Opinions of the United
2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
7-12-2004
Delker v. McCullough
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 03-2145
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004
Recommended Citation
"Delker v. McCullough" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 505.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/505
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2004 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 03-2145
___________
DANIEL DELKER,
Appellant
v.
JOHN MCCULLOUGH, in his official capacity as the
Superintendent of the State Correctional Institution at
Houtzdale; J. F. MAZURKIEWICZ, in his official capacity as
a member of the Program Review Committee of the State
Correctional Institution at Houtzdale; D. A. KYLER, in his
official capacity as a member of the Program Review
Committee of the State Correctional Institution at
Houtzdale; VARIOUS JOHN DOES, in their official capacity
as members of the Program Review Committee of the State
Correctional Institution at Houtzdale; THOM AS FULCOM ER, in
his official capacity as a Regional Deputy Secretary for
the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 01-cv-00312J)
District Judge: Honorable Joy Flowers Conti
_______________________________________
Argued February 12, 2004
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, ROTH and MCKEE, Circuit Judges
(Filed July 12, 2004 )
Jere Krakoff, Esquire (Argued)
Pennsylvania Institutional Law Project
429 Forbes Avenue
1705 Allegheny Building
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Counsel fo Appellant
D. Michael Fisher
Attorney General
Kemal A. Mericli (Argued)
Senior Deputy Attorney General
John G. Knorr, III
Chief Deputy Attorney General
Office of Attorney General of Pennsylvania
6 th Floor
564 Forbes Avenue
Manor Complex
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Counsel for Appellees
_______________
OPINION
_______________
ROTH, Circuit Judge:
Daniel Delker appeals the District Court’s order granting appellees’ motion for
summary judgment. The procedural history of this case and the details of Delker’s claims
are well-known to the parties, set forth in the District Court’s thorough opinion, and need
not be discussed at length. Briefly, Delker alleged that he was confined in administrative
2
segregation without meaningful review and that this violated his right to due process.
Delker has been kept in segregation since December 1973 after killing a Department of
Corrections captain. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation and
concluded that, while Delker had a liberty interest in being released from administrative
segregation, the procedures used to determine whether or not he would be released
comported with procedural due process. The District Court adopted the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation and granted the motion for summary judgment.
Delker filed a timely notice of appeal and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We exercise plenary review over the District Court’s order granting appellees’
motion for summary judgment. Gallo v. City of Philadelphia, 161 F.3d 217, 221 (3d Cir.
1998). A grant of summary judgment will be affirmed if our review reveals that “there is
no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). We review the facts in a light most favorable
to the party against whom summary judgment was entered. See Coolspring Stone Supply,
Inc. v. American States Life Ins. Co., 10 F.3d 144, 146 (3d Cir. 1993).
Appellees conceded in the District Court that Delker’s continuing placement in
administrative confinement triggers due process protections. Thus, the question is
whether Delker received procedural due process in relation to his confinement. In Shoats
v. Horn, 213 F.3d 140 (3d Cir. 2000), we examined the case of a prisoner who had been
held in administrative confinement for eight years. We held that based on the periodic
3
reviews of his status, Shoats had received the due process to which he was entitled. We
further noted that even if Shoats’s confinement was based only on his past crimes, the
process would be constitutional. Delker argues that, while he has been given the required
periodic reviews, these reviews were “no more than rote exercises” and this denial of
meaningful review violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
The District Court did a thorough review of the relevant caselaw and set forth a
concise summary of the appellees’ deposition testimony. We agree with the District
Court that the appellees gave Delker meaningful periodic reviews, and thus procedural
due process, and were entitled to summary judgment. However, we note that it would be
helpful for judicial review if a brief written rationalization for keeping Delker confined in
solitary was made when his status was reviewed, although not necessarily every ninety
days.
For the above reasons, as well as those set forth by the District Court, we will
affirm the District Court’s April 1, 2003, judgment.
4