Case Information
*1 Before: JORDAN, BARRY and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: April 1, 2016)
___________
OPINION [*]
___________
PER CURIAM
*2 Richard A. Hammonds, a Pennsylvania inmate proceeding pro se, appeals from a judgment entered after a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.
As we write primarily for the parties, who are familiar with the facts and procedural history, we will set forth only those facts necessary to our conclusions. In 2011, Hammonds filed a complaint against Department of Corrections (DOC) employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and permitted Hammonds to file an amended complaint. Hammonds’ first amended complaint contained numerous claims, including an allegation that DOC employees used excessive force after discovering that he had escaped from his cell in the restricted housing unit (RHU). According to Hammonds, the defendants repeatedly punched him in the face, squeezed handcuffs around his wrists, and choked him with a “spit mask.” Hammonds was then taken to the RHU dayroom, where he was allegedly assaulted again. The initial altercation was recorded by security cameras, but the incident in the RHU dayroom was not recorded because, pursuant to prison policy, a camera in that area is turned on only during prisoner intakes.
The case was referred to a Magistrate Judge, who recommended dismissing all but the excessive force claim. Meanwhile, Hammonds moved for leave to file a second amended complaint to raise claims that, inter alia, the defendants retaliated against him by tampering with his food and by filing false misconduct reports because he had *3 submitted a grievance. The District Court granted Hammonds leave to file an amended complaint, but only to the extent that he raised a retaliation claim based on alleged food tampering. The case proceeded to trial and, in September 2014, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants on both the excessive force claim and on the food tampering retaliation claim.
Hammonds timely appealed,
[1]
and he raises three issues in his Informal Brief.
[2]
We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and may affirm on any basis supported by the
record. Murray v. Bledsoe,
Hammonds first complains about the District Court’s denial of leave to include in
his second amended complaint an allegation that DOC employees retaliated against him
by filing false misconduct reports.
[3]
But even assuming that the District Court should
*4
have permitted Hammonds to file his second amended complaint, we conclude that any
error was harmless because Hammonds’ conclusory allegations fail to plead the
necessary third element for the retaliation claim,
i.e.
, that his grievance was a substantial
motivating factor in the filing of misconduct reports. See Rauser v. Horn,
Hammonds claimed that three prison officials filed misconduct reports against him
because he had accused three different prison officials of wrongdoing. But neither
Hammonds’ second amended complaint, nor his Informal Brief on appeal, alleges any
temporal connection between his grievance and the misconduct reports. See Lauren W.
ex rel. Jean W. v. DeFlaminis,
*5 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, because Hammonds’ conclusory allegations fail to raise the required inference of a causal link between his grievance and the filing of misconduct reports, he failed to state a retaliation claim.
Hammonds also asserts that he was forced to proceed to trial without his exhibits.
This assertion is belied by the record. The transcript indicates that, on the first day of
trial, Hammonds used two of his exhibits, namely, pictures of a prison cell. At the
conclusion of testimony that day, counsel for the defendants noted that a box of
documents related to Hammonds’ case was still in his cell, stating that Hammonds “did
not indicate that he needed [the documents] to come with him.” The District Court
immediately confirmed that the material would be delivered to Hammonds by the
following morning. On the second day of trial, counsel for the defendant explained that
“staff at the Department of Corrections went to Inmate Hammonds’ cell at Smithfield last
night, located his box of legal materials, and it was delivered here this morning by the
time we started the proceeding.” Before the start of the final day of trial, Hammonds and
counsel for the defendants had a lengthy discussion concerning the admission of
numerous exhibits. Notably, Hammonds did not complain at trial that he lacked exhibits,
Waldorf v. Shuta,
Finally, Hammonds challenges the District Court’s jury instruction, which
provided that, “[i]n this case, Mr. Hammonds claims the Defendants . . . used
unnecessary and excessive force against him when he escaped from his cell.” According
to Hammonds, the evidence did not demonstrate that he “escaped from his cell” and the
instruction misled the jury into believing that its evaluation of excessive force was
limited to an incident captured on prison security cameras. We review for abuse of
discretion whether jury instructions are misleading or inadequate. See Woodson v. Scott
Paper Co.,
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
Notes
[*] This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.
[1] Thereafter, Hammonds filed a motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b)(2). The District Court denied that motion, and Hammonds did not
appeal from that order. See Williams v. Chater,
[2] We note that Hammonds presented no legal argument for several claims listed in the
Informal Brief’s “Statement of Issues Preserved for Review.” Even liberally construing
his Informal Brief, Dluhos v. Strasberg,
[3] Although Hammonds frames his argument in terms of a challenge to an order granting a motion to dismiss, see Appellant’s Br., 3, we will liberally construe his brief as arguing