NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 12-2591
___________
WILLIAM VICTOR,
Appellant
v.
SUPERINTENDENT R. M. LAWLER, Warden, SCI-Huntingdon; DEPUTY SUPT.
FISHER; DEPUTY SUPT. CORBIN; CAPTAIN HARRIS; CAPTAIN HARMAN; LT.
COOPER; LT. MORRISON; LT. STEVENS; LT. LALLI; SGT. CLAPPER; C. HEING
EXAMINER C. MITCHELL; C.O. GOODMAN; C.O. GARZARELLI; C.O. BUTLER;
C.O. MAUL; C.O. N. LEHMAN; HALLIE RITCHEY; NURSE MILLER;
NURSE VICKIE; NURSE JOHN DOE, black male approx 9 pm 6/28/08; NURSE JANE
DOE, white female approx 9pm 6/28/08; LT. BAIRD, now employed at SCI-Cresson;
LT. DIFFIN; SGT. BUSCO; C.O. A.W. EBERLING; C.O. PYLE; C.O. N. GROVE;
C.O.D. PLUMMER; C.O. SNYDER; DR. RONALD LONG, SCI SMITHFIELD
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 3:08-cv-01374)
Magistrate Judge: Honorable Martin C. Carlson
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 17, 2013
Before: SCIRICA, JORDAN and COWEN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: April 18, 2013)
___________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM
William Victor, a Pennsylvania inmate proceeding pro se, appeals from the
District Court‟s denial of his request for spoliation of evidence sanctions, various pre-trial
evidentiary rulings, and the entry of judgment following a jury verdict in favor of the
defendants. For the following reasons, we will affirm.
I.
In July 2008, Victor filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that
on June 28, 2008, he was assaulted by correctional officers during a cell extraction in the
Restricted Housing Unit (“RHU”) at SCI Huntingdon. Victor further alleged that staff
were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs following the incident and that officers
retaliated against him during the incident by filing false misconduct reports, entering his
cell under false pretenses, and beating him.
Victor filed several motions seeking spoliation sanctions for his claim that some
correctional officers destroyed, manufactured, or failed to record evidence from the cell
extraction. The Magistrate Judge1 held a week-long evidentiary hearing and
subsequently granted in part and denied in part Victor‟s motions. Specifically, the
Magistrate Judge denied Victor‟s request for sanctions but ruled that Victor would be
1
The parties consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(c)(1).
2
allowed to present evidence at trial regarding his claim that some staff falsely claimed
that he was attempting to hang himself at the time of the cell extraction.
During the pretrial conference, the Magistrate Judge ruled that evidence
concerning the substance of the internal and disciplinary investigations conducted for the
incident would be excluded because it would “lead to confusion of issues [and] prolong
and complicate proceedings.” However, the Magistrate Judge ruled that Victor would be
allowed to elicit testimony regarding statements made by defendants during these
investigations. The Magistrate Judge also granted Victor‟s request that writs of habeas
corpus ad testificandum issue for several inmate-witnesses, including Harold Leaphart.
The jury trial began before the Magistrate Judge on May 21, 2012, and lasted until
May 29, 2012, when the jury returned its verdict in favor of the defendants. This appeal
followed. The Magistrate Judge subsequently denied Victor‟s timely motion for a new
trial.2
II.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the Magistrate Judge‟s
evidentiary rulings and decision regarding the request for spoliation of evidence sanctions
for abuse of discretion. See Bull v. UPS, Inc., 665 F.3d 68, 73 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing In
2
We lack jurisdiction to review the Magistrate Judge‟s order denying Victor‟s motion for
a new trial because he did not file a notice of appeal or an amended notice of appeal from
this order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii); United States v. McGlory, 202 F.3d 664,
3
re Hechinger Inv. Co. of Del., Inc., 489 F.3d 568, 574 (3d Cir. 2007)); McKenna v. City
of Phila., 582 F.3d 447, 460 (3d Cir. 2009).
III.
