings for failure to investigate grievances.	Rackovan/Williams/Watson/Woodring violated rights by inadequate grievance handling.	Access to grievance procedures is not constitutionally mandated; insufficient personal involvement.	Judgment on the pleadings affirmed; no cognizable §1983 claim.
Whether Tennis, Thompson, Marsh, Sergeant Brian, and Lieutenant Graham are entitled to summary judgment on conspiracy claims.	There was a covert cover-up and concerted misconduct.	No facts showing a conspiracy or concerted action; allegations too general.	Summary judgment affirmed; no evidence of conspiracy.
Whether Tennis, Thompson, Marsh, Sergeant Brian, and Lieutenant Graham are entitled to summary judgment on failure-to-protect claims.	Supervisors negligently allowed risk to Simonton; deliberate indifference.	Insufficient evidence of personal involvement, knowledge, or deliberate indifference.	Summary judgment affirmed; no Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect violation.

Jones v. N.C. Prisoners' Labor Union, 433 U.S. 119 (1977) (access to grievance procedures not constitutionally mandated)
Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195 (3d Cir. 1988) (personal involvement required; knowledge/acquiescence must be particularized)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference standard in failure-to-protect)
Beers-Capitol v. Whetzel, 256 F.3d 120 (3d Cir. 2001) (prison officials’ liability requires awareness and disregard of risk)
Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24 (1980) (private persons may be liable if acting with state involvement in constitutional violation)
Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159 (3d Cir. 2010) (to prevail, plaintiff must allege state action for §1983 claim)
Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109 (3d Cir. 2000) (standard for affirming district court decisions on appeal)
Consol. Rail Corp. v. Portlight, Inc., 188 F.3d 93 (3d Cir. 1999) (plaintiff’s allegations judged for reasonableness at summary judgment)
Sikirica v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 214 (3d Cir. 2005) (plenary review of Rule 12(c) judgments; standard for dismissal)
Spence v. ESAB Group, Inc., 623 F.3d 212 (3d Cir. 2010) (genuine issues of material fact require trial)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard; material facts)