Charlie Castillo v. Correction Officer O'Haine, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania grants Defendant O’Haine’s motion for summary judgment in Charlie Castillo’s action alleging First Amendment retaliation and a Fourteenth Amendment privacy violation. The court concludes that Castillo failed to exhaust available administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act and finds no supported basis to excuse that failure. The court denies Castillo’s first summary-judgment motion, deems his second motion withdrawn for failure to file a supporting brief, enters judgment for O’Haine, and closes the case.

Holdings

1. A party moving for summary judgment must identify record evidence supporting the asserted undisputed facts; the court will not scour attached documents to locate evidentiary support. Because Castillo's statement of facts lacked record citations, his first motion for summary judgment was denied.
2. Officer O'Haine was entitled to summary judgment because Castillo failed to exhaust available administrative remedies concerning his First Amendment retaliation and Fourteenth Amendment privacy claims before filing suit, and Castillo presented no supported basis for excusing exhaustion.
3. Castillo's second motion for summary judgment was deemed withdrawn because he did not file a supporting brief within the time required by Middle District of Pennsylvania Local Rule 7.5.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Castillo was entitled to summary judgment when his statement of material facts lacked citations to supporting evidence.
2. Whether Officer O'Haine was entitled to summary judgment because Castillo failed to exhaust available administrative remedies before filing his federal action.
3. Whether Castillo's second motion for summary judgment should be deemed withdrawn because he failed to file a supporting brief within the time required by the local rules.

Disposition

other