FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUGUST 20, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 11 65 8

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 00 91 7 C V-J- 32 JRK JEREM IAH THOMAS, MIC HAEL MCKINNEY, Pl ai nt iff s- App el le es , ve rs us RANDALL BRYANT, in hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty, WALTER A. MCNEIL, Secr et ary, Depa rtment o f Co rrec ti on s, Defen da nt s- App el lant s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Au gu st20 , 20 10 ) Befo re BLACK, HULL andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . ANDERSON, Circ ui t J ud ge : Thi s ap pe al pre se nt s i m

po rta ntqu es ti on s co nc ern in g t he in te rs ect io n o f th eEig ht h Am en dm en t an d the in carc erat io n o f in m at es with s eri ou s m en ta l i ll ne ss .

Tenin m at es in carc erat edat F lo rid a St at e Pri so n (“ FSP” ) br ou gh t thi s § 19 83 act io n ag ai ns t v ari ou s o ffi cers an d e m pl oyees o f th e Fl or id a Dep art m en t o f Co rrec ti on s (“ DOC”), al le gi ng th atth e u se of c he m ic al ag en ts on in m at es with m en ta l i ll ne ss an d o th er v ul ne rab il it ie s v io la te s the Eig ht h Am en dm en t’s p ro hi bi ti on on cru el an d
un us ua l p un is hm en t. Aft er the pl ai nt iff s s et tl edth ei r da m ag es cla im s ag ai ns t the in di vi du al co rrec ti on al off ic ers res po ns ib le foradmin is te rin g t he ch em ic al ag en ts , th e d is tri ctco urt h el d afiv e-d ay be nc h t ria l o n t he ir r em ai ni ng cla im s fo r de cl arat ory

jud gm en t an d i njunc ti ve rel ie f ag ai ns t the two de fen dant s al le ge dl y res po ns ib le forth e p ol ic y whi chau th or iz edth e u se of c he m ic al ag en ts on in m at es atFSP: W al te r McNe il , Secre tary of t he DOC, andRan da ll Bry an t, Warde n o f FSP. The di st ric t co urt en te redjud gm en t i n favo r of two of t he rem ai ni ng si x p la in ti ffs , 1
co nc lu di ng th atth e rep eat edsp raying s i nm at es Jer em iah Th om as an d M ic ha el McKi nn ey

rece iv edpu rs ua ntto th e DOC’s no n- sp on tane ou s u se -o f-fo rce p ol ic y vi ol at edth e Eig ht h Am en dm en t. Sp eci fic al ly, th e d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d t ha t Tho m as an d M cKin ne y

de m on st rat edth atat t im es inwhi chth ey were s pr ay edwith ch em ic al ag en ts th ey

were u nabl e to co nf

orm th ei r be ha vi orto pri so n s tand ard s due
By the time of trial, four

of the orig inal ten plaintiffs had be en dismissed from the 1 suit. 2to th ei r m en ta l i ll ne ss es su chth atth e DOC’s us e o f fo rce f orpu rp os es of p ris on di sc ip li ne am ou nt edto cru el an d u nu su al pu ni sh m en t. To r em edy th e v io la ti on , th e di st ric t co urt p erm an en tl y en joi ne d t he de fen da nt s, i n t he ir o ffi ci al cap aci ti es , fro m al lo win g the no n- sp on tane ou s u se of c he mic al ag en ts on Tho m as or M cKin ne y witho utfir stco ns ul ti ng with the DOC’ s trai ne d m en ta l h eal th st aff t o e va lu at e th ei r m en ta l h eal th st atus . Defen da nt s M cNei l an d B ry an t n ow ap pe al , cha ll en gi ng bo th th e d is tri ctco urt’s fi nd in g o f anEig ht h Am en dm en t v io la ti on an d the pro pr ie ty of it s p erm an en t i nju nc ti on . Fo urda y s b efo re o ral arg um en t, i n a n u nf ortu na te twi stof e ve nt s, p la in ti ff Tho m as di edinDOC cu st od y . Pen di ng be fo re o urco urt i s a t im el y m ot io n fo r subs ti tu ti on fil edby T ho m as ’s fathe r, Max im e Je ro m e Tho m as , to subs ti tu te hi s so n’s i nt eres t i n thi s s ui t. See Fed . R. App . P. 43 (a) (p ro vi di ng forsubs ti tu ti on of a de ceas edpa rty onap pe al ). Bo th pa rti es ag ree t ha t Th om as ’s dea th ren de rs m oo t th e d ecl arat ory

an d i nju nc ti ve rel ie f award edhi m by the di st ric t co urt. “ Whe re a cas e b eco m es m oo t af

te r th e d is tri ctco urt en te rs jud gm en t b utbe fo re the ap pe ll at e co urt h as is su eda de ci si on , th e ap pe ll at e co urt m us t d is m is s the ap pe al , vac at e th e di st ric t co urt’s jud gm en t, an d re m an d wi th in st ru ct io ns to di sm is s as m oo t.” Be ki er v. Be ki er, 2 48 F.3d10 51 , 10 55 –5 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) (ci ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Gha ndtc hi , 70 5 F .2d13 15 , 13 16 (11 th Cir . 19 83 )). 3Howev er, al th ou gh Tho m as ’s dea thde pr iv es us of ju ris di ct io n t o d et erm in e

th e m eri ts of h is Eig ht h Am en dm en t cl ai m an d t he di st ric t co urt’s awar d o f hi s in jun ct iv e rel ie f, “ [w]henpl ai nt iff s cl earl y su ccee de d i n o bt ai ni ng th e rel ie f so ug ht be fo re the di st ric t co urt an d a n i nt erv en in g e ve ntren de redth e cas e m oo t o n app eal , pl ai nt iff s ar e st il l ‘pre va il in g p art ie s’ forth e p ur po se s o f at to rn ey 's fe es for th e di st ric t co urt l it ig at io n.” Diffe nd erfe r v. Go m ez-C ol on , 58 7 F .3d44 5, 4 54 (1s t 2 Ci r. 20 09 ). W e th us ho ldth atTho m as m ay st il l b e a “pr ev ai li ng pa rty” ent it le d t o at to rn ey s’ fees forth e co st s o f th e d is tri ctco urt l it ig at io n n ot withs tand in g h is
un ti m el y de ath andth e subs eque ntm oo tn es s o f hi s l aws ui t p en di ng ap pe al
. 3 Acco rd in gl y , we vac at e th e d is tri ctco urt’s jud gm en t an d p erm an en t i nju nc ti on as to Tho m as bu t g ran t the pe nd in g m ot io n fo r subs ti tu ti on inord er t o a ll ow the di st ric t co urt t o re so lv e Tho m as ’s m ot io n fo r at to rn ey ’s fees . The d is tri ctco urt, i n it s d is cret io n, m ay

awardfees to Tho m as ’s est at e if itde te rm in es th atTho m as

“ su ccee de d o n a ny sig ni fic an t i ss ue inli ti ga ti on whi chach ie ve d s om e o f th e

The other circ uit courts of appe als to addre ss this i ssue have held the same . See 2 UFO Chuting of Ha

w., Inc. v. Smith, 508 F.3d 1189, 1197 & n.8 ( 9th Cir. 2007); Dahlem v. B d. of Educ. of

Denve r Pub. Sch., 901 F.2d 1508, 1512–13 (10th Cir. 1990); Palmer v. City of Chicag o, 806 F.2d 1316, 1321 ( 7th Cir. 1986); Grano v. B arr y , 783 F.2d 1104, 1109 ( D.C. Cir. 1986). We note, howeve r, that whe re, a s here , a contr oversy is mooted before a Court of 3 Appea ls issues a judgme nt, a par ty cannot be considere d a “pr evailingparty” at the a ppeals stag e, so as to rec over attorney s’ fe es for the cost of a

ppellate litiga

tion under § 1988’s fe e-shifting statute. L ewis v. Cont’l Ba nk Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 483, 110 S. C t. 1249, 1256 (1990).

4be ne fitth e p art ie s s ou gh t i n b rin gi ng su it .” Tex. St at e Teach ers Ass ’n v. Garl an d

In de p. Sc h. Di st ., 48 9 U.S. 7 82 , 79 1– 92 , 10 9 S . Ct. 1 48 6, 1 49 3 (1 98 9) (in te rn al ci ta ti on an d quo ta ti on om it te d)
. Ourrev ie w of the in st an t s ui t i s thu s l im it edto th e rem ai ni ng li ve co nt ro ve rs y

be twee n the de fen da nt s an d p la in ti ff Mc Kin ne y . Our t as k i s t o de te rm in e whe th er the di st ric t co urt erredinco nc lu di ng th atth e DOC’s no nsp on tane ou s u se -o f-fo rce p ol ic y , as app li edto McKi nn ey , vi ol at es th e Eig hth Am en dm en t an d wh ethe r it s p erm an en t i nju nc ti on was b ot h n eces sa ry to rem edy th e v io la ti on of M cKin ne y ’s rig ht s an d a ls o p ro pe rly tai lo redto th e id en ti fie d h arm . Fi nd in g n o e rro r inth e d is tri ctco urt’s tho ro ug h c on cl us io ns of l aw an d n arro wly ta il or edin

jun ct io n, we af

firm . I. BACKGROUND InSep te m

be r 20 08 , aft er fo ur

y ears of l it ig at io n, the di st ric t co urt h el d a fiv e-d ay be nc h tria l o n the pl ai nt iff s’ cla im s fo r de cl arat ory

jud gm en t an d in jun ct iv e rel ie f. At tr ia l, the di st ric t co urt h adth e b en efi t o f he ari ng li ve tes ti m on y fro m th irt eenlay andex pe rt wi tn es se s, the m ajor ity of wh ic h wer e o ffi cers an d
m ed ic al an d m en ta l h eal th ex pe rts curren tl y or f orm erl y em pl oyed b y th e DOC. 4
The pa rties proff ere d the testimony

of an a dditional twelve witnesses, who w ere 4 also predominantly

DOC offic ers a

nd employees, via

deposition and aff

idavit. 5The di st ric t co urt al so ha d the op po rtu ni ty to v ie w nu m ero us ex hi bi ts , in cl ud in g

vi de o re co rd in gs of s pe ci fic in ci de nt s i n wh ic h DOC o ffi cers sp rayed Mc Kin ne y an d o th er p la in ti ffs with c he m ic al ag en ts . After t ria l, the di stric t co urt en te reda 75 -p ag e o rd er i n wh ic h i t m ad e ex te ns iv e fi nd in gs of f actan d c on cl us io ns of l aw ba se d o n thi s ev id en ce, wh ic h i s re po rte d i n Th om as v. Mc Neil , No. 3: 04 -cv -9 17 -J -3 2J RK, 20 09 W L 64 61 6 (M .D. Fla. J an . 9, 2 00 9) . The fi rs t fi fty pa ge s o f th atord er ar e d ed ic at edto factua l fi nd in gs . The de fen da nt s’ app el la te bri efs do no t ex pr es sl y ch al le ng e an y

of t he se fin di ng s as cle arl y

erro ne ou s o n app eal , andth e d efen dant s co nc ed edat o ral arg um en t tha t the y

on ly int en d t o app eal th e d is tri ctco urt’s l eg al co nc lu si on s. 5 Thu s, we ad op t the di st ric t co urt’s u nc on te st edfactua l fi nd in gs as o urown . For a
co m pr eh en si ve su m

m ary of th e fac ts un de rlyin g t hi s ca se , as wel l as a de ta il ed ch ro no lo gy of Mi ch ael McKi nn ey ’s in di vi du al in m at e rec or d, we re fer the pa rti es an d fu ture l it ig an ts to th e d is tri ctco urt’s o pi ni on . See i d. at*1 –2 0. Fo r pu rp os es of th is op in io n, we re ci te on ly tho se fact s es se nt ia l t o o urdi sp os it io n o f th is ap pe al ,

Howeve r, the district cour t’s leg al conc lusions are pre mised on additional fac tual 5 finding s contained in the la st twenty -five pa g es of the district c ourt’s opinion. These f actua l finding s conce rn whe ther the r ecor d evidenc e demonstrates that McKinney was no long er a

ble to confor m his behavior to prison standar ds due to his mental illness and whether the re cord demonstrates the nece ssary culpability

of the de fenda

nts to find an Eighth Amendment violation. The de fenda

nts repea tedly challeng e these fac tual finding s throughout their appe llate brief s and do not appea

r to have conce ded these issues at oral a rgument. We addre ss these fa ctual finding s separ ately in Parts I I I .B.i. a

nd I I I .B.ii. 6supp le m en ti ng with a dd it io na l fa ct s co nt ai ne d i n t he reco rdwher e n eces sa ry .

A. Fl or id a St at e Pri so n a ndth e DOC’s Non -Sp on tane ou s Us e-o f-Fo rce Po li cy At i ss ue inth is ap pe al is th e co ns ti tu ti on al ity of t he DOC’ s n on -s po nt an eo us us e-o f-fo rce p ol ic y

as app li edto McKi nn ey

du rin g h is in carc erat io n o n aclo se m an ag em en t wi ng of F SP. FSP i s a m ax im um sec ur ity pri so n i n S tark e, Fl or id a, th atho us es a la rg e p op ul at io n o f in m at es with s eri ou s m en ta l i ll ne ss . Id. at*2
. Cl os e m an ag em en t re fers to th e adm in is tra ti ve seg reg at io n o f th os e in m at es who de m on st rat e p art ic ul ar d iff ic ul ty com

pl y in g wi th da y -to -d ay

pri so n re gu la ti on s. Id
. Eachclo se -m an ag em en t ce ll is a co m pl et el y en cl os edni ne -b y -s ev enfoo t s in gl e cel l, fo rti fie d wi th a so li d s te el do oran d c on ta in in g asm al l wi nd ow an d a“ fo od flap” forpa ss in g fo od , m ed ic at io n, an d o th er i te m s t o t he in m at e. Id . The DOC’s
no n- sp on tane ou s u se -o f-fo rce p ol ic y pe rm it s co rrec ti on s o ffi cers to rel eas e ch em ic al ag en ts , ty

pi cal ly pep pe r sp ray, th ro ug h t he foo d fl ap of t he se cel ls as a m ean s o f di sc ip li ni ng di sr up ti ve pri so ne rs who refu se to co m pl y with p ris on reg ul at io ns . Id. at*2 –3
.

6
The DO C’s non-spontaneous use -of- forc e policy as conta ined in the trial re cord 6 states: (m) Proce dure f

or the use of

chemica l ag ents on disruptive inmates under controlled conditions: 1. I f an inmate become s disorderly , disruptive, unruly , and attempts by office rs at 7counselingand orde ringthe ce ssation of disruptive behavior fails, the c onfinement

or close ma

nag ement lieutena

nt or shift supervisor or pe rson of higher r ank shall be contac ted for f

urther instruc tions. 2. I f the c onfinement or c lose manag ement lieutena nt or shift supervisor’s e ffor ts to control the disorde rly

inmate have failed a

nd the use of c hemical a g ents is the least level of f orce that can be expected to succ essfully g ain control of thedisruptive inmate while minimiz ing the risk of injuries to all involved, the shift supervisor shall: . . . a. When in a close manag ement or c onfinement setting , revie w For m DC4-650B, Risk Assessment for the Use of Chemical Ag ents and Elec tronic Immobili zation Device s, to determine if the inmate has a medical c ondition that would be exacer bated by the use of c hemical a g ents . . . or conta ct medica l staff to dete rmine whether the inmate has a

ny medical c ondition that would make the use of c hemical ag ents dang erous to that inmate’ s health . . . b. Contact the wa

rden, or , in his or her a

bsence , the duty

war den and r equest authorization to uti liz e che mical ag ents. 3. Prior to using c hemical a g ents, the inmate a g ain shall be c ounseled with by the shift supervisor conc erninghis behavior. a. I f this attempt to counsel with the inmate is unsucce ssful, the inmate will be g iven a fina l order by

the shift supervisor to ce ase his ac tions. The inmate will also be informed at this t ime that chemica l ag ents will be administered if he continues his disruptive behavior
. b. I f the inmate c ontinues his disruptive behavior, a pproxi mately

three minutes afte r the orde r is g iven, staff are authorized to administer che mical ag ents in the form of no more than threeone-se cond bursts. . . . c. I f af ter a pproxi mately

five minutes from the initial exposure the inmate still continues his disruptive behavior , staff a re a uthorized to ag ain administer che mical ag ents for no more than three one-se cond bursts. d. I f the sec ond administration of che mical ag ents fails to control the inmate’ s disruptive behavior , the duty war den shall ag ain be c onsulted to determine the next course of a ction. Additional actions include: I . Additional administration of the same ty pe or othe r ty

pe of c hemical a g ent; and 8Purs uantto th is po li cy , correct io ns off ic ers m ay adm in is te r ch em ic al ag en ts in th ree o ne -s eco ndbu rs ts in to th e cel l o f a rec al ci tra ntin m at e in ord er t o fo rce t he in m at e to co m

pl y with the off

ic er’s o rd ers an d t o que ll th e und erl y in g d is tu rb an ce. Id . at * 2. No n- sp on tane ou s fo rce, as th e n am e im pl ie s, i s p rem ed it at edfor ce, i .e., fo rce t ha t i s o nl y

av ai labl e as a di sc ip li na ry to ol aft er co rrec ti on s o ffi cers ha ve co m pl ie d wi th a se rie s o f pr el im in ary pr oc edur es . Thes e p ro cedur es in cl ud e th e requi rem en t tha t anoff

ic er fi rs t co nf

er wi th a di rectsupe rv is or , DOC m ed ic al pe rs on ne l (t ho ug h n otm en ta l h eal thst aff) , andth e Warden of F SP fo r

I I . Other use s of forc e as a uthorized by

this rule. . . . (n) Me dical Require ments. Oncethe inmate is compliant, he shall be show ere d as soon as possible but not later than 20 minutes af ter fina l application of c hemical ag ents. The inmate sha ll be examined by medical staf

f immediately

afte r showering.

