Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-14-12243/USCOURTS-ca11-14-12243-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-12243

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:12-cv-00052-JSM-AEP

GLENN SMITH, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WARDEN, HARDEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, 

in its official and individual capacities, 

SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

in its official and individual capacities, et al.

Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(January 7, 2015)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 14-12243 Date Filed: 01/07/2015 Page: 1 of 9
2

Glenn Smith, a Florida prisoner, appeals pro se the dismissal without 

prejudice of his original complaint and the partial dismissal and partial summary 

judgment against his amended complaint against officials of the Florida 

Department of Corrections about the conditions of his confinement. Smith also 

challenges the denial of his motions for a preliminary injunction, for class 

certification and appointment of counsel for the class action, and for sanctions; the 

partial denial of his motion to recover the costs related to service of process; and 

the award of costs to the officials. We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Smith’s motion 

for a preliminary injunction. Smith sought an order to compel the Warden of 

Hardee, the supervisor of library services for Hardee, and Kathy Connor, an 

employee of the Department, to provide word processing and copy services for 

him. Smith sought the services to petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari 

that would curtail “violations of [his] constitutional rights by officials [of the 

Department] and a state court judge.” But Smith was not entitled to an injunction 

when there was no reasonable likelihood that he could succeed on the merits. See 

Horton v. City of St. Augustine, 272 F.3d 1318, 1326 (11th Cir. 2001). Smith failed 

to satisfy two threshold requirements for his complaint of a denial of access to 

courts: (1) he lacked standing in the absence of any allegation that the officials 

impeded his efforts to pursue a viable cause of action, see Bass v. Singletary, 143 

USCA11 Case: 14-12243 Date Filed: 01/07/2015 Page: 2 of 9
3

F.3d 1442, 1445 (11th Cir. 1998); and (2) he failed to identify even a colorable 

claim for relief. See Barbour v. Haley, 471 F.3d 1222, 1225–26 (11th Cir. 2006).

The district court also did not abuse its discretion when it denied Smith’s 

motions to appoint counsel and to certify a class action. Smith alleged, on behalf of 

himself and other similarly situated inmates, that his exposure to cold weather and 

rain without adequate clothing and bedding constituted cruel and unusual 

punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. But Smith enjoys no 

constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in a civil action; appointed 

counsel is “a privilege . . . justified only by exceptional circumstances such as 

where the facts and legal issues are so novel or complex as to require the assistance 

of a trained practitioner.” Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1216 (11th Cir. 1992)

(quoting Poole v. Lambert, 819 F.2d 1025, 1028 (11th Cir.1987)). Smith’s 

complaint required no significant investigation or research because Smith and the 

officials agreed about the clothing and provisions made available to inmates. The 

district court also reasonably determined that Smith was not an adequate class 

representative because his complaint was atypical of other inmates. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 23(a). Smith alleged that he was unusually sensitive to cold weather, which 

he defined as any temperature below 75 degrees, and his uncommon issues 

predominated over the class-wide issues of whether the prison was heated 

USCA11 Case: 14-12243 Date Filed: 01/07/2015 Page: 3 of 9
4

adequately and whether all inmates were supplied adequate clothing. See Murray v. 

Auslander, 244 F.3d 807, 811 (11th Cir. 2001).

The district court also did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed Smith’s 

original complaint for noncompliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a).

A complaint against multiple defendants must allege claims that arise “out of the 

same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences” and that 

involve a “question of law or fact common to all defendants,” Fed. R. Civ. P.

20(a), but Smith’s complaint alleged three unrelated claims against different 

officials. Smith complained that the Warden, the supervisor of library services, and 

Connor interfered with his right of access to the courts in violation of the First and 

Fourteenth Amendments and state law; the Warden and Eugenia Wellhausen, an 

employee of the Department, conducted unreasonable searches of his cell in 

violation of the Fourth Amendment; and the Warden, Connor, and Wellhausen 

supplied inadequate clothing and bedding to protect inmates against the weather in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment. Smith’s status as a pro se litigant did not 

relieve him of the obligation to comply with Rule 20(a). See Albra v. Advan, Inc., 

490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007).

The district court correctly dismissed sua sponte Smith’s claim in his 

amended complaint for compensatory and punitive damages as barred by the 

Prison Litigation Reform Act. Smith alleged that he was provided inadequate

USCA11 Case: 14-12243 Date Filed: 01/07/2015 Page: 4 of 9
5

clothing and bedding, but he failed to allege that the quantity or quality of the 

goods affected his health or caused him to suffer a physical injury under the Act. 

See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). Smith alleged that he was cold and wet and that he woke 

twice during the night, but he acknowledged that those conditions never made him 

sick. See Mitchell v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 294 F.3d 1309, 1312–13 

(11th Cir. 2002) (“[T]o avoid dismissal under § 1997e(e), a prisoner’s claims for 

emotional or mental injury must be accompanied by allegations of physical injuries 

that are greater than de minimis.”). Smith argues that the district court failed to 

consider that he suffered from hypothermia, but Smith did not mention that selfdiagnosed condition until two years after the dismissal of his claim for damages. 

Even so, Smith never alleged that he required medical treatment because of the 

officials’ conduct. See id.

Smith argues that the district court should have construed his complaint 

liberally to request nominal damages, but even if we were to assume that the 

district court erred in this respect, any error was harmless. “Nominal damages are 

appropriate [only] if a plaintiff establishes a violation of a fundamental 

constitutional right.” Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1162 (11th Cir. 2003). Smith 

failed to do so.

