WHITEHEAD v. ROZUM, 3:09-cv-00220

Plaintiff Carl Whitehead, an inmate at SCI-Somerset, sues several Pennsylvania DOC officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Two remaining claims are a First Amendment retaliation claim against Pecze and Barbarich and an Eighth Amendment failure-to-intervene claim against Hayward.
The retaliation claim arises from a 2008 incident where Pecze and Barbarich allegedly falsified a misconduct report after a grievance about a prison job loss.
A hearing found Whitehead guilty of offensive language; the dismissal of a disobedience charge yielded a 30-day disciplinary custody sanction.
In March 2009, during a facility lockdown, Whitehead alleges excessive force occurred during escort to the RHU, witnessed by Hayward, who allegedly did not intervene.
No medical evidence supported major injuries from the 2009 incident; Whitehead delayed reporting injuries and did not seek timely medical attention.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Retaliation: causation link to protected activity	Whitehead alleges filing a grievance caused the misconduct charge.	Defendants contend there is no sufficiently proximate causal link.	No triable causation; retaliatory motive not shown; grant summary judgment on retaliation claim.
Eighth Amendment failure to intervene	Hayward knew or witnessed the alleged excessive force and failed to intervene.	Hayward had no reasonable opportunity to intervene and may not have perceived the abuse.	Hayward not liable; no evidence of a reasonable opportunity to intervene; grant summary judgment.

Rauser v. Horn, 241 F.3d 330 (3d Cir. 2001) (retaliation requires protected conduct, adverse action, and causal link)
Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (U.S. 1977) (burden-shifting causation framework for retaliation)
Beers-Capitol Fin. v. Whetzel, 256 F.3d 120 (3d Cir. 2001) (deliberate indifference standard requires knowledge of risk)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (deliberate indifference standard for Eighth Amendment)
Hill v. Superintendent, 472 U.S. 445 (U.S. 1985) (some evidence standard for disciplinary decisions)
White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103 (3d Cir. 1990) (first amendment retaliation per se not enough; need motive)
Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 2000) (retaliation analysis and protected activity context)
Carter v. McGrady, 292 F.3d 152 (3d Cir. 2002) (evidence sufficiency in disciplinary/retaliation context)