. . . 1. I f an inmate ref

uses to shower or

chang e, the r efusa l shall result in a disciplinary repor t and be doc umented . . . . 2. In the eve nt the inmate re fuses to shower or cha ng e, staff shall advise the medic al staff me mber who is re sponsible for examining the inmate followingthe use of f orce of this refusa l and medica l staff shall immediately repor t to the are a to conduc t a ce llfront examination and to explain the importance of show eringafte r exposure to chemica l ag ents, except in case of eme rg ency which shall be doc umented. 3. The shift super

visor shall ag ain orde r the inmate to showe r. I f the inmate r efuse s ag ain, this refusa l shall also be documente d in writing a nd witnessed by

the shift supervisor a

nd medical staf

f. 4. I f medica l staff de termine that ther e is no immediate medica l need f or the inmate to shower, then f

or the ne x t 2 hours the inmate shall be c hecke d ever y 30 minutes and g iven the opportunity

to shower. . . . 9au th or iz at io n t o u se ch em ic al ag en ts inth e p art ic ul ar i ns tanc e o n t he sp eci fic

in m at e atis su e. Id . at * 3. Inco nt ras t, s po nt an eo us for ce i s av ai labl e to co rrec ti on s of fic ers as a n i m

m ed ia te m ean s o f co nt ro ll in g e m erg en cy di sturba nc es su chas pr is on rio ts , act s o f se lf- m ut il at io n, o r th reat s o f vi ol en ce, wh ic h p os e immin en t ha rm to anin m at e o r anoff

ic er. Id . at * 2 n .10 . The u se of s po nt an eo us for ce at FSP i s n otat i ss ue inth is cas e. In m at es inDOC cu st od y

rece iv e a m en ta l h eal thcla ss ifi cat io n, ra ng in g fr om S-1 to S-6 , up onen try int o the syste m . Id. at*2 . An S-3 cla ss ifi cat io n i s the hi gh es t-n eed s m en ta l h eal th cla ss ifi cat io n tha t the DOC co nf in es ina reg ul ar p ris on se tt in g a ndat F SP. Id . S-3 i nm at es are p res cri be d p sycho tro pi c m ed ic at io ns to reg ul at e so m e m od erat e im pa irment i n a dapt iv e fu nc ti on in g due to ser io us m en ta l il ln es se s s uc h a s s ch iz op hr en ia , bi po lar di so rd er, m ajorde pr es si on , or s ch iz ot y pa l
orbo rd erl in e p ers on al ity

di so rd ers . Id. The DOC’ s n on -s po nt an eo us us e-o f-fo rce po li cy ap pl ie s equa ll y

to all in m at es ho us edat F SP, reg ard le ss of the ir m en ta l he al th cla ss ifi cat io n. Acco rd in gl y , all in m at es onFSP’s cl os e-m an ag em en t wi ng s, in cl ud in g S -3 in m at es di ag no se d wi th ser io us m en ta l i ll ne ss , are s ub ject t o the ap pl ic at io n o f ch em ic al ag en ts if the y cau se a di sturba nc e o r vi ol at e p ris on rul es . Id . Pris on rul es go ve rn in g F SP an d o th er cl os e-m an ag em en t wi ng s p ro hi bi t ba ng in g o r y el li ng fro m

in si de a fu ll y -s ecu redcel l b ecau se su cha di sturbanc e m ay

10in ci te or d is tu rb othe r in m at es or p rev en t s ecu rit y fro m he ari ng anin m at e inne ed
. Id
. In m at es with h ig he r S-g rad es are co nf in edto th erap eu ti c p ris on set ti ng s o r ps y ch ia tri c h os pi ta l fa ci li ti es wher e th ey are n otsubjec t t o t he DOC’ s n on sp on tane ou s u se -o f-fo rce p ol ic y . Id. On e su chfaci li ty is Un io n C orrect io na l In st itut io n (“ UCI”) , a DOC pri so n fo cu si ng on inpa ti en t p sychi atric care th at ho us es S-3 , S-4 , andS-5 in m at es an d i s ad jacen t t o F SP. Id . at * 5. AtUCI, of fic ers fir stres po ndto di sturba nc es su chas b an gi ng an d yell in g fr om withi n acel l by con ta ct in g m en ta l h eal thst aff fo r co un se li ng an d m ed ic at io n a dju st m en ts as ne ces sa ry . Id. The di stric t co urt h eardsi gn ifi can t tria l t es ti m on y ab ou t the rel at io ns hi p be twee n F SP an d UCI an d wh atbo th pa rti es refe rredto as the “ freque nt -fl ie r” syndro m e. Freque nt -fl ie rs are tho se in m at es who are cycli cal ly shu tt le d b ackan d fo rth be twee n F SP an d UCI when th ei r m en ta l i ll ne ss es be co m e m or e act iv e an d th ei r sym pt om s m or e p ro no un ced , a ph en om en on refe rredto at tria l as

“ de co m pe ns at io n.” Id. at*4 –8 . Trans fers to UCI o fte n re su ltinth e rec la ss ifi cat io n of th es e in m at es ’ S-g rad e, in te ns iv e cri si s s tabi li zat io n, an d a n i nc reas e inor m od ifi cat io n o f th ei r ps y ch ot ro pi c m ed ic at io ns . Id. at*6 ; 1 5– 17 . Once t he se in m at es are s tabi li zedat UCI , th ey are re tu rn edto FSP, o fte n t o b eg in th e cycle o f
11de co m

pe ns at io n a ne w. Id. at*6
. The di stric t co urt fo un d tha t re co rdtes ti m on y onth e fre qu en t-f

li er s ynd ro m e de m on st rat edth at“ anin m at e’s m en ta l h eal thde si gn at io n m ay tra ns it io n fr om

on e le ve l t o ano th er” a ndth at“ [t]hi s tran si ti on m ay be gra du al or s ud de n.” Id. “ Whe n anS-3 in m at e ex pe rie nc es th is tra ns it io n— de co m pe ns at es —h e m ay

be co m e co nf us ed , di so rg an iz edan d d is or ie nt ed , im pa ct in g h is ab il ity

to fol lo w ord ers be cau se he ha s b eco m e p reo ccupi edwith i nt ern al th ou gh ts an d i s re nd ered in cap ab le of u nd ers tand in g o r co nf orm in g t o d em an ds .” Id . Thu s, the di st ric t co urt fo un d tha t “ th e rec or d s up po rts th atth ere a re (o r atlea stha ve be en ) [cl os em an ag em en t] in m at es at F SP fo r who m th e S-3 de si gn at io n i s n o l on ge r ap pr op ria te ,” id . at * 8, an d tha t “ so m e S-3 in m at es m an ife stsym pt om s o f m en ta l il ln es s wh ic h are i nd is ti ng ui sh ab le to sec ur ity st aff (andso m et im es ev ento m en ta l he al th st aff) fro m

be ha vi or s wh ic h app ear t o b e wil lfu l re cal ci tra nc e,” i d. at*2 4. Vari ou s wi tn es se s t es ti fie d tha t b as edon th ei r ob se rv at io ns so m e o f th es e de co m pe ns at edin m at es ha ve be ensp rayed wit h c he m ic al ag en ts for be ha vi or s co ns is te ntwith the ir m en ta l i ll ne ss es , su chas b an gi ng an d yell in g. Id. at*5
. 7 Dr. Olg a Infante , a tre atingpsychiatrist who wor ked at F SP and UCIfrom 1999 7 through 2005, testified that “ba ng ing a nd yelling a

re be haviors that might signa l an exacer bation of the menta l illnesses from which S-3 and S-4 inmate s can suf fer , such as the bipolar

component of those suff

eringfrom schizoaff

ective disorde r.” Thoma s, 2009 WL64616, at *5. Dr. Tuong Nguyen, for

mer medic al direc tor at UCI and F SP, agr eed that the fre quent-flier phenomenon demonstrated that inmates “we re be ing g assed with che mical ag ents at F SP for behavior that was 12The di stric t co urt al so m ad e si gn ifi can t fa ctua l fi nd in gs reg ard in g t he effe ct s

of ch em ic al ag en ts on in m at es with m en ta l i ll ne ss . The d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t the
us e o f ch em ic al ag en ts onFSP i nm at es m ay cau se bo th ph y si cal an d p sycho lo gi cal in jury bey on d the sh ort-l iv edin te ns e p hysic al pa in , bu rn in g a ndga gg in g se ns at io ns , anddi so rie nt at io n i nt en de d b y th ei r pr op er u se . Id. at*4 . The d is tri ct 8
co urt fo un d tha t fu rth er p hysic al in jury m ay oc cu r “ whe n v en ti la ti on is li m it ed , whe n p ro pe r de co nt am in at io n p ro cedur es are n otti m el y fol lo wed , or wh enth e pe rs on sp rayed h as a pa rti cu lar se ns it iv ity to th e p ro du ct ,” an d t es ti m on y es tabl is he d tha t the se pro bl em s wi th th e admin is tra ti onof c he m ic al ag en ts were

consistent with their diagnosed mental illnesses.” I d. at *7. The pla intiffs also introduced into evidenc e the 2005- 2006 Annual Report by the Florida Corre ctional Medica l Authority (“CMA” ), an indepe ndent ag ency

cre ated by

the Florida leg islature to monitor health ca re in the state ’s prisons, which stated that “ mentally ill inm ates may

suffe r sy mptoms that re sult in behaviors such as yelling inc essantly , ref using to obe y

order s or lashingout without provocation and may have dif ficulty followingthe strict rules of a prison setting .” I d. at *8. Although the def endants put forth testimony

by Dr. Peg gy

Watkins-Fer

rell, F SP’s lead senior psycholog ist since 2003, that inmates are not beingsprayed with che mical ag ents for be haviors which a re simply uncontrollable sy

mptoms of their mental illness, the district court emphasized that whe n the DOC perf orms mental compete ncy

evaluations following the use of for ce in or der to de termine whether the inmate should be subjec t to further disciplinar y action for

the disturbance causingthe incident, these e valuations sometimes find that the inmate wa s not competent at the time he was sprayed. I d. For

example, the CMA, in its 2003-2004 annua l report, e x presse d continuing 8 “significant c oncer

n” that che mical ag ents wer e beinginappropriately used on inmates in close manag ement or c onfinement setting s at DOC fa cilities resulting in serious medical conse quence s including se rious chemica l burns and the e x ace rbation of menta l health sy mptoms, which in one instance le d to an inmate’s suicide . Thomas, 2009 WL64616, at *8. 13pr es en t atFSP. Id. Th e d is tri ctco urt al so fou ndth at“ [i]t i s cl ear f ro m [th e] 9
reco rdth atps y ch ol og ic al in juri es m ay

als o b e su ffer edby exp os ur e to ch em ic al ag en ts ,” whi chm ay

in cl ud e, as de sc rib edby the pl ai nt iff s’ correct io na l m en ta l he al th ex pe rt Dr. Kat hryn B urns , “ feel in gs of i nt en se he lp le ss ne ss , fear o f dyin g, at te m pt s atsu ic id e an d e xa cerb at io n o f ot he r sym pt om s o f m en ta l i ll ne ss .” Id
. The se un co nt es te d fa ctua l fi nd in gs form th e b ack dr op fro m

whi chth e d is tri ctco urt vi ewed , andwe no w vi ew, Mi ch ael McKi nn ey ’s in di vi du al reco rd
. B. Mi ch ael McKi nn ey ’s Inm at e an d M en ta l Hea lth R eco rd s McKi nn ey ’s in m at e rec or d a ndm en ta l h eal thfil es in di cat e th e fo ll owi ng . McKi nn ey

ha s b eenin carc erat edinva rio us DOC faci li ti es foralm os t h is en ti re adul t l ife . Id. at*1 4. He b eg anservi ng hi s cu rren t l ife sen te nc e fo r at te m pt edfir st de gr ee m ur de r in19 89 , at the ag e o f 20 . Id. His DOC in m at e fi le rep orts th atat ag e 1 6 h e was id en ti fie d a s h av in g o nl y m arg in al in te ll ectua l fu nc ti on in g a nd pr op en si ti es foran ge r an d a nt i-s oc ia l b eh av io r. Id. By 200 7, M cKin ne y ha d o ve r 32 0 d is ci pl in ary rep orts an d areco rdth e DOC’s ps y ch ol og ic al ass es sm en t t eam

For example, the DOC’s non-spontane ous use-of- forc e policy require s that 9 corr ections off

icer s offe r inmates spra

yed with che mical ag ents a de contaminatingshower to remove any

chemica l residue f

rom an inmate’ s skin and clea n the inmate’s c ell, bedding , and clothing f ollowing a

use-of -for ce inc ident. Thomas, 2009 WL64616, at *3. Howe ver, inmate s fre quently

ref use to submit to handcuffingto be taken to the show er a fter be ing spr ayed and thus are not properly

deconta minated, which c an re sult in severe bur ns on the aff

ecte d are as of skin. I d. at *3, *13. 14refe rredto as “ pa th ol og ic al .” Id . Thro ug ho utth e co ur se of h is in carc erat io n,

McKi nn ey

ha s b eendi ag no se d wi th va rio us ser io us m en ta l i ll ne ss es , in cl ud in g a n ad jus tm en t d is or de r with ade pr es se d m oo d, an ti so ci al pe rs on al ity di so rd er, an d
m ajorde pr es si on with re cu rren t p sycho ti c id eat io ns . Id. Mc Kin ne y ha s a h is to ry of sel f-i nju rio us be ha vi or , in cl ud in g h eadba ng in g, s el f-i nf li ct edlac erat io ns , dru g ov erd os es , set ti ng fir es inhi s ce ll , andsu ic id e at te m pt s. Betweenth e y ears 20 01 an d 2 00 7, M cKin ne y was s pr ay edwith c he m ic al ag en ts 36 ti m es pu rs ua ntto th e DOC’s no n- sp on tane ou s u se -o f-fo rce p ol ic y for ba ng in g, k ic ki ng , y el li ng , th ro win g fe ces , or re fu si ng to rem ov e h is arm fro m th e fo odflap i n h is cel l. Id. at*1 5– 17 . Duri ng th is same tim e p eri od , he was 1 0 tra ns ferr edto UCI te n t im es for on go in g t reat m en t an d t o t he FSP i nf irmary sev en ti m es forva rio us ps y ch ol og ic al em erg en ci es or s ho rt- te rm ps y ch ia tri c car e, so m e o f whi chres ul te d i n h is ul ti m at e tr an sf er t o UCI . W

hi le ho us edat F SP, Mc Kin ne y was co ns is te nt ly clas si fie d a s an S-3 in m at e. Whi le intre atm en t atUCI, he was 1 1 recl as si fie d a t a h ig he r S-g rad e o n at l eas t two o ccas io ns , on ce as anS-5 in m at e in Mar ch20 03 an d o nc e as anS-4 in m at e in Ju ly 200 7. Si nc e Ju ly 31, 2 00 7,

Earlier rec ords of such inc idents are not in McKinney ’s file. Thomas, 2009 WL 1 0 64616, at *15. There is some indication that McKinney was brie fly

classified a s an S-2 inmate at 1 1 some point during his year s at FSP but not that thi s classification corre sponded with any of the use of f orce incidents rele vant to this action. 15McKi nn ey

ha s b eenin carc erat edat UCI
. Whi le McKi nn ey ’s reco rdde m on st rat es subs tant ia l p eri od s i n wh ic h h e ap pe aredto ad

jus t re la ti ve ly w el l t o p ris on li fe atFSP, i t i s al so ful l o f m an y pe rio ds inwhi chhe ch ro ni cal ly vio la te d p ris on rul es , exp eri en cedser io us ps y ch ol og ic al em erg en ci es , andsu ffer edfro m freque ntch em ic al sp raying s. Si gn ifi can tl y , m an y

of t he se ch em ic al sp raying s fo ll owe d c lo se onth e h eel s o f in ci de nt s d em on st rat in g tha t h is m en ta l h eal th st atus was d et eri or at in g. Add it io na ll y , m an y

of t he se ch em ic al sp raying s i m m ed ia te ly prece de d M cKin ne y ’s tra ns fer t o UCI or F SP’s in firm ary. The y ear 2 00 2 d em on st rat es th e se rio us ne ss of M cKin ne y ’s m en ta l i ll ne ss an d h is di ffi cu lty

co pi ng with l ife on th e cl os e-m an ag em en t wi ng . Thaty ear h e was sp rayed wit h c he m ic al ag en ts si x t im es fory el li ng , ki ck in g, an d/ orbe at in g o n hi s ce ll do or . Id. at*1 5. OnAug us t 2 1, a f ew week s af

te r th e la stof t he si x sp raying s, M cKin ne y

att em pt edto ha ng hi m se lf i n h is cel l. Id . The DOC
res po nd edby sen di ng hi m to th e FSP i nf

irmary with adi ag no si s o f m ajor de pr es si on , wher e h e rem ai ne d u nt il Sep te m be r 16 when he was tran sf erre d t o UCI fo r th ree m on th s o f st ab il iz at io n a ndtre atm en t. Id . After h e was rel eas edfro m UCI o n Dec em

be r 16 , McKi nn ey

on ly spe nttwo da y s o n h is FSP wi ng un ti l h e returne d t o the FSP i nf

irmary wher e h e was di ag no se d a s s ui ci da l, h om ic id al ,

16bi po lar, an d p sycho ti c. Id . He was re le as edag ai n t o h is win g o nl y to return t o the in firm ary ag ai n fo r ei gh t m or e d ay s o f tr eat m en t. Id . His t hi rdreturn t o h is win g al so fai le d; aft er thr ee d ay s, h e returne d t o t he in firm ary fo r th e en ti re m on th of Ja nu ary 20 03 . Id. W e se e si m il ar ev id en ce o f McKi nn ey ’s ps y ch ol og ic al di st res s i n t he pe rio d fro m Marc h t o Au gu st20 03 , as wel l as a cl os e te m po ral rel at io ns hi p b etweenth e us e o f ch em ic al ag en ts an d h is tra ns fers ou t o f FSP’s cl os e-m an ag em en t wi ng . Dur in g thi s p eri od , McKi nn ey was s pr ay edwith c he m ic al ag en ts fiv e ti m es . On Mar ch5, h e was sp rayed with c he m ic al ag en ts on two sep arat e o ccas io ns for y el li ng ob sc en it ie s an d k ic ki ng an d b eat in g o n h is cel l d oo r. Id. Th e fo ll owi ng da y , McKi nn ey

was fo un d i n h is cel l en ga gi ng inth e unu su al be ha vi orof s tand in g on an d ju m

pi ng off of h is cel l s in k. Id . FSP d oc to rs ord eredco rrec ti on s o ffi cers to us e fo rce t o re st rai n h im

fro m co nt in ui ng th is be ha vi or , andMcKi nn ey was tra ns ferr edto th e FSP i nf irmary ’s is ol at io n c el l wh ere h e rem ai ne d fo r a week be fo re b ei ng tra ns ferr edto UCI o n M arch 13 . Id. At UCI , McKi nn ey was recl as si fie d fr om

