Kevin Davis v. John Wetzel

── Kevin Davis v. John Wetzel ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: April 30, 2026 Category: General NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 25-2958 __________ KEVIN DAVIS, Appellant v. JOHN WETZEL; ROBERT HAMMAND; E. ARMEL, Superintendent; S. ERICKSON, Superintendent; JOHN DOES 1 AND 2 ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-00208) Magistrate Judge: Honorable Christopher B. Brown (sitting by consent) ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) April 21, 2026 Before: BIBAS, CHUNG, and BOVE, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: April 30, 2026) ___________ OPINION * ___________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. PER CURIAM Pennsylvania state prisoner Kevin Davis appeals pro se from the District Court’s decision granting summary judgment against him in this civil-rights case that he brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm that judgment. I. In the late 1970s, Davis was sentenced in Pennsylvania state court to consecutive life terms based on his conviction for two murders — one that he committed as a juvenile, and the other that he committed as an adult. Following the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 465 (2012) (“hold[ing] that mandatory life without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes violates the Eighth Amendment[]”), and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190, 212 (2016) (holding that Miller applies retroactively), Davis was resentenced to a prison term of 40 years to life for the murder that he had committed as a juvenile. In 2023, at which point Davis was still serving his 40-to-life sentence, 1 he commenced a pro se civil-rights lawsuit in the District Court against a few prison officials, seeking damages and other relief. Davis’s amended complaint, which is the operative pleading, raised numerous claims. The claims that survived dismissal alleged that the defendants were violating (1) the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause by treating Davis differently from other “juvenile lifers” (inmates who have been sentenced to life in prison for crimes committed as juveniles); (2) the First Amendment 1 Davis has since been paroled from that sentence, and he is now serving his consecutive life sentence for the murder that he committed as an adult. 2 by retaliating against him for filing grievances and another lawsuit; and (3) the Eighth Amendment by being deliberately indifferent to the fact that, “by virtue of his chronic illness (diabetes), he was in imminent danger/risk at . . . SCI-Fayette [(his place of confinement)] of having a heart attack/stroke due to the toxic coal ash that contaminates the institution.” Am. Compl. 8. After the close of discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment on the three surviving claims. Davis opposed that motion. On September 25, 2025, the District Court granted the defendants’ summary-judgment motion, concluding that all three claims were unexhausted and meritless. Davis then tim