Darrin Robinson v. Phillip Johnson, 3rd Cir. (2011)

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 11-1285
___________
DARRIN ROBINSON,
Appellant
v.
PHILIP JOHNSON; JEFFREY FORTE; DANIEL HOOPER; MARTIN HORN;
JOSEPH ESSEDY (or ECSEDY); ROBERT ONSTOTT, in their individual capacities
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(W.D. Pa. Civil Action No. 03-cv-01545)
Magistrate Judge: Honorable Lisa Pupo Lenihan
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
October 25, 2011
Before: SCIRICA, GREENAWAY, JR. and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: October 28, 2011)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
PER CURIAM.
Darrin Robinson, a Pennsylvania prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals a judgment
entered in favor of Martin Horn, former Secretary of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvanias Department of Corrections, and Philip Johnson, former Superintendent of
SCI-Pittsburgh, after a bench trial in his civil rights action. For the reasons that follow,
we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
Robinson, through counsel, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 against
Secretary Horn, Superintendent Johnson, and several corrections officers claiming a
violation of his Eighth Amendment rights arising from an attack by another inmate which
resulted in serious injuries. The parties consented to adjudication by a Magistrate Judge,
who granted summary judgment in favor of all of the defendants. On appeal, we reversed
the Magistrate Judges decision that Robinson had procedurally defaulted his claims
against Secretary Horn and Superintendent Johnson. See Robinson v. Johnson, 343 F.
Appx 778, 782 (3d Cir. 2009) (unpublished decision).
Robinsons claims against Johnson and Horn proceeded to a two-day bench trial
after which the Magistrate Judge issued findings of fact and conclusions of law. The
Magistrate Judge found that on June 26, 2002, Robinson, who was housed in the
Restricted Housing Unit (RHU), was placed in a fenced exercise yard, also referred to
as an exercise cage, with three other inmates. All four inmates wore handcuffs, which
would be removed while they exercised. Inmate Troy Coopers handcuffs were removed
first. As soon as his cuffs were removed, Cooper attacked Robinson, who was still
cuffed, with a sharp piece of plastic, which Cooper had smuggled into the yard.
Robinson suffered wounds to his face, head, hands, and knee, which required
hospitalization and minor surgery. Robinson testified that he had no idea that Cooper
was a threat to him. He and Cooper had exercised in the same cage before.
2
The Magistrate Judge found that Secretary Horn was responsible for the day-today oversight of the Pennsylvania prison system and for approving department-wide
policies. Under Department of Corrections Policy 6.5.1, RHU inmates are to exercise
one person per yard, but two inmates may be placed in a yard when there is inadequate
space to accommodate the demand for exercise. Horn was Secretary when Policy 6.5.1.
was implemented, but was no longer Secretary on the date of the incident at issue.
The Magistrate Judge also found that SCI-Pittsburgh routinely exercised up to four
RHU inmates in a single yard and up to five inmates in a larger center yard. Had SCIPittsburgh exercised one person per cage, RHU staff would not have been unable to do
anything else during the day other than exercise the inmates.1 Corrections officers search
the exercise cages for contraband and conduct visual strip searches of RHU inmates
before they are escorted to the cages to exercise. The officers remove inmates handcuffs
one at a time through an aperture in the fence. For a brief period of time, an inmate
wearing handcuffs is exposed to an inmate without handcuffs. There was evidence of
twelve alleged or actual altercations in RHU exercise yards from January 2001 to June
2002, one of which involved an uncuffed inmate attacking a cuffed inmate. Johnson
testified there were about ten fights between uncuffed inmates in RHU exercise yards
from 1995 to 2002, when he was Superintendent at SCI-Pittsburgh and two other prisons.
Superintendent Johnson testified that approval must have been obtained from the
Department of Corrections central office for the practice of placing more than two RHU
inmates in an exercise yard. The Magistrate Judge found, and the record reflects, that
there was no evidence presented establishing such approval.
3
In rejecting Robinsons Eighth Amendment claim, the Magistrate Judge concluded