S-3 st atus to S-5 st atus an d re cei ve d i np at ie nttre atm en t t o re st ab il iz e h is m en ta l i ll ne ss . Id. OnMay 25, dur in g h is tre atm en t atUCI, McKi nn ey

setfir e to hi s ce ll . Id. Subs eque nt ly, on May 29, af te r sp en di ng sev eral da y s atUCI’s in firm ary, UCI co rrec ti on al st aff s pr ay edMcKi nn ey with c he m ic al
17ag en ts inres po ns e to a di sturba nc e in whi chhe was s crea m in g a ndm ak in g thr eat s

of hu rti ng hi m se lf. Id. Mc Kin ne y returne d t o F SP o n J un e 6 . Id. On ly tenda y s 1 2 la te r, he was s pr ay edwith c he m ic al ag en ts , aga in fory el li ng ob sc en it ie s an d ki ck in g a ndba ng in g i ns id e h is cel l. Id . One m on th lat er, o n J ul y 15 , he was ag ai n sp rayed fo r th e sa m e b eh av io r, an d h e was tra ns ferr edto th e FSP i nf irmary th e fo ll owi ng da y . Id. Fro m th e in firm ary, McKi nn ey was tran sf

erre d b ackto UCI fo r ps y ch ia tri c o bs erv at io n a ndtre atm en t u nt il Aug us t 7 , 20 03 . Id. Treat m en t n ot es fro m th is st ay at UCI rep ort tha t M cKin ne y st at edth athe “ is do in g wel l co pi ng whi le he re b utdo es no t kno w ho w he wi ll co pe at F SP b ecau se he be li ev es he ha s to be on gu ardag ai ns t u nwa rran te d g as si ng s.” Id
. McKi nn ey ’s m os t s eri ou s i nc id en ts of s el f-i nju rio us be ha vi oroc cu rredin Octo be r of

20 03 . This pe rio d i ll us tra ti ng McKi nn ey ’s ps y ch ol og ic al di stres s, the
us e o f ch em ic al ag en ts , andhi s tran sf er o utof F SP fo r inpa ti en t treat m en t b eg anon Octo be r 6 wh enhe de cl areda m en ta l h eal th em erg en cy an d t ol d aps y ch ol og ic al sp eci al is t h e was go in g t o h urt h im se lf. Id . The fo ll owi ng da y , McKi nn ey th rew fece s atanoff

ic er, t o wh ic h c orrect io ns off ic ers res po nd edwith t he us e o f ch em ic al

Acc ordingto rec ord testimony , the use of c hemical a g ents at UCI for a mere 1 2 disturbance , such as yelling a nd scre aming , would be a de viation from standar d prac tice. Thomas, 2009 WL64616, at *15 n.33. It is possi ble that McKinne y ’s threats of self-inflicte d injury cause d UCIstaff to de em forc e nec essar y ; however , the re cord is uncle ar a s to whether such an a ssessment was made or the re ason behind the de cision to use forc e. I d. 18ag en ts . Id. Lat er tha t s am e d ay , McKi nn ey refu se d t o s ub m itto res tra in ts so of fic ers co ul d s earc h h is cel l, re su lt in g i n acel l ex tra ct io n. Id. Th atev en in g, 1 3 McKi nn ey

was s pr ay edwith c he m ic al ag en ts ag ai n fo r y el li ng an d k ic ki ng inhi s cel l. Id . Fou r da y s l at er, o n Oct ob er 1 1, M cKin ne y ag ai n re fu se d t o s to p yell in g an d k ic ki ng inhi s ce ll an d was sp rayed wit h c he m ic al ag en ts forth e th irdti m e in fiv e d ay s. Id . On Oct ob er 1 3, two d ay s l at er, co rrec ti on al off ic ers fou nd McKi nn ey

ba ng in g h is he adonhi s s te el bu nkan d c el l d oo r, whi chres ul te d i n in juri es requi rin g treat m en t atth e FSP e m erg en cy roo m an d h is subs eque nttra ns fer to UCI. Id . Treatment n ot es fro m th is pe rio d i nd ic at e th atMcKi nn ey “ was ha vi ng pr ob le m s wi th st aff s pi tt in g i n h is foo d a ndga ss in g h im an d h e b el ie ve s thi s wi ll al way s b e th e sa m e” an d tha t “ th ey ga s h im
. . . ev enif h e d oe s n ot hi ng .” Fo ll owi ng two week s o f tr eat m en t, Mc Kin ne y returne d t o F SP, o nl y

to be adm it te d ba ckto th e em erg en cy

roo m two da y s l at er af

te r jum pi ng do wn a f

li gh t o f ei gh t st ai rs , hea d- fir st . Id. The lac erat io n h e su st ai ne d o n h is he adfro m th e in ci de nt requi redsev enst ap le s t o c lo se , andMcKi nn ey rep orte d t ha t h e wan te d t o k il l hi m se lf. Id . He rem ai ne d i n treat m en t u nt il Nov em be r 20 03 . Id. Afte r th is pe rio d, fe wer i nc id en ts of s uc h e xt rem e p sycho lo gi cal traum a In a ce ll ex trac tion, a team of f ive cor rec tional office rs enter

an inmate’ s cell and 1 3 forc ibly restra in and re move him. Thomas, 2009 WL64616, at *2. Cell extrac tions used to be the DOC’s primar

y method of g ainingan inmate’ s compliance with an orde r until 1999 when an inmate, Fr ank Va ldes, died at F SP as a result of this prac tice, likely due to seve re be ating . I d. 19oc cu rred , bu t M cKin ne y ’s m en ta l h eal threco rdco nt in ue d t o d em on st rat e th athe

was at r is k fo r su ic id e an d s el f-i nju ry . For e xam pl e, fro m earl y Feb ru ary to earl y Mar ch20 04 , McKi nn ey

was s pr ay edwith c he mic al ag en ts fou r ti m es , and
ou tp at ie ntth erap y

rep orts in di cat e th athe was a dju st in g p oo rly to c on fin em en t an d
ex pe rie nc in g s ui ci da l i de at io ns . Id. Treat m en t n ot es reco rdth atMcKi nn ey was be in g re ferr edto ps y ch ia try for as se ss m en t o f hi s s ui ci de an d s el f-h arm ris k a nd in cl ud e th e fo ll owi ng st at em en t d em on st rat in g M cKin ne y ’s fear o f ch em ic al sp raying s: “ I ne edto be ale rt t he y ga s m e so oft en .” Si m il arl y , inJune 20 04 , McKi nn ey was s pr ay edwith c he m ic al ag en ts an d th entra ns ferr edto th e FSP i nf irmary th e n ex t d ay

for a ps y ch ol og ic al ass es sm en t. Id . at * 16 . McKin ne y

co ns en te d t o i np at ie nttre atm en t atth is ti m e, adm it ti ng , “ I
can ’t hel p m

y se lf.” Id. Mc Kin ne y

rem ai ne d i n t he in firm ary fo r fi ve da y s u nt il th e ex am in in g p sychi atris t, Dr. Ph il ip Sp rin ge r, de te rm in edhe co ul d b e rel eas edba ck to hi s wi ng . Id. Inhi s n ot es , Dr. Spri ng er re po rte d t ha t d es pi te McKi nn ey ’s

“ fat ig ue d app eara nc e,” “ ag it at edbe ha vi or ,” “ an gry m oo d a ndaffe ct ,” “ sk ewed pe rcep ti on ,” an d “po orin si gh t an d ju dg m en t,” h e ret ai ne d p os it iv e an d h eal th y th ou gh ts . Id. Co nt rary to Dr. Sp rin ge r’s as se ss m en t, Mc Kin ne y was s pr ay edwith 1 4 Dr. Spring er e rrone ously noted in McKinney ’s re cord that he had be en cla ssified 1 4 as an S-3 inmate f

or his entire pe riod of inca rce ration, which is inac curate base d on the re cord, which indicate s that at this tim e he ha d alre ady been g iven a higher c lassification on at lea st one occa sion, when he w as designated a n S-5 inmate on Marc h 13, 2003, while at UCI . Thomas,

20ch em ic al ag en ts on ly four ho ur s af te r hi s re le as e b ackto hi s wi ng on Ju ne 21 for ki ck in g, b an gi ng , andy el li ng ob sc en it ie s, s pr ay edag ai n o n J un e 2 2 fo r th e sa m e be ha vi or s, an d tran sf

erre d t o UCI foron e weekof t reatm en t i m m ed ia te ly the reaf

te r du e to a ri skof s ui ci de or i njury to sel f orot he rs . Id. Treat m en t n ot es fro m th is pe rio d re co rdMcKi nn ey

as s ta ti ng , “ I feel de pr es se d m os t o f th e ti m e. I’m ge tt in g ga ss ed .” Aga in , inth e fi rs t s ix m on th s o f 20 05 , McKi nn ey was s pr ay edfou r ti m es with c he mic al ag en ts , dec laredm ul ti pl e p sycho lo gi cal em erg en ci es , adm it te d t o su ic id al id eat io ns , sethi s ce ll on fir e, an d was di ag no se d at l eas t o nc e wit h “ acu te sym pt om s wh ic h c an no t b e m an ag edsaf el y on anou tp at ie ntba si s.” OnApri l 3 , McKi nn ey

wrot e to DOC Heal th Serv ic es reque st in g i np at ie ntco un se li ng for de pr es si on an d “ th ou gh ts of hurti ng m y se lf.” In the let te r, he no te d t ha t h e h ad be enga ss edbe twee n 3 0 a nd40 ti m es . Dur in g t hi s p eri od , McKi nn ey was tra ns ferr edba ckan d fo rth fro m FSP t o UCI twi ce an d i n M ay co ns en te d t o b ei ng pr es cri be d p sycho tro pi c m ed ic at io n. Id
. The n, i n M ay

20 07 , aft er a p eri odof r el at iv e ad jus tm en t t o l ife onth e cl os em an ag em en t wi ng , McKi nn ey was tran sf

erre d b ackto UCI, whe re h e co ns en te d t o be in g p res cri be d a no th er p sycho tro pi c m ed ic at io n. Id . McKin ne y rem ai ne d a t UCI
2009 WL64616, at *16 &n .35
. 21fo r tr eat m en t fo r se ve n wee ks , anda Ju ly 2, 20 07 , tre atm en t n ot e in di cat es he was

cl as si fie d a s an S-4 in m at e atth is ti m e. Id . Fou r day s l at er, Mc Kin ne y returne d t o FSP. Id . On Ju ly 25, h e was th ensp rayed twi ce i n the same day forrefu si ng to rem ov e h is arm

fro m hi s fo odflap. Aft er b oth i nc id en ts , McKi nn ey refu se d t o le av e h is cel l fo r a d eco nt am in at in g s ho wer, as he ha d o n m an y pa stoc cas io ns . Id. Treat m en t n ot es in di cat e th atMcKi nn ey ex hi bi te d a gi ta te d, h os ti le , op po si ti on al , an d d efi an t b eh av io rs at t hi s t im e an d was un wil li ng to co op erat e wit h a ny of th e DOC em pl oyees c on du ct in g p os t-u se -o f-fo rce e xa m in at io ns . Id. at*1 7. Ho wev er, tre atm en t n ot es fro m

th e fo ll owi ng da y

in di cat e th atMcKi nn ey

di d n otap pe ar t o b e in cri si s, ex hi bi te d n o e vi de nc e o f ps y ch os is , bu t h is us e-o f-fo rce h is to ry de m on st rat edth athe stru gg le d t o fu nc ti on inth e FSP e nv iro nm en t an d was th eref or e ref erre d t o asupe rv is orforfurth er as se ss m en t. Id
. So on th erea fte r, th e rec or d i nd ic at es th atDr. Hall , on e o f de en da nt s’ exp ert s, rev ie wedMcKi nn ey ’s fil e inpre pa rat io n fo r tr ia l an d g en erat edan“ em erg en cy refe rral ” to ha ve McKi nn ey rem ov edto UCI. Id . On Ju ly 31, 2 00 7, M cKin ne y was tra ns ferr edto UCI due to hi s h is to ry of u se -o f-fo rce i nc id en ts (fi ve inth e la stfou r m on th s) , refu sa l t o p art ic ip at e in cas e m an ag em en t o r gr oup t he rap y , refu sa l o f
m ed ic at io n, h is to ry

of s el f-i nju rio us be havi or , po orad jus tm en t t o i nc arce rat io n, an d h un dr ed s o f di sc ip li na ry rep orts . Id. The ass es sm en t fu rth er s ta te d t ha t

22al th ou gh McKi nn ey ’s th ou gh t p ro ces se s wer e cl ear andco he ren t, h e n on ethe le ss

ha d e vi de nc e o f a fo rm al th ou gh t d is or de r, m ark edby sus pi ci ou s tho ug ht s an d pa ran oi d fe atur es . Id. Dr. Hall tes ti fie d t ha t wh il e n on e o f McKi nn ey ’s m en ta l he al th ev al ua ti on s i nd ic at edany acu te im pa irment warran ti ng refe rral to an inpa ti en t u ni t, h is lo ng -es tabl is he d p at te rnof r ep eat edco nf li ct s, d is ci pl in ary rep orts an d re fu sa ls to pa rti ci pa te intre atm en t i nd ic at edth athe ne ed eda m or e st ru ctur edan d i nt en si ve set ti ng forhi s m en ta l h eal th ne ed s. Id . McKin ne y rem ai ns in carc erat edat UCI at t hi s t im e. C. Rec en t DOC Re fo rm s The di stric t co urt al so he ardtes ti m on y at t ria l ab ou t re cen t re fo rm s i ns ta te d by the DOC inanatt em

ptto ad dr es s the ge ne ral in crea se inth e num be r of in m at es with m en ta l i ll ne ss in carc erat edna ti on wid e an d a s a r es ul t o f anearl ie r la wsu it ad dr es si ng th e co nd it io ns of c on fin em en t an d d el iv ery of m en ta l h eal th servi ces for in m at es ho us edonclo se -m an ag em en t wi ng s thr ou gh ou t the Sta te of F lo rid a. Id . at *9 –1 1. Se e Ost erb ackv. Mc Don ou gh , 54 9 F . Sup p. 2 d 1 33 7 (M .D. Fla. 2 00 8)
. The de fen da nt s p utforth th is ev id en ce i n a n a tt em ptto de m on st rat e th atev enif the di st ric t co urt co nc lu de d tha t the y vi ol at edth e p la in ti ffs ’ Eig ht h Am en dm en t ri gh ts in th e p as t, the DOC’ s p ol ic ie s wi th res pe ctto m en ta l h eal th servi ces at F SP h av e ev ol ve d s uc h tha t the pl ai nt iff s n o l on ge r fac e a rea l ri skof b ei ng subjec te d t o a n

23Eig ht h Am en dm en t v io la ti on inth e fu tu re. The se refo rm s i nc lu de “ th e Ost erb ack

tra in in g,” whi chpro vi de s ad di ti on al tra in in g fo r se cu rit y st aff wo rk in g o n c lo se m an ag em en t wi ng s i n o rd er t o t each th es e o ffi cers to reco gn iz e th e si gn s an d sym pt om s o f th e o ns etof a cute m en ta l i ll ne ss . Tho m as , 20 09 W L 64 61 6, at*9
. The re i s al so a ne w po li cy th atno w requi res a po st -u se -o f-fo rce m en ta l h eal th
ev al ua ti onof i nm at es subjec te d t o aus e o f fo rce wi th in on e d ay of t he in ci de nt , ex cl ud in g h ol id ay s an d wee ke nd s. Id . An ad di ti on al po li cy ch an ge pro vi de s n ew tra ns it io na l h ou si ng forin m at es be in g t ran sf erre d b etweenFSP an d UCI . Id. at *1 0. In m at es awai ti ng tra ns fer t o UCI ho us edinth e n ew te m po rary O-Dorm

m ay no t b e n on -s po nt an eo us ly spr ay edwith c he m ic al ag en ts , andth os e n ewly tra ns ferr edba ckto FSP fr om UCI n ow s pe nd90 -d ay s i n atra ns it io na l N-Do rm whe re the y

m ay on ly be n on -s po nt an eo us ly spr ay edwith c he m ic al ag en ts if
se cu rit y st aff trai ne d i n c ris is in te rv en ti on de em itap pr op ria te . Id. D. Fi na l Jud gm en t On thi s re co rd , th e d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d tha t M cKin ne y de m on st rat edth at th e rep eat edch em ic al sp raying s h e rec ei ve d p ur su an t t o t he DOC’ s n on sp on tane ou s u se -o f-fo rce p ol ic y co ns ti tu te d c ru el an d u nu su al pu ni sh m en t, i d. at *2 6– 27 , andth atrece ntDOC refo rm s d idno t el im in at e th e ri skth athe wou ldbe
un co ns ti tu ti on al ly sub

jecte d t o the po li cy

inth e fu tu re, i d. at*2 8– 30
. To rem edy 24th is Eig ht h Am en dm en t v io la ti on , th e d is tri ctco urt i ss ue d afin al in jun ct io n t ha t en joi ne d d efen da nt s fr om

all owi ng th e n on -s po nt an eo us us e o f ch em ic al ag en ts on McKi nn ey

witho utfir stco ns ul ti ng with t he DOC’ s trai ne d m en ta l h eal th st aff t o de te rm in e whe th er h e is cap ab le of c on fo rm in g h is co nduc t t o t he di rect iv es gi ve n by corre ct io ns st aff. Th om as v. Mc Neil , No. 3 :0 4- cv -9 17 -J -3 2J RK, 20 09 WL 60 53 06 , at * 2– 3 (M .D. Fla. Ma rch 9, 2 00 9)
. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW The de fen da nt s ra is e two is su es on ap pe al : wh ethe r McKi nn ey est ab li sh edan Eig ht h Am en dm en t v io la ti on an d wh ethe r th e d is tri ctco urt’s i nju nc ti on was pr op er. Altho ug h we r ev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s en try of a p erm an en t i nju nc ti on for
anab us e o f di sc ret io n, the di st ric t co urt’s u nd erl y in g l eg al co nc lu si on—tha t the re was anEig ht h Am en dm en t v io la ti on warran ti ng equi tabl e rel ie f—i s re vi ewedde
no vo . Comm on Cau se /Geo rg iav. Bi ll up s, 5 54 F.3d13 40 , 13 49 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Subs id iary

is su es of f

actare re vi ewedforcle ar erro r. Id.

III. DISC USSION The Eig ht h Am en dm en t’s p ro hi bi ti on ag ai ns t crue l an d u nu su al pu ni sh m en t, ap pl ic ab le to th e St at e o f Fl or id a th ro ug h t he Due P ro ces s C laus e o f th e Fo urte en th Am en dm en t, Ro bi ns on v. Ca li fo rn ia , 37 0 U.S. 6 60 , 82 S. Ct. 1 41 7 (1 96 2) , pr oh ib it s the “un ne ces sary an d wan to n i nf

li ct io n o f pa in ,” Hud so n v . McM il li an , 2550 3 U.S. 1 , 5, 1 12 S. Ct. 9 95 , 99 8 (1 99 2) . In the pri so n c on te xt , th ree d is ti nc t

Eig ht h Am en dm en t cl ai m s ar e av ai labl e to pl ai nt iff in m at es all eg in g c ru el an d
un us ua l p un is hm en t, ea chof wh ic h re qu ire s a d iff eren t s ho win g t o e st ab li sh a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n. Dan le y v. Al le n, 5 40 F.3d12 98 , 13 06 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ),
ov erru le d i n p arton othe r gr ou nd s, Ra nd al l v . Sco tt , No. 0 9- 12 86 2, 2 01 0 WL 25 95 58 5 (1 1t h C ir. J un 30 , 20 10 ). The Ei gh thAm en dm en t ca n g iv e ri se to cla im s ch al le ng in g s pe ci fic co nd it io ns of c on fin em en t, the ex ces si ve us e o f fo rce, an d the de li be rat e in di ffer en ce t o apri so ne r’s se rio us m ed ic al ne ed s. Id . Each o f th es e cl ai m s re qu ire s a t wo- pr on g s ho win g: anob jecti ve sh owi ng of ade pr iv at io n o r in jury thatis “ su ffi ci en tl y

ser io us ” to co ns ti tu te a de ni al of t he “ m in im al civ il iz ed
m eas ur e o f li fe’s n eces si ti es ” an d asubjec ti ve sh owi ng th atth e o ffi ci al ha d a

“ su ffi ci en tl y

cu lp ab le st at e o f min d.” Farm er v . Bren na n, 5 11 U.S. 82 5, 8 34 , 11 4 S. Ct . 19 70 , 19 77 (19 94 ) (i nt ern al cit at io ns an d quo ta ti on s o m it te d)
. Bot h o f 1 5 th es e in qu iri es are co nt ex tu al . Becau se th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t “ dr aws it s m ean in g fro m th e ev ol vi ng st an da rd s o f de cen cy th atm arkth e p ro gr es s o f a m atur in g so ci ety ,” th e o bjec ti ve harm in qu iry is c on te xtua l i n t ha t i t i s re sp on si ve to

The Prison L itigation Refor m Act (“ PL RA”) a lso mandates that a pla intiff inmate 1 5 exhaust administrative r emedies prior to filing a n Eighth Amendment suit. 4 2 U . S
. C
. § 1 9 9 7 e ( a ) ; Chandler v. Crosby , 379 F.3d 1278, 1286 ( 11th Cir. 2004). The district cour t conclude d that the plaintiffs had a dequate ly exhausted their administrative re medies under the PL RA, a findingthe par

ties have not c ontested on appe al.

26co nt em

po rary stand ard s. Hu ds on , 50 3 U.S. at8, 1 12 S. Ct. at10 00 (in te rn al ci ta ti on an d quo ta ti on om it te d) . Add it io na ll y , whatis ne ces sa ry to sh ow s uf

fic ie nt ha rm an d wh atis ne ces sa ry

to sh ow a s uf

fic ie nt ly cul pabl e st at e o f min d v ari es with the type o f Eig ht h Am en dm en t cl ai m at i ss ue . Id. at8– 9, 1 12 S. Ct. at10 00
. Fo r ex am pl e, to m ak e o uta cl ai m

foranun co ns ti tu ti on al co nd it io n o f
co nf in em en t, “ ex tre m e d ep riv at io ns ” are requi red , wher eas inth e ex ces si ve -fo rce co nt ex t, co nt em

po rary stand ard s o f de cen cy m ay be vi ol at edev enwher e n o si gn ifi can t i nju ry

is ev id en t. Id . at 9 –1 0, 1 12 S. Ct. at10 00 . W ith re sp ectto th e subjec ti ve in qu iry, in b ot h p ris onco nd it io ns an d m ed ic al ne ed s ca se s, the rel ev an t st at e o f min d fo r pu rp os es of l iabi li ty is d el ib erat e in di ffer en ce. Wils onv. Se it er, 50 1 U.S. 2 94 , 30 3, 1 11 S. Ct. 2 32 1, 2 32 7 (1 99 1) . Exces si ve -fo rce c la im s, ho wev er, requi re a s ho win g o f a h ei gh te ne d m en ta l s tate —tha t the de fen da nt s ap pl ie d fo rce “ m al ic io us ly andsad is ti cal ly for the ve ry pu rp os e o f cau si ng ha rm .” Id . at 3 02 , 11 1 S . Ct. at23 26 (ci ti ng Whi tl ey v. Al be rs , 47 5 U.S. 3 12 , 32 0– 21 , 10 6 S. Ct . 10 78 , 10 85 (19 86 )). The di stric t co urt ev al ua te d t he pl ai nt iff s’ cla im s as a ch al le ng e to a co nd it io n o f th ei r co nf

in em en t. The de fen da nt s ra is e th e th res ho ldarg um en t o n ap pe al th atindo in g s o the di st ric t co urt ap pl ie d t he wron g Ei gh th Am en dm en t st an da rd . W e ad dr es s thi s ar gu m en t fi rs t b efo re turni ng to anan al y si s o f th e 27de fen da nt s’ cha ll en ge s t o the de cl arat ory jud gm en t an d i nju nc ti ve rel ie f award edto McKi nn ey . A. Gov ern in g Ei gh th Am en dm en t St an dard Acco rd in g t o the de fen da nt s, b ecau se th is cas e ch al le ng es th e co ns ti tu ti on al ity

of aus e-o f-fo rce p ol ic y , whi chis em pl oyed b y co rrec ti on s o ffi cers to res po ndto a pr is on di sturba nc e an d fo r pu rp os es of m ai nt ai ni ng pri so n di sc ip li ne , th is cas e can on ly be p ro pe rly char act eri zedas ach al le ng e to an ex ces si ve us e o f fo rce. Be cau se Eig ht h Am en dm en t cl ai m s al le gi ng ex ces si ve fo rce r equi re a s ho win g tha t the de fen da ntact ed“ m al ic io us ly andsad is ti cal ly for th e v ery pu rp os e o f cau si ng ha rm ”—ahi gh er s tand ardth anth atgo ve rn in g Ei gh th Am en dm en t cl ai m s al le gi ng anun co ns ti tu ti on al co nd it io n o f co nf in em en t—th e de fen da nt s ar gu e th atha d the di st ric t co urt ap pl ie d t he pro pe r st an da rd , McKi nn ey wou ldne ve r ha ve pre va il edon th e m eri ts of h is cla im . Whi le th e d efen da nt s ex pe nd edsi gn ifi can t ef

fo rts bri efi ng th is is su e o n app eal , th ey fai le d t o a de qu at el y pr es erv e th es e arg um en ts be fo re the di st ric t co urt. The de fen da nt s as se rt t ha t the y rai se d t he arg um en t tha t an ex ces si ve -fo rce st an da rdsh ou ldgo ve rnth e p la in ti ffs ’ cl ai m s “ well be fo re fi na l ju dg m en t” an d tha t th is was s uf

fic ie ntto pre se rv e th e is su e fo r pu rp os es of app eal . W e d is ag ree. Altho ug h the de fen dant s t ech ni cal ly rais edth is arg um en t b efo re fi na l ju dg m en t,
28th ey

als o wai te d u nt il aft er the di st ric t co urt’s fi ve -d ay be nc h t ria l an d a fte r th e di st ric t co urt’s en try of i ts 75 -p ag e fi nd in gs of f actan d c on cl us io ns of l aw to ch al le ng e th e ap pl ic at io n o f a co nd it io ns -o f-co nf in em en t s tand ardto th e p la in ti ffs ’ cl ai m s. Itwas n otun ti l the de fen da nt s fi le d apo st -tr ia l m ot io n t o a m en d t he di st ric t co urt’s fi nd in gs un de r Fed . R. Civ . P. 52 (b ) th atth ey fir starg ue d t ha t an ex ces si ve -fo rce s tand ardsh ou ldex cl us iv el y go ve rnth e p la in ti ffs ’ cas e. Thi s l as tdi tc h a tt em

ptat p res erv at io n i s s im

pl y in ad equa te . See MC A Telev is io n Lt d. v
. Fel tn er, 8 9 F .3d76 6, 7 70 –7 1 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 6) (ho ld in g tha t a d efen da nt ’s fai lu re t o rai se a le ga l i ss ue be fo re o r du rin g h is cas e attri al waiv edhi s ri gh t t o p ur su e th e is su e o n app eal ); Uni te d S ta te s v . Mil le t, 5 59 F.2d25 3, 2 57 (5t h C ir. 1 97 7) (“ Thi s Co urt i s o f th e o pi ni on th atrai si ng th is is su e b y way of apo st -tr ia l m ot io n was so un ti m el y as t o a m ountto a waiv er.”)
. See al so Hig hl an ds Ins . Co. v . Lewis Rai l 1 6 Serv . Co., 1 0 F .3d12 47 , 12 51 (7t h C ir. 1 99 3) (“ Lewis waiv edth is arg um en t b y fai li ng to rai se th is arg um en t u nt il it s m ot io n t o re co ns id er.”) ; Am . MeatIns t. v . Pri dg eo n, 7 24 F.2d45 , 47 (6t h C ir. 1 98 4) (co nc lu di ng th atby rais in g the ir
se ve rab il ity

arg um en t fo r th e fi rs t t im e in th ei r m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n, the de fen da nt s ef

fect iv el y waiv edth is arg um en t an d “ ha ve no ba si s t o a ss ig n fa il ur e to
The Eleve nth Circuit, in an en banc decision, B onner v. City of Pritchar d, 661 1 6 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981), adopted a s prec edent de cisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit rende red prior to October 1, 1981. 29se ve r as anerro r on th is ap pe al ”). Acco rd in gl y , we dec li ne to co ns id er the

de fen da nt s’ bel at edarg um en ts no w. The de fen da nt s’ del ay

inrai si ng th is arg um en t i s p art ic ul arl y in ex cu sabl e in li gh t o f th e am

pl e n ot ic e th e p la in ti ffs an d t he di st ric t co urt g av e th e d efen da nt s as to th ei r in te ntto tre atth is cas e as a co nd it io ns -o f-co nf in em en t ch al le ng e, no t an ex ces si ve -fo rce c as e. Desp it e th is no ti ce, the de fen da nt s re pe at ed ly end or se d the 1 7
us e o f a d el ib erat e-i nd iff

eren ce s tand ardto an al yze the pl ai nt iff s’ equ it ab le cla im s in th ei r su m

m ary jud gm en t s ub m is si on s, p re-tria l b rie f, an d p os t-t ria l p ro po se d

For example, in the plaintiffs’ pre -trial brie f, they candidly highlighted the issue of 1 7 which Eighth Amendment standard should apply , admitting that their c ase did not “f it neatly into either c ateg ory” of Eighth Amendment claims. The pla intiffs then made the argument, which the district court ultimately

adopted, that the de liberate -indiffe renc e standa rd wa s more appr opriate for this ca se bec ause the plaintiffs cha lleng e a br oad “e ight- year policy of an e ntire depa

rtment” not deservingof the de fer ence g iven to a sing le guard’ s decision to use for ce in a n individual incident of a lleg ed excessive f orce . At trial, the plaintiffs ag ain emphasized that although this case implicates the “use of for ce,” it is about “exi sting c onditions.” The district court a lso plainly indicated at trial that it understood this case “ not to be about . . . policies . . . incorr ectly applied to spec ific per sons, such as would be in a n excessive forc e ca se . . . ,” but whe ther a policy that is beingcorr ectly

applied is unconstitutional. Fur thermore , when a sked to submit proposed finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, the plaintiffs did not hesitate to clea rly reiter ate their

consistent position that the DOC’s w antonness should be consider ed under the deliber ate indiffe renc e standa rd. The plaintiffs a

rgued that “[i]n prison case s—such as the instant ca se—whe re ‘ officia ls formulate a policy in circumstanc es wher e ther e ar e no par

ticular c onstraints on the offic ials’ dec isionmaking proc ess . . . and the implementation of the policy will inflict pain upon the inmates on a routine ba sis, [ courts] need not look for a showingof ac tion taken “maliciously and sadistically” bef

ore Eighth Amendment protec tions are implicated.’ ” See Jordan v. Ga rdner , 986 F.2d 1521, 1528 ( 9th Cir. 1993) (en banc)
. 30fin di ng s o f fac t. In l ig htof t he de fen da nt s’ fai lu re t o a ss ertth e co nt rary, it i s 1 8
un su rp ris in g tha t the di stric t co urt co nc lu de d n oton ly tha t the de li be rat ein di ffer en ce s tand ardwas the pro pe r st an da rdforan al yzi ng th e p la in ti ffs ’ cl ai m s bu t al so th atth e d efen dant s ef fect iv el y acqui es cedinth is co nc lu si on . Tho m as , 20 09 W L 64 61 6, at*2 1 n .42 (rea so ni ng th atwher e th e ch al le ng e is ag ai ns t t op DOC of fic ia ls an d c ha ll en ge s a p ris on ’s “ co ns id eredpo li cy ” reg ard in g t he us e o f
no n- sp on tane ou s fo rce o n fu ll y sec ur edin m at es with m en ta l i ll ne ss th e h ei gh te ne d st an da rdap pl ic ab le to de ci si on s m ad e “ in ha st e, un de r pr es su re, an d fr eque nt ly witho utth e lu xu ry

of asec on d c ha nc e” was no t ap pr op ria te (ci ti ng Whi tl ey , 47 5 U.S. at 3 20 , 10 6 S . Ct. at10 84 ) an d n ot in g t ha t “ Defen da nt s h av e n otsu gg es te d” ot he rwis e).
Be g inning with the de fenda nts’ summary

judgme nt motion, they

acknow ledg ed 1 8 that the plaintiffs’ injunctive c laims were claims “re lated to the conditions of their c onfinement.” In their motion for re considera tion of their summary

judgme nt motion—fil ed one month bef ore trial—they

unequivoca lly

stated that “Plaintiffs’ c laims as plead a re e x pressly

limit ed to conditions of confine ment at FSP (i.e., the non- spontaneous use of chemica l ag ents).” I

n their pre- trial brief

, the def endants re cite both the “de liberate indiffer ence ” and “ malicious and sadistic” standa

rds g overningvarious Eighth Amendment claims but then make no attempt to specify which standa

rd should g overn theclaims at issue in the upcomingbench trial. And yet afte r trial, in their propose d finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, the de fenda nts sugg ested that the deliber ate indiffe renc e standa rd applies. Unde r the he ading ,“TheDepa rtment’s policy

does not violate the Eighth Amendment,” the de fenda nts describe d the standar d that “Plaintiffs must meet” a s being“proof

that the cor

rec tional office r in question was de liberate ly indiffer ent to the harm or risk of harm.” Although the defe ndants did later in this same brie f cite la nguag e fr om Whit ley under a separ ate he adingentitled “Chemica l Ag ents,” ther e wa s no clea r asse rtion that the Whitl ey ’s excessive-f orce standard should a

pply to this case. Signif

icantly , nowher e in their proposed c onclusions do the defe ndants argue that the e x cessive- forc e standa rd should be used exclusively . And nowher e do the de fenda nts respond to the plaintiffs’ a nd the district court’s asser tions that thi s case challeng es a c ondition of confinement. 31Insu m , th e d efen da nt s’ att em ptto rai se th is is su e in a po st -tr ia l m ot io n, reg ard le ss of wh ethe r th atm ot io n was subm it te d t ech ni cal ly befo re fi na l ju dg m en t, was in su ffi ci en t t o p res erv e itforap pe al . It wo ul d s ub ve rt t he ord erl y jud ic ia l pr oc es s t o p erm itth e d efen dant s t o wai t unt il aft er the pre se nt at io n o f th e ev id en ce, aft er the pre -tr ia l an d p os t-t ria l b rie fin g, an d a fte r th e d is tri ctco urt h ad pa in st ak in gl y

co nc lu de d tha t the us e o f ch em ic al ag en ts on McKi nn ey am ount edto
anun co ns ti tu ti on al co nd it io n o f hi s co nf in em en t t o re qu es t an en ti rel y ne w len s th ro ug h wh ic h t o e va lu at e h is cla im s. Thus , we ho ldth atth e d efen da nt s wai ve d
an y ch al le ng e to th e d is tri ctco urt’s u se of t he de li be rat e-i nd iff eren ce s tand ard . W e as su m e witho utde ci di ng th atth e d is tri ctco urt was co rrec t i n t reat in g t he pl ai nt iff s’ cl ai m s as a ch al le ng e to a co nd it io n o f th ei r co nf in em en t an d e va lu at e Mc Kin ne y ’s cl ai m un de r th is st an da rd
. B. McKi nn ey ’s Sub

jecti on to Ch em ic al Agen ts as a n Un co ns ti tu ti on al Co nd it io n o f Co nf

in em en t

“ The Co ns ti tu ti ondo es no t m an da te co m fo rtabl e p ris on s, b utne ithe r do es it pe rm itin hu m an e o ne s . . . .” Farm er, 5 11 U.S. at 8 32 , 11 4 S . Ct. at19 76 (in te rn al qu ot at io n a ndcit at io n o m it te d) . Thu s, i n i ts pro hi bi ti on of “ cru el an d u nu su al pu ni sh m en ts ,” th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t re qu ire s tha t p ris on off ic ia ls pro vi de hu m an e co nd it io ns of c on fin em en t. Id . Howev er, as no te d abo ve , on ly tho se co nd it io ns whi chob jecti ve ly am ou ntto an“ ex tre m e d ep riv at io n” vi ol at in g c on te m po rary 32st an da rd s o f de cen cy are s ub ject t o Ei gh th Am en dm en t s cru ti ny. Hud so n, 5 03 U.S. at8– 9, 1 12 S. Ct. at10 00 . Furt he rm or e, itis on ly a pri so n o ffi ci al ’s subjec ti ve de li be rat e in di ffer en ce t o the subs tant ia l ri skof s eri ou s h arm cau se d b y

su ch
co nd it io ns th atgi ve s ri se to anEig ht h Am en dm en t v io la ti on . Farm er, 5 11 U.S. at 82 8, 1 14 S. Ct. at19 74 (qu ot at io n a ndcit at io n o m it te d) ; Wils on , 50 1 U.S. at30 3, 11 1 S . Ct. at23 27
. The de fen da nt s as se rt o n app eal th atMcKi nn ey fai le d t o s at is fy

bo th th e ob jecti ve an d s ub

jecti ve co m

po ne nt s o f hi s co nd it io ns -o f-co nf in em en t cl ai m . W e be gi n wi th anan al y si s o f th e o bjec ti ve in qu iry. In do in g s o, we ar e m in df ul th atwe m us t re frai n fr om

im po si ng our own th eo rie s o f pe no lo gy onth e n at io n’s p ris on s an d s tri ve to in fo rm

ou r an al y si s wi th ob

jecti ve fact or s t o the m ax im um ex te nt po ss ib le . See Rh od es v. Ch ap m an , 45 2 U.S. 3 37 , 34 6, 1 01 S. Ct. 2 39 2, 2 39 9 (1 98 1) (“ Eig ht h Am en dm en t ju dg m en ts sh ou ldne ithe r be no r ap pe ar t o b e m erel y th e subjec ti ve vi ews of ju dg es .”) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n a ndcit at io n o m it te d) ; Ch an dl er v . Cro sb y , 37 9 F .3d12 78 , 12 90 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (“ As jud ge s, we l ack cart e b lanc he to im

po se ou r own th eo rie s o f pe no lo gy onth e n at io n’s p ris on s.”) (in te rn al qu ot at io n a ndcit at io n o m it te d)
. i. Extrem e Dep riv at io n The di stric t co urt co nc lu de d t ha t M cKin ne y ’s subjec ti on to th e DOC’s no n33sp on tane ou s u se -o f-fo rce p ol ic y am ou nt edto anex tre m e d ep riv at io n s at is fy in g the Eig ht h Am en dm en t’s o bjec ti ve in jury requ ire m en t. Tho m as , 20 09 W L 64 61 6, at *2 4, * 27 . Mor e sp eci fic al ly, th e co urt co nc lu de d t ha t i t was anex tre m e d ep riv at io n of McKi nn ey ’s con st itut io na l ri gh t t o h um an e p ris on co nd it io ns forFSP o ffi cers to rep eat ed ly spr ay

hi m with c he m ic al ag en ts inord er t o e nf or ce p ris onreg ul at io ns with wh ic h M cKin ne y

ha d n o c ap aci ty to co m

pl y du e to hi s m en ta l i ll ne ss with the
res ul t tha t the se sp raying s caus edhi m “ la st in g p sycho lo gi cal in juri es .” Id . at *2 2– 24 , *2 7. W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs forcle ar erro r an d i ts leg al
co nc lu si on s d e n ov o. Co m m on Cau se /Geo rg ia , 55 4 F .3dat 1 34 9. “ Cl ear e rro r is a hi gh ly defer en ti al st an dardof r ev ie w.” Hol to n v . City of Th om as vi ll e Sch . Dis t., 42 5 F .3d13 25 , 13 50 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). “ [A] find in g i s ‘cle arl y erro ne ou s’ when al th ou gh th ere i s ev id en ce t o s up po rt i t, the rev ie win g c ourt o n t he en ti re ev id en ce is lef t wi th th e d efi ni te an d fi rm co nv ic ti on th ata m is take ha s b eenco m m itte d.” And ers onv. Ci ty of Bes se m er Ci ty, N.C., 47 0 U.S. 5 64 , 57 3, 1 05 S. Ct. 1 50 4, 1 51 1 (1 98 5) (in te rn al qu ot at io n a ndcit at io n o m it te d) . Whe th er the reco rdde m on st rat es th atMcKi nn ey

was s pr ay edwith c he m ic al ag en ts at t im es inwhi chhe ha d de co m pe ns at ed(i.e ., at t im es when he was u nabl e to un de rs tandan d c om pl y with of fic ers ’ or de rs be cau se of h is m en ta l i ll ne ss ) an d t ha t h e su ffer edps y ch ol og ic al
34in

juri es fro m

su chsp raying s ar e que st io ns of f act . Whe th er the se de pr iv at io ns are ob jecti ve ly “ su ffi ci en tl y

ser io us ” to sat is fy

th e o bjec ti ve pro ng , Farm er, 5 11 U.S. at 83 4, 1 14 S. Ct. at19 77 , is a qu es ti on of l aw we ev al ua te ba se d o n “ ev ol vi ng st an da rd s o f de cen cy ,” Rh od es , 45 2 U.S. at34 6, 1 01 S. Ct. at23 99 . W e b al an ce th es e st an da rd s o f de cen cy ag ai ns t p ris on off

ic ia ls ’ ne edto ke ep th e p ris on saf e. Hop e v . Pel zer, 2 40 F.3d97 5, 9 79 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ), ov erru le d i n p arton ot he r gr ou nd s, 5 36 U.S. 73 0, 1 22 S. Ct. 2 50 8 (2 00 2) . “ Howev er, anin fli ct io n o f pa in ‘w itho utpe no lo gi cal jus ti fic at io n’ is co ns id eredto be ‘ un ne ces sa ry an d wan to n.’” Id . W e ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt tha t M cKin ne y ha s s at is fie d t hi s o bjec ti ve st an da rd
. The de fen da nt s ch al le ng e b ot h the di st ric t co urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs with
res pe ctto McKi nn ey

an d i ts leg al co nc lu si onth atth e u se of c he mic al ag en ts in McKi nn ey ’s cas e sa ti sf

ie d the Eig ht h Am en dm en t’s o bjec ti ve in jury requ ire m en t. W ith re sp ectto th e co urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs , th e d efen da nt s ar gu e th at“ th ere i s n o ev id en ce tha t [M cKin ne y ] was ev er ac ut el y m en ta ll y il l wh ensp rayed” o r th athe

“ co ul d n otun de rs tandoff ic ers ’ co m

m an ds or c on tro l h is act io ns each ti m e h e was sp rayed wit h c he m ic al ag en ts .” W ith re sp ectto th e d is tri ctco urt’s l eg al
co nc lu si on , th e d efen da nt s ar gu e th atbe cau se ch em ic al ag en ts have be ende em ed th e le as t h arm fu l al te rn at iv e am on g t he op ti on s av ai labl e to pri so n o ffi ci al s t o 35res po ndto a pr is on di sturba nc e th ei r us e can ne ve r co ns ti tu te “un ne ces sary or brut al tre atm en t i n v io la ti on of t he Eig ht h Am en dm en t.” Th e d efen da nt s ev engo so far as to arg ue th atth e u se of c he m ic al ag en ts , wher e adm in is te redpro pe rly,
ev enwhenadm in is te redag ai ns t a d eco m pe ns at edin m at e, “ do no t ex ceedth e no rm al di sc om fo rt o f th e p ris on en vi ro nm en t.” We rejectbo th of t he se arg um en ts in tu rn . Fi rs t, wi th res pe ctto th e co urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs , ou r in de pe nd en t re vi ew of McKi nn ey ’s reco rdde m on st rat es th atth e co urt d idno t cl earl y err i n fi nd in g t ha t McKi nn ey

ha d d eco m

pe ns at ed at t im es th athe was s pr ay edwith c he m ic al ag en ts

1 9
an d tha t h e su ffer edps y ch ol og ic al in jury from th es e sp raying s. Mc Kin ne y ’s reco rd de m on st rat es th athe was s pr ay edwith c he m ic al ag en ts pu rs ua ntto th e DOC’s no nsp on tane ou s u se -o f-fo rce p ol ic y on 36 sep arat e o ccas io ns be twee n 2 00 1 and20 07 , whe n h e was las t tran sf

erre d t o UCI forinpa ti en t treat m en t. Onall bu t two o f th es e oc cas io ns , he was sp rayed fo r cau si ng a di sturba nc e o n h is win g b y y el li ng an d/ or ki ck in g a ndbe at in g h is cel l d oo r orst eel be d, b eh av io rs whi chwere i de nt ifi edat tri al as c on si st en t wi than d i nd ic at iv e o f “ anex acerba ti on of t he m en ta l i ll ne ss es

The district cour

t used the phra ses “spra

yed at time he ha d decompe nsated”and 1 9 “spra ying him with che mical ag ents . . . for be haviors ca used by his mental illness” as havingthe same mea ning a s the defe ndants’ havingsprayed McKinney at times when he was una ble to understand or

comply with the order s of DOC off icials. 36fro m

whi chS-3 an d S -4 in m at es su ffer .” Tho m as , 20 09 W L 64 61 6, at*5 . On 2 0
m an y oc cas io ns , McKi nn ey

ex hi bi te d u na m

bi gu ou s s ym

pt om s o f de co m

pe ns at io n imm ed ia te ly prio r to th es e ch em ic al sp raying s. Mc Kin ne y ’s reco rdals o de m on st rat es th athe freque nt ly dis pl ay edacu te sym pt om s o f hi s m en ta l i ll ne ss fo ll owi ng ch em ic al sp raying s, wh ic h o fte n l edto hi s tran sf er t o UCI or t he FSP in firm ary fo r tr eat m en t. Fo r ex am pl e, on Marc h 5 , 20 03 , he was sp rayed wit h c he m ic al ag en ts , on ly to be fou ndth e fo ll owi ng day en ga ge d i n t he bi zarr e b eh av io r of jum pi ng off hi s cel l s in k, wh ic h l edto hi s i m m ed ia te tra ns fer t o UCI wher e h e was recl as si fie d a s anS-5 in m at e. Id . at * 15 . On Ju ly 15, 2 00 3, h e was sp rayed with c he m ic al ag en ts
an d tran sf

erre d the ne xtda y

to th e FSP i nf

irmary an d t he n t o UCI forweek s o f ps y ch ia tri c o bs erv at io n a ndtre atm en t. Id . On Oct ob er 6 , 20 03 , McKi nn ey warn ed a p sycho lo gi cal sp eci al is t h e was go in g t o h urt h im se lf, andy etoff ic ers sp rayed hi m with c he m ic al ag en ts th e fo ll owi ng da y on two sep arat e o ccas io ns , on ce fo r th ro win g h is fece s an d o nc e fo r y el li ng an d k ic ki ng inhi s ce ll . Thatsame day , of fic ers als o p erfo rm eda cel l ex tra ct io n t o s earc h h is cel l. Id . Fou r da y s l at er, of fic ers ag ai n s pr ay edMcKi nn ey with c he m ic al ag en ts , andtwo da y s l at er h e
The two e x ceptions involved an inc ident in which McKinne y threw f ece s at a staf

f 2 0 member on O ctober

7, 2003, and an inc ident in which McKinne y ref used to removehis arm from the food-f lap openingin his cell on J uly 25, 2007. Thomas, 2009 WL64616, at *15, *16. 37ex hi bi te d e xt rem e p sycho lo gi cal di st res s, b an gi ng hi s h eadon hi s s te el bu nkan d

cel l d oo r, whi chres ul te d i n h is tra ns fer t o t he em erg en cy roo m an d t he n t o UCI for two week s o f tr eat m en t. Id . Alth ou gh McKi nn ey was the or et ic al ly stab il iz edat UCI dur in g thi s treat m en t an d d eem edcap ab le of r eturni ng to hi s FS P win g, h e jum pe d d own a fl ig htof s ta irs two da y s af te r hi s re tu rn , res ul ti ng ina la cera ti on requi rin g s ev enst it ch es . After t hi s i nc id en t, Mc Kin ne y expr es se d o ng oi ng su ic id al id eat io ns . Id. Si m il arl y , inJu ne 20 04 , McKi nn ey was s pr ay edwith c he m ic al ag en ts an d the n s en t t o the FSP i nf irmary th e fo ll owi ng da y

fora ps y ch ol og ic al
as se ss m en t. Id . at * 16 . Fou r ho ur s af te r hi s re le as e to hi s FS P win g, M cKin ne y was ag ai n s pr ay edwith c he m ic al ag en ts , andth e sa m e b eh av io r subjec te d h im to a se co ndsp raying th e n ex t d ay . Id. Imm ed ia te ly foll owi ng th is sp raying , he was tra ns ferr edto UCI as a su ic id e o r se lf- in jury risk . Id. Mo reo ve r, vi ewin g M cKin ne y ’s reco rdas awho le itis ap pa ren t tha t dur in g th e p eri od s i n wh ic h h e was rep eat ed ly spr ay edwith c he m ic al ag en ts he
ex pe rie nc edfreque ntps y ch ol og ic al em erg en ci es , whi chin cl ud edsu ic id e at te m pt s (b y ha ng in g o n Au gu st21 , 20 02 ), su ic id al th reat s an d i de at io ns (May 29 , 20 03 , Sep te m be r 6, 2 00 3, Fe brua ry

20 04 , andJu ne 20 04 ), se lf- in juri ou s b eh av io r (jum pi ng off hi s ce ll si nkon Marc h 6 , 20 03 , set ti ng fir e to hi s ce ll on May 25, 2 00 3
an d M ay 16 , 20 05 , hea d b an gi ng on Octo be r 13 , 20 03 , anddi vi ng off a fl ig htof
38st ai rs on Octo be r 29 , 20 03 ), an d p sycho ti c ep is od es (bo ut s atth e FSP i nf irmary with d ia gn os es of b ei ng “ su ic id al , ho m ic id al , bi po lar, an d p sycho ti c” i n Dec em be r 20 02 an d re cei vi ng a m en ta l h eal th em erg en cy di ag no si s o n M ay

16 , 20 05 th athe
was expe rie nc in g “ acu te sym pt om s wh ic h c an no t b e m an ag edsaf el y on an ou tp at ie ntba si s” ). McKi nn ey ’s reco rdals o p ro vi de s re pe at eddo cu m en tati on of h is fearof c he m ic al sp raying s, wh ic h i m pa ct edhi s ab il ity

to co pe on th e cl os em an ag em en t wi ng an d was hi s s ta te d re as on forrefu si ng to acce ptps y ch ot ro pi c m ed ic at io n tha t co ul d h av e h el pe d s tabi li ze h is m en ta l i ll ne ss . See i d. at*1 5– 16 (UCI treat m en t n ot es fro m Ju ly 200 3 i nd ic at e th atMcKi nn ey was “ do in g wel l
co pi ng whi le [atUCI] bu t d oe s n otkn ow h ow h e wil l co pe at F SP b ecau se he be li ev es he ha s t o b e o n g uardag ai ns t u nwa rran te d g as si ng s” ; UCI tre atm en t n ot es fro m Octo be r 20 03 in di cat e th atMcKi nn ey be li ev edhe was “ havi ng pro bl em s wi th st aff . . . ga ss in g h im

. . . ev enif h e d oe s n ot hi ng ”; Marc h 2 00 4 treat m en t n ot es in di cat e th atMcKi nn ey

refu se d t o t ak e m ed ic at io n b ecau se he ne ed edto be ale rt be cau se “ th ey

ga s [h im ] so oft en ”; UCI tr eat m en t n ot es fro m Ju ne 20 04 in di cat e th atMcKi nn ey

fel t “ de pr es se d m os t o f th e ti m e” i n p artdu e to freque ntga ss in gs ; Apr il 3, 2 00 5 l et te r fro m

McKi nn ey

to DOC Heal thServ ic es co m pl ai ne d o f freque ntsp raying s) . Add it io na ll y , McKi nn ey ’s reco rdde m on st rat es th athe was recl as si fie d fr om

S-3 st atus on at l eas t two o ccas io ns du rin g h is tre atm en t atUCI,
39on ce as anS-5 in m at e inMarc h 2 00 3 a ndon ce as anS-4 in m at e in Ju ly 200 7. He

was als o tran sf

erre d b etweenFSP, the FSP i nf irmary , andUCI se ve nt eenti m es du rin g the fiv e-year pe rio d b etween20 02 an d 2 00 7. Dr. Burn s, the pl ai nt iff

s’ Correct io na l an d M en ta l Hea lth Ex pe rt a ndform er Ch ie f Ps y ch ia tri stforth e Ohi o Dep art m en t o f Co rrec ti on s, al so in te rv ie wed McKi nn ey

an d re vi ewedhi s fi le in20 06 . Id. at*1 8. Sh e te st ifi edth at , bas edon hi s re co rd , he was “ li ke ly sym pt om at ic ” o n o ccas io ns when he was s pr ay edwith ch em ic al ag en ts bu t tha t DOC s ta ff was un ab le to reco gn iz e h is sym pt om s b ecau se of th ei r si m il ari ty w ith ty

pi cal di srup ti on s o n t he pri so n wi ng , res ul ti ng inhi s as se ss m en t as ha vi ng po orad jus tm en t t o t he win g a s o pp os edto su ffer in g fr om an y acu te im pa irment. Id . Alth ou gh th e rec or d t es ti m on y with re sp ectto McKi nn ey do es no t co nt ai n a ny un am bi gu ou s ex pr es s as se rti on th athe ha d d eco m pe ns at edat th e ti m e o f an y

of t he se sp raying s— su chas the in co m pe te nc y fin di ng s fo r pu rp os es of di sc ip li na ry

pro ceed in gs rel at edto va rio us us e-o f-fo rce i nc id en ts co nt ai ne d i n Tho m as ’s reco rd , see id . at * 12 —h is reco rdas awho le supp orts th e d is tri ct 2 1
The fa ct that Thomas wa s found not mentally competent at the time of at lea st two 2 1 chemica l spray

ings in 2000, a s well as the f act that he was spra

yed four day s in a row de spite medical staf

f’s notation that he “ could be de compensating,” see Thoma s, 2009 WL64616, at *12–13, further

bolster the district cour

t’s findingwith respec t to McKinney . Thomas’s re cord demonstrates that the non-spontaneous use -of- forc e policy was re gularly

applied notwithstanding obvious indications that inmates were experiencingan exace rbation of their mental illnesses and, as a r esult, could not understand or comply with office rs’ orde rs, makingit more likely that the policy was similarly

applied to McKinne y . 40co urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs . In s um , we con cl ud e th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t cl earl y

err i n fi nd in g tha t M cKin ne y was s pr ay edwith c he m ic al ag en ts at t im es when he ha d n o c ap aci ty to co m

pl y with o ffi cers ’ or de rs be cau se of h is m en ta l i ll ne ss . See id . at * 27 . Nor d idth e d is tri ctco urt cl earl y err i n fi nd in g t ha t the se sp raying s cau se d h im

“ la st in g p sycho lo gi cal in juri es .” Id.

2 2 Inli gh t o f th es e fac tu al fin di ng s, we al so read il y co nc lu de th atth e DOC’s rep eat edno n- sp on tane ou s u se of c he m ic al ag en ts on McKi nn ey co ns ti tu te d a n ex tre m e d ep riv at io n s uf

fic ie ntto sat is fy

th e o bjec ti ve pro ng . Alth ou gh itis well
es tabl is he d tha t the us e o f ch em ic al ag en ts on reca lc itran t p ris on ers is no t p er s e un co ns ti tu ti on al , Danl ey , 54 0 F .3dat 1 30 7 (“ Pep pe r sp ray is anacce pt edno n- le th al
m ean s o f co ntro ll in g u nrul y in m at es [,] . . . [anda] sho rt b ur stof p ep pe r sp ray is no t di sp ro po rti on at e to th e n eedto co nt ro l an in m at e who ha s fa il edto ob ey a jail er’s

The district cour

t’s findingthat the spray

ings c aused Mc Kinney

lasting 2 2 psycholog ical injuries is supported not only by the numerous times noted a bove that McKinney was re classified a

bove S-3 status and/or tra nsfer red to UCI

immediately

afte r one or

more spray ings, but it is also supported by the g ener al re cord e vidence addre ssing the pote ntial for chemica l ag ents to cause psycholog ical injury . See Thomas, 2009 WL64616, at *4 (c rediting Dr. B urns’ testimony

that the exposure to chemica l ag ents may cause “fe eling s of intense helplessness, fe ar of

dying, attempts at suicide and exace rbation of other sy mptoms of mental illness); at *8 (summarizing the CMA’s 2003- 2004 repor t stating that the ina

ppropriate use of chemica l ag ents on inmates in close mana g ement wing s had re sulted in the exacerbation of mental hea lth sy

mptoms, which in one instance led to a n inmate’s suicide) . See also Da nley , 540 F.3d at 1309 (internal quotations and c itations omi tted) (notingthat in addition to the intense phy sical pain intende d by its use, pepper

spray (the most commonly

used che mical ag ent by

the DOC),“some times also cause s disorientation, anxi ety , and panic in the person spra yed”) (interna l citation and quotation omitted). See a lso supra n.8 and a ccompa ny ing te x t. 41or de rs .”); So to v. Di ck ey , 74 4 F .2d12 60 , 12 70 (7t h C ir. 1 98 4) (“ The Supr em e

Co urt h as ne ve r he ld , no r ha ve we oran y ot he r co urt o f ap pe al s, s o fa r as we can de te rm in e, th atth e u se of t ear g as or ach em ic al ag en t i s a p er s e v io la ti on of t he Eig ht h Am en dm en t . . . .”); Sp ai n v . Pro cuni er, 6 00 F.2d18 9, 1 96 (9t h C ir. 1 97 9) (“ us e o f no nd an ge ro us qu an ti ti es of [ te ar g as ] in ord er t o p rev en t a p erce iv edfutur e da ng er d oe s n otvi ol at e ‘evo lv in g s tand ard s o f de cen cy ’ or co ns ti tu te an ‘unn eces sa ry

an d wan to n i nf

li ct io n o f pa in ’”), the re ar e co ns ti tu ti on al bo un da rie s to it s u se . See Gat es v. Co ll ie r, 50 1 F .2d12 91 , 13 04 (5t h C ir. 1 97 4) (“ [T]here i s a li ne wher e so li tary

co nf in em en t co nd it io ns be co m e so sev ere t ha t i ts us e is
co nv ert edfro m

a vi ab le pri so ne r di sc ip li na ry to ol to cru el an d u nu su al pu ni sh m en t.”) . The d is tri ctco urt d idno t ca te go ric al ly con de m n t he DOC’ s n on sp on tane ou s u se -o f-fo rce p ol ic y . Rath er, the co urt fo un d t ha t M cKin ne y ’s well
do cu m en te d h is to ry

of m en ta l i ll ne ss an d p sycho ti c ep is od es ren de redhi m un ab le to co m pl y at t he ti m es he was s pr ay edsu chth atth e p ol ic y was “un ne ces sa ry ” an d

“ witho utpe no lo gi cal jus ti fic at io n” inhi s s pe ci fic cas e. Thi s co nc lu si on is in ke ep in g wi th pri orde ci si on s o f th is co urt an d o th er ci rcu itco urts of app eal s, wh ic h ha ve co nc lu de d tha t wh ere c he m ic al ag en ts are u se d u nn eces sa ril y , witho ut pe no lo gi cal jus ti fic at io n, o r fo r th e v ery pu rp os e o f pu ni sh m en t o r harm , th atus e sa ti sf ie s the Eig ht h Am en dm en t’s o bjec ti ve ha rm requi rem en t. See Danl ey , 54 0
42F.3 d a t 1 31 1 (h ol di ng th atpro lo ng edex po su re t o p ep pe r sp ray du e to a fai lure t o

pr op erl y de co nt am in at e anin m at e m ay form th e b as is of a n Ei gh th Am en dm en t cl ai m); I ko v. Sh rev e, 53 5 F .3d22 5, 2 39 (4t h C ir. 2 00 8) (us e o f ad di ti on al bu rs ts of pe pp er s pr ay

aft er i nm at e at te m

pt edto co m

pl y with o ffi cer’s o rd ers an d wh ic h po ss ib ly con tri bu te d t o i nm at e’s as ph yxi at io n a ndde ath s uf fic ie nt ly alle ge d ob jecti ve co m

po ne ntof e xc es si ve for ce cl ai m); S ot o, 7 44 F.2dat 1 27 0 (“ [I]t is a vi ol at io n o f th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t fo r pr is on off ic ia ls to us e m ace o r ot he r ch em ic al ag en ts inqu an ti ti es gre at er tha n n eces sary or f or th e so le pu rp os e o f pu ni sh m en t o r th e in fli ct io n o f pa in .”). McKi nn ey

was s ub jecte d t o c he m ic al sp raying s p ur su an t t o aDOC po li cy th atdo es no t re qu ire a co rrec ti on s o ffi cer o r hi s s up eri or s t o re vi ew anin m at e’s
m en ta l h eal th reco rd s p rio r to au th or iz in g t he de ci si on to us e ch em ic al ag en ts on an in m at e cau si ng a di sturba nc e in hi s ce ll . Thu s, i t i s DOC p ol ic y th atif an i nm at e ha s b eencla ss ifi edas an S -3 in m at e an d l iv es inanFSP cl os e-m an ag em en t wi ng , reg ard le ss of h is m en ta l h eal th hi st ory , che m ic al ag en ts are av ai labl e fo r no nem erg en cy

us e. Howev er, atth e sa m e ti m e th e rec or d e st ab li sh es th atm en ta l il ln es s i s fl ui d andth atanin m at e’s m en ta l h eal th st atus m ay de te rio rat e atan y

ti m e, gr adua ll y or s ud de nl y , cau si ng hi m to “be co m e co nf

us ed , di so rg an iz edan d di so rie nt ed ” an d “ in cap ab le of u nd ers tand in g o r co nf orm in g t o d em an ds .”
43Tho m as , 20 09 W L 64 61 6, at*6 . Furt he rm or e, th e rec or d e st ab li sh es th atsec ur ity

st aff s tru gg le to di ffer en ti at e b etweenanin m at e’s wil lfu l n on co m pl ianc e wit h pr is on rul es an d b eh av io r th atis a si gn of a cu te im pa irment f

orwhi chth e p ers on can no t b e h el d e nt ire ly accou nt ab le . Id. at*9 . In l ig htof t he se real it ie s, as well as th e im po ss ib il ity

of c on st an tl y

m on it or in g a n i nm at e fo r th e p os si bl e n eedto recl as si fy hi s m en ta l s ta tu s, re lying so le ly on an i nm at e’s S-3 st atus to de te rm in e whe th er the us e o f ch em ic al ag en ts is ap pr op ria te fai ls to tak e in to co ns id erat io n th e fac t tha t M cKin ne y

was n o l on ge r cap ab le of c on fo rm in g h is co nduc t t o p ris on reg ul at io ns . “ [I]f th e in m at e can no t u nd ers tandth e co m m an d a ndcan no t co m

pl y with i t, the for ce s im

pl y pro du ces pa in
. . . .” Id . at * 23 . W e ag ree wi th th e d is tri ct co urt tha t “ if t he DOC fai ls to acco un t fo r anin m at e’s de co m pe ns at io n, wi th th e res ul t tha t h e is ga ss edwhen he can no t co nt ro l h is act io ns du e to hi s m en ta l i ll ne ss , th enth e fo rce n o l on ge r ha s a n eces sa ry pe no lo gi cal purp os e an d b eco m es brut al ity .” Id . The DOC i ts el f rec og ni zes th atth e in di sc riminat e n on -s po nt an eo us us e o f ch em ic al ag en ts onde co m pe ns at edin m at es fai ls to adva nc e it s p en ol og ic al go al s. As id e fro m

em erg en cy

si tu at io ns inwhi chth ere i s a t hr eatof i m m ed ia te ha rm to anin m at e o r ot he rs , th e DOC d oe s n otpe rm itth e u se of c he m ic al ag en ts on in m at es with S -4 , S-5 , or S- 6 s ta tu s o r th os e rec ei vi ng tre atm en t i n i np at ie nt se tt in gs li ke UCI (wh ic h h ou se s s om e S-3 in m at es ).
44Add it io na ll y , we agr ee wi th th e d is tri ctco urt tha t the “ la st in g p sycho lo gi cal

in juri es ” su ffer edby McKin ne y as ares ul t o f hi s s ub

jecti on to rep eat edch em ic al sp raying s atFSP ar e su ffi ci en tl y ser io us in

juri es to sat is fy

th e o bjec ti ve ha rm requi rem en t. Mc Kin ne y

ne edno t h av e su ffer edlas ti ng ph y si cal in jury from th e sp raying s t o s ub

ject DOC c on di ti on s t o Ei gh th Am en dm en t s cru ti ny. The cas e la w es tabl is he s tha t “ m en ta l h eal thne ed s ar e n o l es s s eri ou s than p hysic al ne ed s” for pu rp os es of t he Eig ht h Am en dm en t. Gat es v. Co ok , 37 6 F .3d32 3, 3 32 (5th C ir. 20 04 ). See Ho pe v. Pe lz er, 5 36 U.S. 73 0, 7 38 , 12 2 S . Ct. 2 50 8, 2 51 4– 15 (20 02 ) (h ig hl ig ht in g “ taun ti ng ” an d “ hu m il ia ti on ” as cir cu m st an ces whi chco nt rib ut edto fin di ng th atha nd cu ffi ng pe ti ti on er t o ahi tc hi ng po staft er “ [a]ny sa fety co nc ern s ha d l on g s in ce ab at ed
. . . vi ol at edth e b as ic co nc ep t und erl y in g the Eig ht h Am en dm en t, wh ic h i s n ot hi ng les s tha n t he di gn ity of m an ”) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n an d c it at io n o m it te d) ; Sm ith v . Ald in ge rs , 99 9 F .2d10 9, 1 09 (5t h C ir. 1 99 3) (rev ers in g d is m is sa l o f Eig ht h Am en dm en t cl ai m be cau se di stric t co urt fa il edto co ns id er wh ethe r pu rel y

ps y ch ol og ic al in

jury cou ldco ns ti tu te anEig ht h Am en dm en t i nju ry ); LaM arcav. Turn er, 9 95 F.2d15 26 , 15 44 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ) (aff irming in jun ct io n o rd eri ng ps y ch ol og ic al co un se li ng of r ap e v ic ti m s t o a dd res s un ne ces sary

an d wan to n i nf

li ct io n o f pa in of f

ai li ng to pro vi de pri so ne rs with p os trap e p sycho lo gi cal co un se li ng ); S tri ck le r v. Water s, 9 89 F.2d13 75 , 13 81 (4th C ir.
4519 93 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th atser io us ph y si cal or e m ot io na l i nju ry m ay gi ve ris e to an Eig ht h Am en dm en t v io la ti on ); No rth in gt on v. J ack so n, 9 73 F.2d15 18 , 15 24 (10 th Ci r. 19 92 ) (h ol di ng th atps y ch ol og ic al in jury m ay co ns ti tu te pa in un de r th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t ex ces si ve for ce s tand ard ). Acco rd in gl y , we ho ldth atth e p ol ic y an d p ract ic e o f sp raying in m at es with ch em ic al ag en ts , as app li edto McKi nn ey un de r th e ci rcum st an ces fou ndhe re— i.e., whe n h e was ful ly securedinhi s s ev en -b y -n in e-fo otst eel cel l, wh enhe was n ot pr es en ti ng a th reatof i m

m ed ia te ha rm

to hi m se lf o r ot he rs , andwhen he was unabl e to un de rs tandan d c om

pl y with o ffi cers ’ or de rs du e to hi s m en ta l i ll ne ss —ar e ex tre m e d ep riv at io ns vi ol at in g the “br oa d a ndid eal is ti c co nc ep ts of d ig ni ty, ci vi li zedst an da rd s, h um an ity an d d ecen cy ” em

bo di edinth e Eig ht h Am en dm en t. Hop e, 24 0 F .3dat 9 79 (ci ti ng Est el le v. Gam bl e, 42 9 U.S. 9 7, 1 02 , 97 S. Ct. 2 85 , 29 0 (1 97 6) ). McKi nn ey

ha s d em on strat edth athe is on e su chin m at e an d t hu s h as sa ti sf ie d the Eig hth Am en dm en t’s o bjec ti ve ha rm requi rem en t. We no w turnto th e qu es ti on of wh ethe r McKi nn ey als o s at is fie d t he Eig ht h Am en dm en t’s s ub jecti ve wan to nn es s re qu ire m en t. ii
. Deli be rat e In di ffer en ce Inco nd it io ns -o f-co nf

in em en t ca se s, wan to nn es s i s es tabl is he d b y pro vi ng th ata de fen da ntpri so n o ffi ci al was d el ib erat el y in di ffer en t t o aris k o f se rio us ha rm 46to th e p la in ti ff i nm at e. Farm er, 5 11 U.S. at 8 28 , 11 4 S . Ct. at19 74 (qu ot at io n a nd

ci ta ti on om it te d) ; Wils on , 50 1 U.S. at30 3, 1 11 S. Ct. at23 27 ; LaM arca , 99 5 F .2d at15 35 . In o urcir cu it , to fin d d el ib erat e in di ffer en ce o n t he pa rt o f a p ris on of fic ia l, a p la in ti ff i nm at e m us t s ho w: (1 ) subjec ti ve kn owl ed ge of aris k o f se rio us ha rm ; (2 ) di sr eg ardof t ha t ri sk ; (3 ) by con du ctth atis m or e th angro ss ne gl ig en ce. Town se ndv. J effe rs on Co un ty, 60 1 F .3d11 52 , 11 58 (11 Cir . 20 10 ); s ee al so th Ch an dl er, 3 79 F.3dat 1 29 0, n .21 . Thatis , th e ev id en ce m us t d em on st rat e th at

“ with kno wled ge of t he in firm co nd it io ns , [th e o ffi ci al ] kn owi ng ly or reck le ss ly de cl in edto tak e act io ns th atwou ldha ve im pr ov edth e co nd it io ns .” LaMar ca, 9 95 F.2 d a t 1 53 7. A p ris on off ic ia l’s d el ib erat e in di ffer en ce i s a que st io n o f fac t wh ic h
we rev ie w forcle ar erro r. See Fa rm er, 5 11 U.S. at 8 42 , 11 4 S . Ct. at19 81 ; Go eb ert v. Lee Co un ty, 51 0 F .3d13 12 , 13 27 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ); F ed . R. Civ . P. 52 (a).

“ Whe th er a p ris on off

ic ia l h adth e requi si te kn owl ed ge of asubs tant ia l ri skis
. . . subjec t t o d em on st rat io n i n the us ua l ways, in cl ud in g i nf eren ce fr om

cir cu m st an ti al
ev id en ce, an d afact fin de r m ay co nc lu de th ata pr is on off ic ia l kne w of asubs tant ia l ris k fr om th e v ery factth atth e ri skwas o bv io us .” Farm er, 5 11 U.S. at 8 42 , 11 4 S
. Ct . at 1 98 1 (i nt ern al cit at io ns om it te d)
. The di stric t co urt fo un d tha t the reco rdde m on st rat edth at“ DOC of fic ia ls act edwith d el ib erat e in di ffer en ce t o t he sev ere r is k o f ha rm Mi ch ael McKi nn ey 47face d wh enoff ic ers rep eat ed ly spr ay edhi m with c he m ic al ag en ts at F SP fo r be ha vi or s caus edby his m en ta l i ll ne ss .” Tho m as , 20 09 W L 64 61 6, at*2 7. We ha ve alr eady

est ab li sh edforpu rp os es of t he Eig ht h Am en dm en t’s o bjec ti ve in jury requi rem en t tha t M cKin ne y ’s in di vi du al reco rdco nt ai ns am pl e ev id en ce t o s up po rt th e d is tri ctco urt’s fi nd in g tha t b ecau se of h is m en ta l i ll ne ss McKi nn ey was u nabl e to un de rs tandan d c om

pl y with o ffi cers ’ or de rs du rin g s om e o f th e p eri od s i n wh ic h he was s pr ay edwith c he m ic al ag en ts . Furt he rm or e, ou r rev ie w of the di st ric t co urt’s v ol um in ou s u nc on te st edfactua l fi nd in gs as t he y rel at e to th e d efen da nt s’ de li be rat e in di ffer en ce d oe s n otlea ve us “ with t he de fin it e an d fi rm co nv ic ti on th at
a m is ta ke ha s b eenco m

m it te d.” And ers on , 47 0 U.S. at57 3, 1 05 S. Ct. at15 11 (in te rn al qu ot at io n a ndcit at io n o m it te d) . Accor di ng ly, th e d efen da nt s h av e fai le d to sat is fy th ei r bu rd enof d em on st rat in g t he di st ric t co urt’s cl ear e rro r. As t o the de fen da nt s’ subjec ti ve kn owl ed ge of aris k o f ha rm to McKi nn ey , th e rec or d e st ab li sh es bo th th atth e “ freque nt -fl ie r” s ynd ro m e was well -rec og ni zed by DO C o ffi ci al s an d s ta ff an d tha t i t wo ul d h av e b eenob vi ou s t o DOC o ffi ci al s th atMcKi nn ey

was o ne su chfreque nt -fl ie r. See Th om as , 20 09 W L 64 61 6, at*6 (“ The sec ur ity

an d m en ta l h eal th st aff wh o t es ti fie d o r ga ve st at em en ts were

48ge ne ral ly all fa m il iar with thi s p he no m en a . . . .”). McKi nn ey ’s in di vi du al in m at e 2 3
reco rdde m on st rat es th atbe twee n 2 00 1 a nd20 07 , he was tra ns ferr edto UCI te n ti m es foron go in g treat m en t an d t o t he FSP i nf irmary sev enti m es forva rio us ps y ch ol og ic al em erg en ci es . Id. at*1 5– 17 . On atlea sttwo su choc cas io ns he was recl as si fie d a s an S-5 or S -4 in m at e. McKi nn ey ’s reco rdals o d em on strat es th at aft er s tabi li zi ng tre atm en t atUCI, he stru gg le d t o re ad jus t t o l ife on hi s FS P win g, an d o fte n re tu rn edto UCI o r th e in firm ary fo r fu rth er treat m en t s oo n t he reaf te r. The reco rdals o d em on st rat es th atDOC off ic ia ls ha d s ub

jecti ve kn owl ed ge th atth e u se of c he m ic al ag en ts m ay cau se ps y ch ol og ic al ha rm to in m at es with
m en ta l i ll ne ss , esp eci al ly frequ en t-f li ers li ke McKi nn ey . Nurs e Bat tl es tes ti fie d th atfora pe rio d o f ti m e, th e DOC g en erat eda li stof i nm at es awai ti ng tra ns fer t o UCI fo r who m

th e u se of c he mic al ag en ts was c on tra in di cat ed , bu t due to a ch an ge of ward enth e p ol ic y

was d is co nt in ue d. Id . at * 6. Dr. Ng uyen t es ti fie d t ha t dur in g he r te nure s he ha d i ns tru ct edDOC m ed ic al st aff t o re vi ew th e ch art s o f S-3 in m at es to de te rm in e whe th er the re were an y m en ta l h eal th co nt rai nd ic at io ns ag ai ns t the
For mer F SP and UCIpsychiatrist Dr. I nfante , former

