NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 19-3613 __________ ALIREZA BAKHTIARI, Appellant v. JASON MADRIGAL; PAUL POSLUZNY; JENNIFER RITCHEY; THOMAS R. DECKER; FREDERICK J. KENT; JOHN F. KELLY, DHS Secretary; JOHN FRAWLEY, Corr. Sergeant; FORSHE, Corr. Sergeant; MARTIN, Corr. Sergeant; ELISE WENZEL, Corr. Administrator; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 3-18-cv-00038) District Judge: Honorable A. Richard Caputo ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) June 16, 2020 Before: KRAUSE, MATEY, and ROTH, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: February 2, 2021) ___________ OPINION * ___________ PER CURIAM * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Pro se appellant Alireza Bakhtiari appeals from the judgment entered against him by the District Court after a jury trial. For the reasons discussed below, we will affirm. I. Because we write primarily for the parties, we will recite only the facts necessary for our discussion. In January 2018, Bakhtiari filed a complaint in the District Court, raising numerous claims stemming from his immigration detention at the Pike County Correctional Facility (“PCCF”) in 2017. Bakhtiari named various PCCF employees and federal officials, and the United States, as defendants. Among other things, Bakhtiari alleged that his constitutional rights were violated when he was placed in solitary confinement and when he was served food by an inmate who had Hepatitis C. The District Court dismissed the claims against the federal officials and the United States. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the PCCF employees on many claims. Following a trial, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the remaining defendants on the remaining claims. In this appeal, Bakhtiari challenges only the District Court’s grant of summary judgment on: (1) his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against defendant Wenzel based on his placement in solitary confinement; and (2) certain § 1983 claims against the PCCF defendants based on his being served food by the inmate who had Hepatitis C. II. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over the District Court’s order granting summary judgment. See Kaucher v. County of Bucks, 2 455 F.3d 418, 422 (3d Cir. 2006). Summary judgment is proper when, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and drawing all inferences in favor of that party, there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Kaucher, 455 F.3d at 422–23. A genuine dispute of material fact exists if the evidence is sufficient for a reasonable factfinder to return a verdict for the non-moving party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. See Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals