Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
12-2-2005
Carston v. Sacks
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-2398
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Carston v. Sacks" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 170.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/170
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 2005 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 05-2398
________________
CHRISTOPHER CARSTON,
Appellant
V.
DAVID SACKS; MARE MARKIEWICZ; ERIC VALKCO; KRONH; DALEEP
RATHORE; STANLEY FALOR; MORRIS HARPER; BRIAN HYDE; SUSAN
CROFTCHECK; PAUL STOWIZKY; JEFFREY M. MARTIN, are sued in their
individual capacities
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Western District of Pennsylvania
(W.D. Pa. Civ. No. 03-cv-01490)
District Judge: Honorable Thomas M. Hardiman
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
December 1, 2005
BEFORE: SLOVITER, SMITH AND VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges
(Filed December 2, 2005)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Christopher Carston, a Pennsylvania prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals an order
of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granting
summary judgment for the defendants in his civil rights action. For the reasons that
follow, we will vacate the District Court’s order and remand for further proceedings.
Carston filed a complaint against Department of Corrections (“DOC”) employees
and medical providers claiming violations of his constitutional rights based upon the
denial of food and water while housed in a psychiatric observation cell from March 4,
2002 through March 7, 2002, as well as verbal abuse by the defendants. The DOC
defendants moved for summary judgment, contending Carston had not exhausted his
administrative remedies. The District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation to grant summary judgment for all of the defendants on this basis.
This appeal followed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our
standard of review is plenary. Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 183 (3d Cir. 1993).
The Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), requires a prisoner to
exhaust his administrative remedies before bringing a civil rights action in federal court.
Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 227-28 (3d Cir. 2004). The exhaustion requirement
includes a procedural default component, and a prisoner must comply with prison
grievance procedures to properly exhaust his claims. Id. at 230-31.
The record reflects that on April 18, 2002, Carston was granted a five-day
extension of time to file a grievance. On April 26, 2002, Carston notified a staff member
in writing that on April 22, 2002, he asked a corrections officer to place his grievances in
2
the mail box because no one picks up grievances from the grievance box. Carston stated
that the officer placed his grievances in the grievance box, and no one came to pick them
up. On May 2, 2002, the staff member replied that the matter would be addressed. On
May 10, 2002, Carston notified the prison Superintendent in writing that no one had
picked up his grievances. On May 13, 2002, the Superintendent replied that the matter
would be investigated.
On May 20, 2002, the prison Grievance Coordinator found seven grievances filed
by Carston untimely.1 Although the grievances are dated April 19, 2002 and April 20,
2002, the Grievance Coordinator explained that, even with the five-day extension of time,
the grievances were untimely, as they were not retrieved from the grievance box until
May 15, 2002. The Coordinator noted that grievances are retrieved from the box on a
daily basis as evidenced by other grievances received from Carston’s pod.
On May 31, 2002, the prison Superintendent rejected Carston’s argument on
appeal that the staff had not retrieved the grievances from the grievance box on a timely
basis. The Superintendent noted that he saw Carston’s grievances, that none of them
appeared to have spent a month in the lock box, and that they appeared to have been
backdated. He further noted that other inmates’ grievances had been retrieved from that
1
The DOC defendants did not produce a copy of the DOC grievance procedure in
District Court. However, it is undisputed that a prisoner has fifteen days after the event
upon which a claim is based to file a grievance.
3
same box during the same time frame. Carston’s final appeal was also denied.2
There is a factual dispute as to whether Carston complied with the prison
grievance procedures. In his opposition to the summary judgment motion, Carston
submitted evidence supporting his contention that his grievances were submitted within
the five-day extension of time he received. He provided copies of the grievances
themselves, which are dated April 19 and 20, 2002. He also submitted copies of the April
26, 2002 notice he sent to a staff member stating a corrections officer placed his
grievances in the grievance box on April 22, 2002, but no one had picked them up, and
his May 10, 2002 letter to the Superintendent stating that the grievances had not been
picked up.
The DOC defendants rely on the Grievance Coordinator’s denial of the grievances
as untimely, and Carston’s unsuccessful appeals. The Grievance Coordinator’s decision
states that the grievances were received on May 15, 2002. The Grievance Coordinator
and the Superintendent noted that other grievances had been received from Carston’s pod
during the same time period. The DOC defendants cite no other basis for their assertion
that Carston did not comply with prison grievance procedures.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Carston, the non-moving
party, see Groman v. Township of Manalapan, 47 F.3d 628, 633 (3d Cir. 1995), a genuine
2
Carston subsequently filed numerous additional grievances based upon the same
events, which were also found untimely.
4
issue of material fact exists as to whether Carston complied with prison grievance
procedures and properly exhausted his claims. The parties’ factual dispute as to whether
Carston’s grievances were timely precludes summary judgment. Accordingly, we will
vacate the District Court’s order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.3
3
Carston’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied.
5