that Robinson failed to show that Horn and Johnson acted with deliberate indifference to
his safety when they approved and/or implemented Policy 6.5.1, which resulted in cuffed
and uncuffed inmates commingling briefly inside the RHU exercise yards. The
Magistrate Judge explained that there were an insufficient number of attacks to prove
knowledge of an unreasonable risk of harm. The Magistrate Judge also noted that the
staff searches the exercise cages and RHU inmates for contraband and that Robinson,
who had been in and out of the RHU over his twenty-year period of incarceration, had
not been previously exposed to danger. The Magistrate Judge further concluded that
Robinson had not established an obvious risk of harm and stated that intermingling
cuffed and uncuffed inmates in various settings is a fact of prison life. This appeal
followed.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291. When a district court conducts
a non-jury trial, we review the district courts findings of fact for clear error and exercise
plenary review over its application of the law to the facts. Trustees of the Natl Elevator
Industry Pension, Health Benefit and Educ. Funds v. Lutyk, 332 F.3d 188, 191 (3d Cir.
2003).
Robinson first argues in his brief that his counsel made various errors during the
course of his representation. Robinson contends that he told his attorney that he wanted a
jury trial but his attorney arranged for a bench trial without his consent. He also states
that his attorney failed to call three guards to testify. Robinson is also unhappy his case
4
was handled by several lawyers and he believes they made a mockery of his case.
Robinson seeks a new trial before a jury.
Unlike a criminal defendant, a civil litigant does not have a constitutional right to
effective assistance of counsel. Kushner v. Winterthur Swiss Ins. Co., 620 F.2d 404, 408
(3d Cir. 1980). The proper remedy for defective representation in a civil action is not a
new trial but a malpractice action against the offending attorney. Stanciel v. Gramley,
267 F.3d 575, 581 (7th Cir. 2001); Kushner, 620 F.2d at 408. Robinsons dissatisfaction
with counsels representation does not provide a basis for a new trial. In addition,
Robinsons participation without objection in the bench trial waives any Seventh
Amendment right to a jury trial. In re City of Philadelphia Litig., 158 F.3d 723, 727 (3d
Cir. 1998).
Robinson also challenges the Magistrate Judges conclusion that there was
insufficient evidence to establish that Horn and Johnson were aware of a substantial risk
of harm. He asserts that it is undisputed that RHU inmates are highly assaultive, that
inmates requiring protection exercise with violent inmates, that a handcuffed inmate
could not defend himself if attacked, that eleven exercise cage assaults had been
documented in the two years before he was attacked, that Horn and Johnson agreed there
is a potential for trouble when an uncuffed inmate is in the presence of a cuffed inmate,
and that SCI-Pittsburgh exercised up to five RHU inmates together. Robinson argues that
the assaults were regular and predictable and that Horn and Johnson cannot escape
liability because they were unaware that he was likely to be assaulted.
5
Prison officials have a duty to protect inmates from violence at the hands of other
inmates. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994). As recognized by the Magistrate
Judge, in order to establish an Eighth Amendment violation, Robinson was required to
show that he was incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm
and that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to that risk. Id. at 834. Deliberate
indifference requires that a prison official know of and disregard an excessive risk to
inmate health or safety. Id. at 837.
Whether an official had the requisite knowledge of a substantial risk is a question
of fact, which may be shown by circumstantial evidence. Id. at 842. Evidence showing
that a risk was obvious may be sufficient to show actual knowledge. Id. Evidence, for
example, showing that a substantial risk of inmate attacks was pervasive or welldocumented and that officials had been exposed to information about the risk may be
sufficient. Id. at 842-43. As Robinson asserts, an official may not escape liability by
showing that, while he was aware of a substantial risk to inmate safety, he did not know
the complainant was likely to be assaulted. Id. at 843. Finally, an officials duty under
the Eighth Amendment is to ensure reasonable safety and, even if an official is aware
of a substantial risk to inmate safety, an official may not be liable if he responded
reasonably to the risk. Id. at 844.
Applying these principles, we find no error in the Magistrate Judges conclusion
that Robinson failed to establish that Horn and Johnson were deliberately indifferent to a
substantial risk of harm. It is undisputed that Robinson did not expect any harm from
6
Cooper. The evidence does not establish that Horn or Johnson was exposed to
information indicating that either the prison policy or SCI-Pittsburghs practice regarding
RHU exercise, which allowed more than one inmate in an exercise yard and resulted in a
cuffed inmate being exposed briefly to an uncuffed inmate, posed a substantial risk of
harm. The number of fights that occurred in RHU exercise yards was small. Johnson
described such occurrences as pretty rare, noting that most of the time the guys
wanted to exercise together. 6/7/10 Trial Trans. at 157. Horn and Johnson also testified
that no one had ever raised concerns during staff meetings or visits to the RHU regarding
the practice of having cuffed inmates exposed to uncuffed inmates in the exercise yards.
Robinson correctly states in his brief that a claimant need not show a particular
number of incidents before a claim of deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of harm
is successful. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 845 (noting availability of injunctive relief to
remedy unsafe conditions). At trial, Robinson sought to show that Horn and Johnson
knew that a substantial risk of harm existed when a cuffed inmate was exposed to an
uncuffed inmate in the exercise yard because the risk was obvious. Steven Martin,
Robinsons expert witness on management of maximum security prisons, testified that
commingling cuffed and uncuffed inmates in the RHU exercise space makes the cuffed
inmate vulnerable and creates a condition that a potential attacker will exploit. Martin
further testified that a policymaker would be aware of this risk. Martin, however, also
testified that he had often seen commingling in the maximum security setting, typically
when a cuffed inmate is escorted across an open yard with unrestrained inmates. Both
7
Horn and Johnson also testified, and Martin agreed, that commingling cuffed and
uncuffed inmates occurs in other circumstances, such as when a double-celled RHU
inmate must leave his cell and he is cuffed in the presence of an uncuffed cellmate. The
record thus supports the Magistrate Judges conclusion that such commingling is a fact of
prison life.
The record does not reflect that either Horn or Johnson perceived the brief period
when a cuffed inmate is exposed to an uncuffed inmate in the exercise yard as presenting
a substantial risk of harm. As noted by the Magistrate Judge, staff also took measures to
minimize any risk of harm by searching the exercise yards and the RHU inmates. Based
on the evidence submitted at trial, we cannot conclude that either defendant was
deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of harm.
Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

Darrin Robinson v. Phillip Johnson, 3rd Cir. (2011)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Darrin Robinson v. Phillip Johnson, 3rd Cir. (2011)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

In rejecting Robinsons Eighth Amendment claim, the Magistrate Judge concluded

You might also like