Warden James Crosby , 2 3 former FSP and UCImedical dire ctor TuongNguyen, and f ormer F SP S enior Nur sing Super visor Tina B attles all testified to their knowledg e of the issue of fr equent- fliers at FSP. Thomas, 2009 WL64616, at *6. FSP’s cur rent lea d senior psycholog ist P eg gy Watkins-Fer

rell, also testified that “on any

g iven working

day” one or

two inmates are ref

err ed out of F SP for inpatient treatment. I d. at *8. Richard Stalder , the def endants’ c orre ctional expert, “wa s also of the opinion that the ‘fre quent flier’ sy ndrome represe nted a possible bre akdown in ca re that should be addr essed at highe r leve ls.” I d. at *7. 49us e o f ch em ic al ag en ts . Id. at*7 . Former FSP ps y ch ia tri stDon al d Gi bb s t es ti fie d

th atba se d o n h is ex pe rie nc e o f tr eat in g i nm at es at F SP i n 2 00 3 a nd20 04 , th e u se of ch em ic al ag en ts on m en ta ll y il l i nm at es ex acerba te d t he ir s ym pt om s. Id . at * 4. Add it io na ll y , as d is cu ss edab ov e, DOC po li cy pro vi de s tha t the fir stres po ns e to di sturba nc es su chas b an gi ng an d yell in g a t UCI is m en ta l h eal th in te rv en ti on ; the
us e o f ch em ic al ag en ts to qu el l a n on -em erg en cy di sturba nc e atUCI is no t pe rm it te d b ecau se of t he se in m at es ’ ps y ch ol og ic al vu ln erab il it ie s. Id . at * 5. DOC rece ntpo li cy

refo rm s fu rth er d em on st rat e th e DOC’s subjec ti ve kn owl ed ge of t he ps y ch ol og ic al ha rm ch em ic al ag en ts cancau se freque nt -fl ie rs . UCI’s n ew O-Dorm

ho us es 11 4 S -3 in m at es (ap pr ox im at el y 15 % of F SP’s S-3 po pu la ti on ) awai ti ng trans fer fr om FSP t o a n i np at ie ntfaci li ty andth e n ew N-Dorm pr ov id es tra ns it io na l h ou si ng forrece nt ly stab il iz edin m at es returni ng fro m UCI to FSP. Id . at * 10 . Che m ic al ag en ts are n otpe rm itte d a s a r es po ns e to no nem erg en cy

di sturbanc es at O-Do rm

an d m ay on ly be u se d at N-Do rm

if asp eci al lytra in edcri si s- in te rv en ti on tea m de em s i t ap pr op ria te . Id. McKi nn ey ’s reco rd , whi chde m on strat edhi s fr eque ntne edforinpa ti en t tre atm en t an d p sycho lo gi cal scr een in g due to a pa tt ernof s el f-i nju rio us be ha vi or an d s ui ci da l i de at io ns , pu t the DOC onno ti ce tha t h e was ina cat eg ory of i nm at es who se m en ta l h eal th was “pa rti cu larly frag il e” an d t ha t “ no twi th st an di ng hi s S- 3
50de si gn at io n, h e was esp eci al ly sus cep ti bl e to de co m pe ns at in g.” Id. at*2 6. Mo reo ve r, th e rec or d e st ab li sh es th atth e n am edde fen da nt s al so ha d s ub jecti ve kn owl ed ge of aris k o f ha rm sp eci fic to McKi nn ey . FSP’s fo rm er dut y ward en , 2 4 Geo rg e Sap p, t es ti fie d tha t FS P o ffi ci al s m eetda il y to rev ie w th e p rev io us da y ’s
us e-o f-fo rce l og s i n o rd er t o kno w “ wha t was tra ns pi rin g o n t he win gs at a ll ti m e an d tha t fo rce was be in g u se d app ro pr ia te ly.” A dd it io na ll y , th e DOC’s no nsp on tane ou s u se -o f-fo rce p ol ic y m an da te s tha t FS P’s ward enor, i n h is ab se nc e, du ty w ard enau th or iz e ev ery no n- sp on tane ou s u se of c he m ic al ag en ts . See Fl a. Adm in . Cod e r. 3 3- 60 2.2 10 (1 7) (n )(2 )(b ) (“ [T]he sh iftsupe rv is or sh al l . . . [c]on ta ct th e ward enor, i n h is or h er ab se nc e, th e dut y ward enan d re qu es t au th or iz at io n t o ut il iz e ch em ic al ag en ts .”). Ther efo re, the na m edde fen da nt , th e Wardenof F SP,
wou ldha ve subjec ti ve kn owl ed ge of t he in m at es onwhi chch em ic al ag en ts are be in g u se d. Gi ve n the freque nc y with wh ic h M cKin ne y

was s pr ay edwith c he m ic al

The district cour

t did not specifically

link its deliberate indiffer ence findingto the 2 4 named de fenda

nts, the Warden of F SP or the Secreta ry of the DO C. Our ca se law r equire s that plaintiff inmates prove the subjective de liberateindiffer ence of the named def endants to pre vail in their § 1983 lawsuits. Cook ex . rel. Te ssier v. Sheriff of Monroe County , Fla., 402 F .3d 1092, 1115–16 (11th Cir. 2005) (“ Thus, to succe ed on her § 1983 claim, Cook must establish that the Sheriff himself, a s repr esentative of Monroe County , was de liberate ly indiffer ent to the possibili ty

of Tessier ’s suicide, since neither r espondeat superior nor vic arious liability exis ts under § 1983.” ). Howe ver, the defe ndants have not challeng ed, either in the district court or on appea l, the deliberate indiffer ence findingon this ground. T here fore , any such objec tion is deeme d waived. United States v. Curtis, 380 F.3d 1308, 1310 (11th Cir. 2004) (c iting the “long -standingrule in this circuit, as we ll as in the fede ral rule s themselves, that issues not raised by a def endant in his initial brief on appe al ar e dee med waive d”). 51ag en ts , hi s i nc red ib le di sc ip li na ry hi st ory (whi chin cl ud ed32 0 d is ci pl in ary in frac ti on s b y

th e ti m e o f tr ia l), h is reg ul ar tran sf ers be twee n UCI an d F SP, an d h is rep eat edep is od es of s el f-i nju rio us be ha vi or , hi s n am e wou ldcert ai nl y ha ve st oo d
ou t t o the ward en . See Th om as , 20 09 W L 64 61 6, at*2 6 (c on cl ud in g t he same as 2 5 to pl ai nt iff

Tho m as ). Add it io na ll y , as d is cu ss edab ov e, th e rec or d a ls o c on ta in s ev id en ce tha t the Fl or id a Co rrec ti on al Med ic al Autho rit y (“ CMA” ) is su ed20 03 -2 00 4 a nd20 05 -2 00 6 Ann ua l Re po rts ex pr es si ng si gn ifi can t co nc ernth atch em ic al ag en ts were b ei ng in ap pr op ria te ly use d o n i nm at es inclo se m an ag em en t s et ti ng s re su lt in g i n c he m ic al bu rn s an d the ex acerba ti on of m en ta l h eal th sym pt om s. The 20 03 -2 00 4 An nu al Rep ort m ad e th e sp eci fic reco m m en da ti on to th e DOC th atitad op t the
co nf ro nt at io n a vo id an ce t ech ni qu es us edby the Fed eral Bureauof P ris on s, wh ic h in cl ud e anev al ua ti onby a “ de si gn at edm en ta l h eal thpro fes si on al ” p rio r to th e u se of ch em ic al ag en ts . The CM A’ s 2 00 3- 20 04 Rep ort o n the Heal th Care Deli ve ry of DOC rei te rat edth is reco m m en da ti on . This ev id en ce s up po rts th e in fere nc e th at DOC to p o ffi ci al s an d p ol ic ym ak ers , whi chwou ldin cl ud e th e Sec ret ary of th e
Although the defe ndants have waived a ny challeng e to the district cour t’s failure 2 5 to find the named de fenda nts’ subjective knowle dg e of a serious risk of ha

rm to McKinney , the FSP warde n’s direc t authorization of all non-spontaneous uses of chemica l ag ents on McKinney probably would be suff

icient to demonstrate his subjec tive knowledg e, and c erta inly would be sufficie nt to withst and any argument that the district court’s f inding wa s clea

rly err oneous. 52DOC (th e DOC’s hi gh es t o ffi ci al ), ha d s ub jecti ve kn owl ed ge of t he ris ks
as so ci at edwith u si ng ch em ic al ag en ts on S-3 in m at es witho utreg ardto th ei r m en ta l h eal th hi st or ie s as well as apo ss ib le m ean s o f ad dr es si ng su chris ks
. 2 6 The reco rdals o s up po rts th e d is tri ctco urt’s fi nd in g tha t the Secr et ary of th e DOC an d the W ard enof F SP rec kl es sl y di sr eg ard edth e ri skof p sycho lo gi cal ha rm to in m at es li ke McKi nn ey . Desp it e rep eat edno ti ce fr om th e CM A Rep orts of a ris k o f ha rm

to in m at es with m en ta l i ll ne ss , th e DOC ch os e n otto ad op t the ir
reco m m en da ti on to tak e in to co ns id erat io n a n i nm at e’s m en ta l h eal thhi st ory , th ro ug h apre -u se -o f-fo rce m en ta l h eal th co ns ul ta ti onor s om e o th er m ean s, p rio r to adm in is te rin g c he m ic al ag en ts . See Ho pe , 24 0 F .3dat 9 78 –7 9 (r el y in g o n e vi de nc e th atth e Alaba m a DOC ig no reda Dep art m en t o f Ju st ic e rep ort o n t he co ns ti tu ti on al in firm ity of t he us e o f th e h it ch in g p os t as a m ean s o f in m at e d is ci pl in e to supp ort
anin fere nc e th atth e DOC was aware o f a s ub st an ti al ris k o f ha rm an d d is reg ard ed
su chris k) . In l ig htof t he ap paren t fe as ib il ity of a do pt in g s om e type o f pr e-fo rce m en ta l h eal th co ns ul ta ti on , as e vi de nc edby the Fed eral Bureauof P ris on s’ us e o f

Although the defe ndants have also waive d any challeng e to the district cour t’s 2 6 failure to link it s deliberate indiffer ence findingto the Secre tary of the DO C, this evidence would have be en strongevidenc e to demonstrate his subjective knowledg e of a serious risk of psycholog ical har

m to inmates like Michael McKinney . Although ma ny of the use- of-f

orce incidents in McKinney ’s re cords pr edate d the CMA’s re ports and re commendations, there wer e ten non-spontane ous use-of- forc e incidents be tween the year s 2005 and 2007 occ urringafte r the 2003-2004 annua l reports we re r elea sed. 53su cha pr oc edur e, an d the CMA’s eff orts to hi gh li gh t the ser io us ne ss of t he pr ob le m of t he im pr op er u se of c he m ic al ag en ts onm en ta ll y il l i nm at es , th e DOC’s refu sa l t o m od ify its no n- sp on tane ou s u se -o f-fo rce p ol ic y pro vi de s s up po rt f

orth e di st ric t co urt’s fi nd in g o f m or e th anm ere o r ev engro ss ne gl ig en ce o n t he part o f th e DOC. See LaM arca , 99 5 F .2dat 1 53 7 (“ Mer e kno wled ge of t he in firm co nd it io ns pe rs is ti ng at [ a p ris on ] do es no t es tabl is h d el ib erat e in di ffer en ce. The pl ai nt iff s m us t al so de m on st rat e th at , with kno wled ge of t he in firm co nd it io ns , [th e pr is on ’s supe rin te nd en t] kn owi ng ly or reck le ss ly decl in edto tak e act io ns th at wou ldha ve im

pr ov edth e co nd it io ns .”). The FSP Warde n’s re ck le ss di sr eg ardof the se same ris ks is als o app aren t i n hi s co nt in ue d aut ho riz at io n o f th e u se of c he mic al ag en ts inpe rio ds inwhi ch McKi nn ey

was s pr ay edrep eat ed ly in s ho rt p eri od s o f ti m e whe n h is m en ta l i ll ne ss was m os t ac ti ve . Forex am pl e, ch em ic al ag en ts were au th or iz edtwi ce o n ada y in 2 7 Octo be r 20 03 , on ly one da y aft er Mc Kin ne y

ha d d ecl aredth athe in te nd edto hu rt hi m se lf, andon th e sa m e d ay inwhi choff

ic ers pe rfo rm eda cel l ex tra ct io n t o s earc h hi s ce ll . Tho m as , 20 09 W L 64 61 6, at*1 5. Des pi te th e au th or iz at io n o f th ree u se s of for ce i n the same day , on e o f whi chaim edat s to pp in g M cKin ne y fro m th ro win g We note that “[t] hat the individuals now holding those of fice s may not be the 2 7 same a s those in office when this suit was commenc ed is immaterial for purposes of this appe al since the de fenda

nts were sued in their off

icial, not their individual capa cities, and it is only in their off icial ca pacities that they

areconstraine d by

the district court[.] ” Gates, 501 F.2d at 1321. 54hi s o wn fe ces , th e u se of c he mic al ag en ts were ag ai n autho riz edfou r da y s l at er. Id
.

Thi s i nc id en t o f fo rce i m

m ed ia te ly prece de d M cKin ne y ’s two m os t h arm fu l in ci de nt s o f se lf- in

juri ou s b eh av io r, he adba ng in g a nddi vi ng he ad -fi rs t o ff a fl ig ht of st ai rs , bo th of wh ic h re su lt edinser io us he adin juri es . Id. Je rem iah Th om as ’s in m at e rec or d p ro vi de s ad di ti on al cir cu m st an ti al
ev id en ce o f th e FSP Ward en ’s del ib erat e in di ffer en ce t o aser io us ris k o f ps y ch ol og ic al ha rm

to freque nt -fl ie rs li ke McKi nn ey . The rec or d d em on st rat es th at th e au th or iz at io n o f th e u se of c he m ic al ag en ts witho utan y reg ardfor

th ei r pr io r us e o r th ei r po te nt ia l t o c au se ser io us ha rm to anin m at e’s m en ta l h eal th st atus was li ke ly comm onpl ace a t FS P dur in g t he pe rio d o f ti m e in whi chMcKi nn ey was subjec te d t o re pe at edus es of f or ce. Lik e Mc Kin ne y , Tho m as att em pt edsu ic id e an d d ecl areda ps y ch ol og ic al em erg en cy imm ed ia te ly prio r to th e au th or iz at io n o f rep eat edus es of c he m ic al ag en ts ina sh ort p eri odof t im e. Id . at * 13 . Tho m as was subjec te d t o c he m ic al ag en ts onsi x o f se ve n d ay s i n o ne weekde sp it e m en ta l he al th an d m ed ic al st aff n ot es th athe ha d n ottak enhi s m ed ic at io n a ndm ay be de co m pe ns at in g. Id. Itto okUCI p sycho lo gi st s s ix m on th s t o s tabi li ze h im

2 8 Although Mc Kinney

only suffe red se rious psycholog ical injury from the use of 2 8 chemica l ag ents, Thomas’s re cord a lso demonstrates that DOC off icials wer e aw are that the repe ated use of che mical ag ents on inmates with mental illness risked serious phy sical injury as well. Duringthe wee k in which Thomas wa s subjected to six chemica l sprayings, heconsistently ref used to take a

deconta minating showe r af

ter e ach spr aying. When he was e valuated by a nurse afte r two conse cutive day s of spray ings, she “found his skin was blisteringand broke n from

55fo ll owi ng th is weekof r ep eat edus e-o f-fo rce i nc id en ts . Id.

