UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________

No. 23-1554 ___________

MICHAEL RIVERA, Appellant

v. LT. REDFERN, SCI Benner Township; C.O. SHRECK, SCI Benner Township; C.O. MONSELL, SCI Benner Township; NURSE PHIL ROGERS, SCI Benner Township ____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 1-21-cv-01118) Magistrate Judge: Honorable Susan E. Schwab ____________

Argued on February 7, 2024

Before: HARDIMAN, SCIRICA, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: April 11, 2024) Megha Ram [Argued] Devi Rao Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center 501 H Street NE, Suite 275 Washington, D.C. 20002 Counsel for Appellant Michelle Henry Michael J. Scarinci [Argued] J. Bart DeLone Office of Attorney General of Pennsylvania Strawberry Square, 15th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17120 Counsel for Appellees

____________

OPINION OF THE COURT ____________

HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.

Michael Rivera appeals the District Court’s summary judgment in favor of four prison officials on his Eighth

2 Amendment deliberate indifference claim. Because the officials are entitled to qualified immunity, we will affirm.

I1

On June 20, 2020, Rivera was a Pennsylvania state prisoner confined in the restricted housing unit. At approximately 5:45 p.m., Rivera was inside an open-air telephone cage when he overheard prison officials preparing to forcibly extract inmate Ryan Miller from a nearby cell. Miller was “covering and uncovering his door,” which was “slowing down” prison operations. App. 107. His behavior also presented “a safety issue,” as prisoners who cover their cell doors sometimes hurt themselves or even commit suicide. Id. Anticipating that prison officials would use pepper spray, Rivera informed them that exposing him to secondhand pepper spray, while he was unprotected in an open-air cage, would cause him to suffer an asthma attack. For nearly 90 minutes, Rivera implored prison officials to escort him back to his cell located 25 to 30 feet away on the same floor, stating that he would not be adversely affected by the pepper spray there. The officials refused, claiming there was no one available to take Rivera to his cell because of the ongoing preparations to extract Miller. Shortly past 7:00 p.m., after Miller had repeatedly refused to exit his cell, prison officials donned gas masks and

1 At summary judgment, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to Rivera and draw all reasonable inferences in his favor. Peroza-Benitez v. Smith, 994 F.3d 157, 164 (3d Cir. 2021). Where there are multiple “interpretation[s]” of video footage, “we are [similarly] bound to choose the interpretation most favorable to [Rivera].” Rush v. City of Philadelphia, 78 F.4th 610, 618 (3d Cir. 2023).

3 released pepper spray into Miller’s cell. After Miller was removed, prison officials escorted him to the psychiatric ward.

Rivera began coughing, sneezing, and experiencing a drowning-like sensation within three minutes of the pepper spray being deployed in Miller’s cell. Even after a prison official brought Rivera his asthma inhaler and took him back to his cell, his severe symptoms continued. Hearing Rivera coughing and vomiting, a prisoner in the neighboring cell requested medical attention on Rivera’s behalf. Rivera then received a nebulizer breathing treatment, which abated his symptoms.

After exhausting his administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Rivera sued for damages against prison officials