Tariq Wyatt v. Christina Hauser

── Tariq Wyatt v. Christina Hauser ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: June 03, 2026 Category: General NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 25-1517 __________ TARIQ WYATT, Appellant v. CHRISTINA HAUSER, Registered Nurse SCI-Mahanoy; CAPT. DREHER, Correctional Officer SCI-Mahanoy; LIEUTENANT DAVIS, Correctional Officer SCI-Mahanoy; CAPTAIN BANKS, Correctional Officer SCI-Mahanoy; C.O. GUNTHER; SUPERINTENDENT MAHANOY SCI; DEPUTY WHITE, Deputy Superintendent SCI- Mahanoy; J. MACKNIGHT, Program Manager SCI-Mahanoy; C. COUNSELOR, Counselor SCI-Mahanoy; EVANS; J. MAHALLY, Grievance Coordinator SCI- Mahanoy; F. WALTER, Grievance Coordinator SCI-Mahanoy; A. RODRIGUEZ, Correctional Officer SCI-Mahanoy; MAJOR SOKALOSKI; N. GUZENSKI, Correctional Officer; RN AMY BING; C.O. ADAM FRITZINGER; C.O. JOSEPH FLYNN; JOSEPH DUPONT; RN ANGELA LANDMESSER; JOHN CHUNA ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-00092) District Judge: Honorable Malachy E. Mannion ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) May 20, 2026 Before: KRAUSE, RESTREPO, and PORTER, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: June 3, 2026) ___________  OPINION* ___________ PER CURIAM Tariq Wyatt appeals pro se the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. We will affirm. Wyatt filed suit against numerous officials (“Defendants”) employed at the State Correctional Institution at Mahanoy (“SCI-Mahanoy”) in Frackville, Pennsylvania, alleging violations of his First, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights. These allegations arose from a series of events that took place over a span of ten days in October 2021. The incidents included a nurse’s handling Wyatt’s medication without gloves, his one-day placement in a Psychiatric Observation Cell (“POC”), the issuance of several misconducts, cold conditions in the Restricted Housing Unit (“RHU”), officers’ utilization of Oleoresin Capsicum (“OC”) spray on one occasion, and officers’ misplacement of Wyatt’s property, which was later returned to him or replaced. After a period of discovery, Wyatt and Defendants filed cross motions for summary judgment. The District Court granted Defendants’ motion, concluding that Wyatt’s claims were barred by his failure to exhaust administrative remedies and that, in the alternative, his claims failed on the merits. The District Court denied Wyatt’s summary judgment motion. Wyatt timely appealed the District Court’s order.1 * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over the District Court’s summary judgment decision. See Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 767 F.3d 247, 265 (3d Cir. 2014). Summary judgment is appropriate where “the movant 2  On appeal, Wyatt argues that the District Court erroneously determined that he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because exhaustion was unavailable to him. We disagree. “Under the [Prison Litigation Reform Act], prisoners who seek to challenge their conditions of confinement must exhaust all available administrative remedies.” Prater v. Dep’t of Corr., 76 F.4th 184, 203 (3d Cir. 2023)