John Butler v. Floyd

── John Butler v. Floyd ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: April 29, 2026 Category: General AMENDED CLD-110 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 25-2567 ___________ JOHN BUTLER, Appellant v. FLOYD; STAFFORD; JAMES BARNACLE; F. NUNEZ; BOYCE, #1; BOYCE, #2; HAFELI; QUINN; PLACE; C.O. STOKES, sued in individual and official capacities ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 1:23-cv-00289) District Judge: Honorable Susan Paradise Baxter ____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 April 9, 2026 Before: BIBAS, PHIPPS, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: April 29, 2026) _________ 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.  Inmate John Butler appeals pro se the District Court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of six defendants and sua sponte dismissing his claims against the three remaining defendants in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We will summarily affirm. I. Butler sued ten employees of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, claiming that they unlawfully retaliated against him by falsely implicating him in, and punishing him for, a hunger strike, verbally threatening him, delaying his access to medical care, and failing to respond to his allegations of abuse, all in violation of the First and Eighth Amendments. In August 2023, Defendant Stafford issued Butler a misconduct for his alleged organization of a hunger strike at the State Correctional Institution in Albion, Pennsylvania (“SCI-Albion”). Butler claimed this misconduct was issued in retaliation for his filing of grievances and offering assistance to other inmates with their legal cases. At the misconduct hearing, Defendant Nunez offered Butler 30 days in the Restricted Housing Unit (“RHU”) if he agreed to plead guilty. Butler refused, and Defendant Nunez sanctioned him to 90 days in the RHU. Butler asserted that this sanction was unlawful retaliation for his constitutionally protected “not guilty” plea. Meanwhile, one morning Butler began to experience chest pain. He pressed the “medical emergency button” numerous times, but Defendants Hafeli, Quinn, Place, and Stokes did not respond to his requests to see the medical staff. Defendant Hafeli stated, “you should have thought of that before you got everyone to go on a hunger strike.” 2 However, after Butler had been semi-conscious on the floor of his cell for several minutes, Defendants contacted the medical team. Butler was assessed and immediately transferred to UPMC Hamot in Erie, Pennsylvania, where he was observed for 23 hours and discharged the following day after his vitals stabilized. Butler alleged that, while at the hospital, he asked Defendant Boyce #1 to turn down the television in his room so he could rest, at which point Boyce #1 threatened to slap him and verbally abused him. Upon his return to SCI-Albion, Butler spoke with a nurse and reported Boyce #1’s be