BLD-178 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 11-1502
___________
CARLOS ZUNIGA HERNANDEZ,
Appellant
v.
UNKNOWN OFFICER; OFFICER ARENAS; LT. SPELLER
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 10-cv-00332)
District Judge: Honorable Christopher C. Conner
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal for Jurisdictional Defect or
Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or
Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
May 5, 2011
Before: SLOVITER, JORDAN and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: May 17, 2011)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Carlos Zuniga Hernandez filed suit pro se and in forma pauperis against one
unknown and two named correctional officers at the federal prison where he is an inmate.
1
The United States Marshals Service served process on the named defendants and the
United States. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c),(e), & (i). Based on allegations described more
fully by the District Court, Zuniga Hernandez claimed that the defendants violated his
Eighth Amendment rights because (1) the unknown officer failed to protect him after he
informed him of an attempted rape on January 9, 2009; (2) when Zuniga Hernandez was
brought up on disciplinary charges for fighting with the inmate who allegedly attempted
to rape him, Officer Arenas lied by denying that Zuniga Hernandez had reported “sexual
approaches” by the other inmate (saying instead that Zuniga Hernandez had stated that he
was having problems with another inmate but offered no specifics); and (3) Lieutenant
Soeller failed to respond to Zuniga Hernadez‟s reports of two attempted rapes and an
attempted theft committed by the other inmate.
The named defendants filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, a motion for
summary judgment. The District Court, adopting the Magistrate Judge‟s report and
recommendation and overruling Zuniga Hernandez‟s objections, dismissed the complaint
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The District Court also
denied Zuniga Hernandez‟s motion to amend the complaint, concluding that amendment
would be futile. In the same order, the District Court remanded the matter to the
Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. In doing so, the District Court was considering
the Magistrate Judge‟s earlier order which gave Zuniga Hernandez additional time to
identify the unnamed defendant in the complaint. Zuniga Hernandez appeals from the
2
District Court‟s order.
The first issue is whether we have jurisdiction over Zuniga Hernandez‟s appeal
despite the pending claims against the unknown defendant, which the District Court
remanded to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Although the remand was
entirely proper, see Estate of Rosenberg by Rosenberg v. Crandell, 56 F.3d 35, 37 (8th
Cir. 1995) (holding that “an action may proceed against a party whose name is unknown
if the complaint makes allegations specific enough to permit the identity of the party to
be ascertained after reasonable discovery”), it does not divest us of jurisdiction over this
appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
For jurisdiction to attach under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, a judgment must be final as to
all parties, all causes of action, and the whole subject-matter. See Andrews v. United
States, 373 U.S. 334, 340 (1963) (citing Collins v. Miller, 252 U.S. 364 (1920)); Mellon
Bank, N.A. v. Metro Communications, Inc., 945 F.2d 635, 640 (3d Cir. 1991). In actions
involving multiple claims and parties, a district court may direct the entry of final
judgment on fewer than all of the claims and parties on the express determination that
there is no just reason for delay. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) (explaining the requisite
determination under the rule); Gomez v. Gov‟t of the Virgin Islands, 882 F.2d 733, 736
(3d Cir. V.I. 1989). Although there was no Rule 54(b) certification in this case, we still
have jurisdiction over this appeal because a defendant who has not been served is not a
“party” within the meaning of Rule 54(b). Id.; see also United States v. Studivant, 529
3
F.2d 673, 674 n.2 (3d Cir. 1976). The only claims that the District Court did not
adjudicate were those claims against the unserved, unnamed defendant.1
Concluding that we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we exercise plenary
review over the dismissal of Zuniga Hernandez‟s complaint, and we review the denial of
leave to amend for abuse of discretion. See Lum v. Bank of Am., 361 F.3d 217, 223 (3d
Cir. 2004). On review, we will summarily affirm the District Court‟s judgment because
no substantial issue is presented on appeal. See Local Rule 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.
The District Court properly dismissed the complaint against the two named
defendants for failure to state a claim. The Eighth Amendment, which guards against
“unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain” in prison, see Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S.
312, 319 (1986) (citation omitted), has been interpreted to include protection against
“„violence at the hands of other prisoners,‟” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833
(1994). However, not “every injury suffered by one prisoner at the hands of another that
translates into constitutional liability for prison officials responsible for the victim‟s
safety.” Id. at 834. Nonetheless, when a prison official is deliberately indifferent to a
substantial risk of a serious harm, the Eighth Amendment is violated. Id. at 836. The
harm must be “objectively, „sufficiently serious.‟” Id. at 834. A prison official is
deliberately indifferent to the risk of that harm when he or she “knows of and disregards
1
We note that it appears that Zuniga Hernandez has made no effort since the District
Court‟s ruling to identify the unnamed defendant. Also, in response to our notice of
4
an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from
which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he
must also draw the inference.” Id. at 837. For example, a prison official could be said to
have knowledge of the risk in a case where the “plaintiff presents evidence showing that
a substantial risk of inmate attacks was „longstanding, pervasive, well-documented, or
expressly noted by prison officials in the past, and the circumstances suggest that the
defendant-official being sued had been exposed to information concerning the risk and
thus “must have known” about it.‟” Id. at 842.
As the District Court concluded, Zuniga Hernandez did not meet the standard
based on his allegations. Assuming Zuniga Hernandez showed that he faced a serious
risk of harm, he did not show that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to it.
Based on his allegations, the defendants took measures to protect him. Zuniga
Hernandez alleged that as soon as he reported the attempted theft and the two alleged
sexual assaults in the shower, Arenas sent the accused inmate to another housing unit to
see Soeller, separated the inmates within one housing unit, and stated that he would talk
with the accused inmate himself. Soeller also talked to Zuniga Hernandez and assured
him that the accused inmate was not to come into Zuniga Hernandez‟s space to bother
him anymore. Although the other inmate subsequently entered Hernadez‟s cell and
struck and kicked him (which led to a fight in which both parties were injured), Arenas
possible dismissal for jurisdictional defect, he states that the District Court‟s order
5
and Soeller made reasonable efforts to protect Zuniga Hernandez from the risk of harm
under the circumstances described in the complaint.
Zuniga Hernandez also did not state a claim upon which relief can be granted
based on his allegation that Arenas gave a false statement at the disciplinary hearing
following the fight between Zuniga Hernandez and the other inmate. Despite Zuniga
Hernandez‟s claim to the contrary, the allegedly false statement was not an example of
deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm. See, generally, Farmer, 511
U.S. at 832-36. To the extent that his allegation implicates due process concerns
(assuming a protected liberty interest), he explains in his complaint how due process was
satisfied - he had an opportunity to be heard and defend against the allegedly falsified
evidence at his disciplinary hearing. See Smith v. Mensinger, 293 F.3d 641, 653-54 (3d
Cir. 2002). In any event, to the extent that he brought the claim of a false statement to
recover good time credits lost as a result of his disciplinary hearing, his claim is barred by
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641,
646-47 (1997).
In short, the District Court properly dismissed Zuniga Hernandez‟s complaint
against the named defendants. The District Court also did not abuse its discretion in
denying leave to amend as futile. In his proposed amendment, Zuniga Hernandez
resolved all of his claims and issues before the District Court.
6
presented essentially the same allegations (although he wished to add two more
defendants to the suit). For these reasons, we will affirm the District Court‟s judgment.
7