The district court did not err by dismissing Smith’s complaints that Connor 

and Wellhausen were deliberately indifferent to his need for adequate clothing and 

USCA11 Case: 14-12243 Date Filed: 01/07/2015 Page: 5 of 9
6

bedding. Smith alleged that Connor and Wellhausen denied grievances and appeals 

on behalf of the Secretary of the Department, but Smith failed to allege that 

Connor and Wellhausen were involved in determining the inmates’ winter and wet 

weather gear. See Hale v. Tallapoosa Cnty., 50 F.3d 1579, 1582 (11th Cir. 1995). 

Smith also failed to allege that either official had authority over a subordinate who 

selected the clothing and bedding. See Franklin v. Curry, 738 F.3d 1246, 1249–50 

(11th Cir. 2013). Smith’s complaint failed to state a claim against Connor and 

Wellhausen. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

The district court also did not abuse its discretion by granting in part and 

denying in part Smith’s motion to recover the costs that he incurred to serve 

process on the Warden, the Secretary, Connor, and Wellhausen. The district court 

reasonably determined that the Warden and the Secretary should pay the fee 

charged to serve their summons because they “fail[ed], without good cause, to sign 

and return a waiver requested by” Smith. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2)(A). But the 

district court reasonably refused to order the Warden and the Secretary to 

reimburse Smith for the costs he allegedly incurred for copying, mailing, and 

making telephone calls because he failed to substantiate those expenses. See id.

4(d)(2)(B). The district court lacked jurisdiction to impose any expenses on

Connor and Wellhausen when Smith failed to serve them in compliance with 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(2). See Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe 

USCA11 Case: 14-12243 Date Filed: 01/07/2015 Page: 6 of 9
7

Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350, 119 S. Ct. 1322, 1327 (1999); Prewitt Enters., 

Inc. v. Org. of Petroleum Exporting Countries, 353 F.3d 916, 924–25 (11th Cir. 

2003). Later, when Connor and Wellhausen waived service of process and 

responded to the complaint, Smith did not incur any “expenses . . . in making 

service” that he could recover from the officials.

Smith argues that the officials should have been sanctioned for moving to 

quash service of process and opposing the requirement that they waive service, but 

the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to impose sanctions. A 

district court may sanction a party for filing a pleading that lacks a reasonable 

factual basis; that is predicated on a frivolous legal theory; or that is submitted in 

bad faith for an improper purpose. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b), (c); Anderson v. 

Smithfield Foods, Inc., 353 F.3d 912, 915 (11th Cir. 2003). Smith was not entitled 

to sanctions against Connor and Wellhausen because they were never properly 

served with process. And the district court reasonably determined that the Warden 

and the Secretary opposed paying the service fee and waiving service of process

based on a good-faith argument that Smith, who is a frequent filer, should bear his

own costs to curtail his abusive litigation. See generally 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g);

Dupree v. Palmer, 284 F.3d 1234, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002). In making that 

determination, the district court was entitled to rely on the officials’ undisputed 

evidence that Smith was an abusive litigant, see Smith v. Crosby, 543 U.S. 1019, 

USCA11 Case: 14-12243 Date Filed: 01/07/2015 Page: 7 of 9
8

1019, 125 S. Ct. 667, 667 (2004); Smith v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 713 F.3d 1059, 

1061 & n.1 (11th Cir. 2013), and that he used the resources of family and friends to 

evade paying the substantial liens on his prison account.

The district court also did not err by entering summary judgment in favor of 

the Warden and the Secretary. Smith failed to present evidence that he was 

exposed to a condition of confinement sufficiently “extreme” to create “an 

unreasonable risk of serious damage to his future health or safety” and that the 

Warden and the Secretary acted with deliberate indifference to Smith’s risk of 

harm. Chandler v. Crosby, 379 F.3d 1278, 1289 (11th Cir. 2004) (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). Smith offered no evidence that he faces an 

unreasonable risk of harm from his exposure to cold and rainy conditions in the 

southern central region of Florida as he walks outside to and from his residential 

building for meals and appointments or when he goes outside to the recreation 

yard. Smith testified that he had a prison-issued jacket, three sets of uniform shirts 

and pants, twice as many pairs of socks, and four t-shirts; the prison also provided 

a coat, two sets of thermal underwear, and an extra blanket during the winter; he 

obtained from prison officials a medical pass that allows him to wear institutionissued boots; and he acquired a rain poncho. Even if we were to assume that the 

weather is unpleasant to Smith because he is unusually cold-natured, his situation 

does not pose an unreasonable risk to his health. Smith also failed to present any 

USCA11 Case: 14-12243 Date Filed: 01/07/2015 Page: 8 of 9
9

evidence that he was unreasonably exposed to cold conditions inside the prison 

during the winter. Smith acknowledged that he layered his clothing and he had 

available four blankets under which to stay warm, and the officials established, 

without dispute, that inmates’ cells are heated and maintained between 65 and 72 

degrees during the winter.

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it taxed Smith $600.25 

for the costs of his deposition and $77.10 for the copy expenses incurred by the 

officials. As the prevailing party, the officials were entitled to recover the 

reasonable expenses that they incurred in their defense, see 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1920; Gilchrist v. Bolger, 733 F.2d 1551, 1556–57 (11th Cir. 1984), and the 

officials submitted evidence to corroborate their costs. The district court 

reasonably declined to reduce the award requested by the officials based on 

Smith’s alleged indigency because he failed to provide “substantial documentation 

of a true inability to pay.” Chapman v. AI Transp., 229 F.3d 1012, 1039 (11th Cir. 

2000). As explained by the district court, Smith garnered enough money to pay the 

$400 fee to file his amended complaint and the $505 fee to appeal the dismissal of 

his initial complaint.

We AFFIRM the judgment against Smith.

USCA11 Case: 14-12243 Date Filed: 01/07/2015 Page: 9 of 9