Victor first alleges that the Magistrate Judge did not apply “the full scope of
spoliation review” to his request for spoliation of evidence sanctions. The cell extraction
was videotaped by both fixed surveillance cameras and a handheld camera operated by
Officer Goodman. Furthermore, some members of the extraction team stated that they
observed either a noose or bedding draped around Victor‟s neck. However, the actual
sheet was not preserved for evidence; only a photograph of the knotted sheet was
preserved. Victor asserts that the loss of the actual bedding, the failure to retain all
surveillance videos, and the eight-second interruption in the handheld camera footage
filmed by Officer Goodman are proof of willful spoliation.
We agree that Victor failed to demonstrate culpable spoliation of evidence by the
defendants. See Bull, 665 F.3d at 79 (“[A] finding of bad faith is pivotal to a spoliation
determination.”). Officers preserved footage depicting both the cell extraction and Victor
bleeding in the observation cell following the extraction. Although they did not
immediately act upon Victor‟s request to preserve footage from the fixed surveillance
cameras in the RHU corridors, this delay was not intentional because they were working
to preserve other relevant videos and evidence. Victor correctly asserts that an eight-
668 (3d Cir. 2000).
4
second interruption did occur in the footage from the handheld camera, but the
interruption did not occur during any pertinent activity, and several witnesses testified
regarding Goodman‟s inexperience because he had never before served as a videographer
during a cell extraction. Overall, the record permitted the District Court to act within its
discretion and draw an inference that the defendants had not engaged in intentional
spoliation. See id. at 74.
Victor next argues that the Magistrate Judge erred by excluding from evidence the
substance and outcomes of any disciplinary investigations into the incident. Rule 403 of
the Federal Rules of Evidence provides:
The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following:
unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay,
wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
The Magistrate Judge had broad discretion in his application of Rule 403 and may be
reversed only if the ruling was “„arbitrary or irrational.‟” United States v. Lee, 612 F.3d
170, 184 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Univ. Rehab. Servs. (PA), Inc., 205
F.3d 657, 665 (3d Cir. 2000) (en banc)).
Here, the issues before the jury were whether the defendants used force in a good
faith effort to maintain or restore discipline during the cell transfer, whether defendants
Diffin or Ritchie demonstrated deliberate indifference to Victor‟s serious medical needs,
and whether the defendants retaliated against Victor by filing false misconduct reports,
entering his cell under false pretences, and beating him. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503
5
U.S. 1, 7 (1992); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Carter v. McGrady, 292
F.3d 152, 157-58 (3d Cir. 2002). The substance and outcomes of these disciplinary
investigations did not involve similar issues, and so the Magistrate Judge correctly
determined that such evidence would confuse the issues and complicate jury proceedings.
Furthermore, Victor was permitted to question the investigating officers regarding
statements made by the defendants during the investigations. Accordingly, we cannot
agree that the Magistrate Judge‟s application of Rule 403 was arbitrary or irrational.3
Finally, Victor asserts that the jury‟s verdict in favor of the defendants “shocked
the conscience” because it was based upon allegedly false testimony given by the
defendants. However, it was the jury‟s duty, not ours, to “weigh evidence [and]
determine the credibility of witnesses.” United States v. Beckett, 208 F.3d 140, 151 (3d
Cir. 2000); see also Sheridan v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 100 F.3d 1061, 1076 (3d
Cir. 1996) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (“a . . . court [must] not
substitute its judgment of the facts and the credibility of the witnesses for that of the
jury”). In light of the evidence presented at trial, a ruling for Victor here would be an
impermissible substitution of our assessment of witness credibility for the jury‟s.
3
Furthermore, Victor‟s assertion that the Magistrate Judge ruled that he was not allowed
to call Harold Leaphart as a witness is belied by the record. The Magistrate Judge
granted Victor‟s request for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum to issue for
Leaphart. Victor himself chose not to call Leaphart as a witness.
6
Accordingly, we cannot agree with Victor that the jury‟s verdict shocks the judicial
conscience.4
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
4
Victor also alleges that the defendants‟ counsel made impermissible inflammatory
comments during closing argument. Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(1) requires an appellant to
order a transcript of the parts of the district court proceedings “not already on file as the
appellant considers necessary.” Our local rules also require that an appellant order the
transcript or, if the appellant cannot afford the cost of a transcript, file a motion for the
provision of the transcript pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 753(f). 3d Cir. L.A.R. 11.1. Victor
has not provided a transcript of the defendants‟ counsel‟s closing argument; accordingly,
we are unable to review the merits of this claim.
7