Insu m , we can no t co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt was cle arl y erro ne ou s i n fin di ng th atth e rec or d d em on st rat es th at“ DOC of fic ia ls tu rn eda bl in d e y e” t o McKi nn ey ’s m en ta l h eal th ne ed s an d t he ob vi ou s d an ge r th atth e u se of c he m ic al ag en ts pre se nt edto hi s p sycho lo gi cal well -b ei ng . Id. at*2 7. Turn in g abl in d e y e to su chob vi ou s d an ge r pr ov id es am pl e supp ort fo r th e fi nd in g o f th e requi si te reck le ss ne ss . Eventh ou gh th ere a re am bi gu it ie s p res en t i n M cKin ne y ’s
reco rd —h is m en ta l i ll ne ss was o fte n c ha ract eri zedby ang er, m al ad jus tm en t, an d vi ol en ce as op po se d t o p sycho si s, an d m an y tre at in g p ro fes si on al s fo un d t ha t McKi nn ey

su ffer edno acu te im

pa irment— anex am in at io n o f hi s en ti re re co rd de m on st rat es th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t co m m itcle ar erro r in fin di ng th e de fen da nt s’ del ib erat e in di ffer en ce. Co nc lu di ng th atMcKi nn ey sat is fie d b ot h the ob jecti ve an d s ub

jecti ve pro ng s o f hi s Ei gh thAm en dm en t co nd it io ns -o fco nf in em en t cl ai m

at t ria l, we affi rm

th e d is tri ctco urt’s d ecl arat ory jud gm en t i n 2 9 chemica l burns, he smelled of urine and wa s actingdelusional.” Thomas, 2009 WL64616, at *25. Despite he r obser

vations, Thomas was subjec ted to chemica l ag ents the followingtwo day s and suff ere d first to third degree burns on his back, a bdomen, ar

ms, and buttocks. I d. His burn injuries wer e so seve re that DOC staff c onsidered se nding him to a spe cial burn tre atment fac ility . I d. The re cord de monstrates that McKinne y also fre quently

ref used dec ontaminating showers, a

nd there fore was at risk for serious phy sical injury as we ll. Additionally , to preva il on an Eighth Amendment claim brought pursuant to § 2 9 1983, a plaintiff inmate must also show a causa l connec tion between the constitutional viol ation and his injuries. Marsh v. B utler County , Ala., 268 F .3d 1014, 1028 (11th Cir. 2001) (e n banc)
. As to plaintiff McKinney , the def endants ra ise no cha lleng e with re spect to the re quirement that

56hi s fa vo r an d turn t o the de fen da nt s’ cha ll en ge s t o t he di st ric t co urt’s p erm an en t

in jun ct io n. C. In jun ct iv e Rel ie f Afte r fi nd in g tha t the rep eat edus e o f ch em ic al ag en ts on Tho m as an d McKi nn ey

vi ol at edth e Eig ht h Am en dm en t, the di st ric t co urt co nc lu de d t ha t the y were en ti tl edto in

jun ct iv e rel ie f. Tho m as , 20 09 W L 64 61 6, at*2 8– 30 . There aft er, th e d is tri ctco urt i nv it edth e d efen dant s t o c on fer wi th th e p la in ti ffs to reac h a n ag reem en t o n the in

jun ct io n’s p ro po se d t erm s an d/ orto subm itth ei r ownpro po sa l fo r anin jun ct io n. Th e d efen da nt s re fu se d t o d o s o, an d the di st ric t co urt was fo rcedto en te r it s fi na l p erm an en t i nju nc ti on ag ai ns t the de fen dant s wi th ou t the ir inpu t as to whatwou ldco ns ti tu te th e m os t n arro wly dr awnrel ie f rem edy in g t he
§ 1983 plaintiffs demonstrate a ca usal conne ction betwee n the alleg ed constitutional violation and their injury . Their only causation argument raised on a ppeal is that Thomas’s bur ns were not cause d by the DOC but instead by

his refusa l to agree to a dec ontaminating show er. Thus, the defe ndants have waived a ny such cha lleng e, and w e nee d not addre ss the probability that the district court did make e ither express or implied finding s of ca usation. In any event, Mc Kinney

has satisfied his burde n as to ca usation. A §1983 plaintiff may demonstrate c ausation either by establishing tha

t the named de fenda

nt was “pe rsonally

involved in the acts that re sulted in the constitutional deprivation,” L aMar ca, 995 F .2d at 1538 (interna l quotation and citation omitted), or by showingthat the def

endant instituted a “c ustom or policy that result[ed] i n deliberate indiffer ence to constituti onal rights,” Goebe rt, 510 F.3d at 1331 (interna l quotation and citation omitted). “[S] upervisory liability for de liberate indiffer ence based on the implementation of a fa cially constitutional poli cy

require s the plaintiff to show that the def endant ha d actua l or construc tive notice of a flagrant, pe rsistent pattern of violations.” I d. at 1332. B oth the FSP Warden’s dire ct authorization of all uses of f orce and the r outine application of the DOC’s non-spontane ous use-of- forc e policy without reg ard to a

n inmate’s mental hea lth status satisfy § 1983’s ca

usation require ment. 57id en ti fie d h arm . The d efen da nt s n ow ch al le ng e th e d is tri ctco urt’s i nju nc ti on .

To o bt ai n ape rm an en t i nju nc ti on , a pa rty m us t s ho w: (1 ) th athe ha s pr ev ai le d i n e st ab li sh in g the vi ol at io n o f th e ri gh t as se rte d i n h is co m pl ai nt ; (2 ) th ere i s n o a de qu at e rem edy at l aw fo r th e v io la ti on of thi s ri gh t; (3) irr ep arab le ha rm wil l re su ltif the co urt d oe s n otord er i nju nc ti ve rel ie f; a nd(4) if i ss ue d, the in jun ct io n wo ul d n otbe adve rs e to th e p ub li c in te res t. KH Out do or , LLC v. Ci ty of Trus sv il le , 45 8 F .3d12 61 , 12 68 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ); Al ab am a v . U.S. Arm y Co rp s o f Eng ’rs, 42 4 F .3d11 17 , 11 28 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). In a dd it io n t o e ns ur in g t ha t in jun ct iv e rel ie f was ne ces sa ry un de r th is st an da rd , we m us t al so en su re tha t the
sc op e o f th e award edrel ie f do es no t ex ceedth e id en ti fie d h arm . Cali fan o v . Yam as ak i, 4 42 U.S. 68 2, 7 02 , 99 S. Ct. 2 54 5, 2 55 8 (1 97 9) (“ [T]he sc op e o f in jun ct iv e rel ie f is di ct at edby the ex te ntof t he vi ol at io n e st ab li sh ed
. . . .”); LaMar ca, 9 95 F.2dat 1 54 3 (“ Whi le di stric t co urts have bro addi sc ret io n t o fa sh io n equi tabl e rel ie f, su chrel ie f m us t t arg etth e ex is ti ng wron g.” ). In t he co nt ex t o f pr is on li ti ga ti on , we m

us t al so co ns id er the requi rem en ts of t he Pri so n Li ti ga ti on Refo rm Act, 1 8 U.S.C. § 36 26 (“ PLRA”), wh ic h “ es tabl is he s s tand ard s fo r th e en try andterm in at io n o f pr os pe ct iv e rel ie f in civ il act io ns ch al le ng in g p ris on co nd it io ns ,” Mi ll er v . Fren ch , 53 0 U.S. 3 29 , 33 1, 1 20 S. Ct. 2 24 6, 2 25 0 (2 00 0)
. The PLRA m an da te s tha t i nju nc ti ve rel ie f is on ly app ro pr ia te wher e itis “na rro wly
58dr awn , ext en ds no furth er than n eces sa ry to co rrec t the vi ol at io n o f th e Fed eral rig ht , andis th e le as t i ntru si ve m ean s n eces sa ry to co rrec t the vi ol at io n o f th e Fed eral rig ht .” 18 U.S.C. § 3 62 6( a)(1 )(A). The de fen da nt s m ak e se ve ral arg um en ts onap pe al to th e eff ectth atan in jun ct io n i s n otne ces sa ry . In ad di ti on , th e d efen da nt s m ak e two arg um en ts th at th e in jun ct io n i s u nwo rk ab le , a co nc lu so ry arg um en t tha t the in

jun ct io n g oe s be y on d the id en ti fie d v io la ti on , anda co nc lu so ry arg um en t tha t the in

jun ct io n i s ov erl y in tru si ve . i. Neces si ty of In

jun ct iv e Rel ie f W e fi rs t ad dr es s the de fen da nt s’ arg um en ts ch al le ng in g t he di st ric t co urt’s
co nc lu si on th atin

jun ct iv e rel ie f was ne ces sa ry to rem edy

th e id en ti fie d
co ns ti tu ti on al ha rm . Fou r ch al le ng es to th e n eces si ty of in jun ct iv e rel ie f m eri t o ur di sc us si on . The d efen dant s ar gu e th at : (1 ) McKi nn ey is curren tl y

in carc erat edat UCI, whe re h e is no t s ub

ject t o the DOC’ s n on -s po nt an eo us us e-o f-fo rce p ol ic y , an d, the refo re, the in

jun ct io n t arg et s s pe cu la ti ve as o pp os edto imm in en t irr ep arab le in

jury; (2) McKi nn ey

is un ab le to est ab li sh a “ cu rren t an d o ng oi ng ” vi ol at io n o f hi s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s u nd er the PLRA; (3 ) rec en t re fo rm s h av e ob vi at edan y

ris k o f fu tu re i nju ry ; an d (4 ) McKi nn ey ha s an ad equa te rem edy

at law to rem edy

an y furth er co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n. 59Fi rs t, the de fen da nt s ar gu e th atbe cau se McKi nn ey ha s b eenin carc erat edat UCI s in ce 2 00 7, the in

jun ct io n o nl y

reg ul at es hi s fu tu re ex po su re t o c he mic al ag en ts inth e ev en t h e is returne d t o F SP, th e li ke li ho odof wh ic h i s fa r to o sp ecu la ti ve an d re m ot e to co ns ti tu te a se rio us ris k o f co nt in ui ng irr ep arab le in jury. Altho ug h the irr ep arab le -in jury requ ire m en t ca nn otbe m etab se nta real or imm ed ia te th reatth atth e p la in ti ff wil l b e wro ng edag ai n, Ci ty of Los Ang el es v. Ly on s, 4 61 U.S. 95 , 11 1, 1 03 S. Ct. 1 66 0, 1 67 0 (1 98 3) , itis als o wel l-e st ab li sh ed th atin jun ct iv e rel ie f is ap pr op ria te “ to pre ve nta subs tant ia l ri skof s eri ou s i nju ry fro m rip en in g i nt o a ctua l h arm ,” Farm er, 5 11 U.S. at 8 45 , 11 4 S . Ct. at19 83 . In
su chcir cu m st an ces , th e irrep arab le -in jury requ ire m en t m ay

be sat is fie d b y de m on st rat in g ahi st ory

of p as t m is co nduc t, wh ic h g iv es ris e to anin fere nc e th at fu tu re i nju ry

is imm in en t. Kap ps v. Wing , 40 4 F .3d10 5, 1 23 (2dCir . 20 05 ) (“ [W] he re a h is to ry

of l eg al vi ol at io ns is be fo re the di st ric t co urt, tha t co urt h as si gn ifi can t d is cret io n t o c on cl ud e th atfutur e v io la ti on s o f th e sa m e k in d a re li ke ly.”); Tho m as v. Co un ty of L.A., 978 F.2d50 4, 5 08 (9t h C ir. 1 99 2) (“ A st at e law enf or cem en t ag en cy

m ay be en joi ne d fr om

co m m it ti ng co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io ns whe re the re i s p ro of

th atoff ic ers withi n t he ag en cy

ha ve en ga ge d i n ape rs is te nt pa tt ernof m is co nduc t.”) ; Ra m os v. Lamm , 63 9 F .2d55 9, 5 72 (10 thCir . 19 80 ) (an in m at e “ do es no t n eedto waitun ti l h e is actua ll y ass au lt edbe fo re o bt ai ni ng 60rel ie f”). Thus , th e fac t tha t the un de rlyin g i nju nc ti on on ly app li es inth e ev en t tha t

McKi nn ey

is trans ferr edba ckto FSP, i n i ts el f, do es no t el im in at e h is ne edfor pr ot ect io n fr om

irr ep arab le futur e h arm . See Farm er, 5 11 U.S. at 8 50 –5 1, 1 14 S. Ct . at 1 98 6 (c on cl ud in g tha t the factth atth e p et it io ne r ha d b eentrans ferr edfro m anadmin is tra ti ve seg reg at io n u ni t t o t he ge ne ral pri so n p op ul at io n o f a m ed iu m se cu rit y pri so n d idno t co nc lu si ve ly establ is h t ha t the re was no pre se ntth reatof fu tu re i nju ry

so as t o m oo t i nju nc ti ve rel ie f). Add it io na ll y , des pi te th e as se rte d abs en ce o f an y pre se ntin te nt io n o n t he pa rt o f th e d efen da nt s t o re tu rnMcKi nn ey to FSP, the de fen da nt s s ti pu la te d a t tria l
an d h av e co nc ed edonap pe al th atMcKi nn ey ’s return i s i nd eedpo ss ib le . In fa ct , th e rec or d e st ab li sh es th atth e v ery pu rp os e o f McKi nn ey ’s inpa ti en t treat m en t at UCI i s h is st ab il iz at io n a ndul ti m at e return t o ano n- th erap eu ti c p ris onset ti ng . See Tho m as , 20 09 W L 64 61 6, at*6 (m ak in g the un co nt es te d fa ctua l fi nd in g t ha t the pu rp os e o f UCI’s i np at ie nttre atm en t o f de co m pe ns at edin m at es is to st ab il iz e th em to S-3 st atus inord er t o tran sf er the m ba ck to th ei r pr io r fac il ity); i d. at*1 4 (n ot in g th atth e DOC’s Co ns en t t o Inpa ti en t M en ta l Hea lth C are f orm (whi chwas s ig ne d by McKin ne y

on va rio us oc cas io ns advi se s i nm at es th atif the y are tran sf

erre d t o an inpa ti en t treat m en t ce nt er, “ th e le ng th of s tay ininpa ti en t ca re wi ll de pe ndup on ho w qu ic kl y

[th ei r] con di ti on im

pr ov es , bu t i s u su al ly no l on ge r th anfou r (4 )
61week s i n aCri si s St ab il iz at io n Un it , th ree m on th s i n aTran si ti on al Care Uni t, o r

fo ur(4) da y s i n ape rm an en t i ns ti tu ti on in firm ary”). Furth erm or e, as th e d is tri ct 3 0
co urt n ot ed , “ du rin g thi s l it ig at io n, ju stda y s af te r DOC an no un cedth atitha d n o pr es en t i nt en ti onof r eturni ng cert ai n p la in ti ff i nm at es ba ck to FSP, the DOC tra ns ferr edon e o f th em

ba ckto FSP.” Id . at * 11 . Not ab ly, bu t fo r th is li ti ga ti on an d the de fen da nt s’ exp ertDr. Hall ’s rev ie w of M cKin ne y ’s in m at e fi le in pr ep arat io n fo r tr ia l, wh ic h l edto hi s m os t re cen t tran sf er t o UCI , itis li ke ly tha t McKi nn ey

wou ldrem ai n i nc arce rat edat F SP t od ay . Inli gh t o f th e rec or d, wh ic h c hr on ic le s the m an y y ears inwhi chMcKi nn ey ex pe rie nc edfreque ntps y ch ol og ic al em erg en ci es , cy cl es of d eco m pe ns at io n a nd st ab il iz at io n, an d s im

ul tane ou s s pr ay in gs with c he m ic al ag en ts , andth e DOC’s
un di sp ut edpo li cy

to return s tabi li zedin m at es to th ei r or ig in al in st itut io n, the li ke li ho odth atMcKi nn ey wil l b e returne d t o F SP an d a ga in subjec te d t o t he

There are plainly

exceptions to thi s g eneralization, as evidence d by plaintiff 3 0 Thomas’s lengthy

stay at UCIfollowinga we ek in which he was spra yed with che mical ag ents ever y day of the we ek save one, re sulting in second a nd third-degree burns. See Thoma s, 2009 WL64616, at *13. Dr. I

nfante , the UCIpsychiatrist who tre ated Thoma s following the se incidents, testified that “it see med like fore ver” befor e she w as able to stabiliz e him, and Thomas spent over six months in a crisis stabiliz ation unit and almost nine months at UCIbefor e he w as returne d to FSP. I d. It was only two day s after

his return that Thomas w as ag ain sprayed with chemica l ag ents for c ausinga disturbanc e on his wing , and only one we ek until he was transfe rre d back to UCI

for tre atment. I d. Howeve r, DOC policy establishes that lengthy

UCI stay s are not the norm, and Thomas’ s experience illustrate s that even f ollowing months of treatment and a diff

icult stabiliz ation proce ss, the g oal is for a ll inmates’ ultimate return to their prior instituti ons. 62DOC’s no n- sp on tane ou s u se -o f-fo rce p ol ic y is ne ithe r sp ecu la ti ve no r un li ke ly. Add it io na ll y , th e DOC’s hi st or ic al tre atm en t o f McKi nn ey gi ve s ri se to an in fere nc e o f fu tu re i rrep arab le in jury j us ti fy in g t he en try of i nju nc ti ve rel ie f. Seco nd , th e d efen da nt s m ak e th e rel at edarg um en t tha t M cKin ne y ’s in carc erat io n a t UCI pre ve nt s h im fro m est ab li sh in g a“ cu rren t an d o ng oi ng ” vi ol at io n u nd er the PLRA. See 1 8 U.S.C. § 36 26 (b )(3 ) (p ro vi di ng th at

“ [p ]ros pe ct iv e rel ie f sh al l n otterm in at e if th e co urt m ak es writ te n fi nd in gs ba se d
on th e rec or d tha t p ro sp ect iv e rel ie f rem ai ns ne ces sary to co rrec t a c urren t an d
on go in g v io la ti on of t he Fed eral rig ht ”). Altho ug h t he de fen dant s re co gn iz e th at th is pro vi si on of t he PLRA go ve rn s t erm in at io n p ro ceed in gs (whe reas we are rev ie win g the di st ric t co urt’s i ni ti al en try of i nju nc ti ve rel ie f), th ey arg ue th atth e

“ cu rren t an d o ng oi ng ” v io la ti on requi rem en t s ho ul d i nf orm ou r in qu iry here
. The de fen da nt s’ on ly autho rit y forth is pro po si ti on is a st at em en t m ad e in di ct a b y th e Nin th Cir cu itth at“ th e st an da rdforterm in at io n d oe s n otdi ffer
m at eri al ly from

th e st an da rdto be ap pl ie d i n d eci di ng whet he r pr os pe ct iv e rel ie f is pr op er.” Hal le ttv. Mo rg an , 29 6 F .3d73 2, 7 43 (9t h C ir. 2 00 2) . W e are no t pe rs ua de d tha t the Nin th Cir cu it ’s comm en t i s ap po si te to th is cas e; th atco m m en t was m ad e in th e d iff

eren t co nt ex t o f th e co urt’s re vi ew of a gr an t o f a m ot io n t o te rm in at e in

jun ct iv e rel ie f. Our ci rcu itha s p rev io us ly recog ni zedth atth e “ cu rren t
63an d o ng oi ng ” requi rem en t i s d is ti nc t fr om th e st an da rdgo ve rn in g t he in it ia l en try of in jun ct iv e rel ie f. See Ca so n v . Seck in ge r, 23 1 F .3d77 7, 7 84 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) (“ [A] ‘ cu rren t an d o ng oi ng vi ol at io n’ is a vi ol at io n tha t ex is ts at t he ti m e th e di st ric t co urt co nduc ts th e § 36 26 (b )(3 ) in qu iry, andno t a p ot en ti al futur e vi ol at io n.” ). Add it io na ll y , th ere i s n o i nd ic at io n i n t he PLRA, it s l eg is la ti ve hi st ory , or the cas e la w to su gg es t tha t the “ cu rren t an d o ng oi ng ” requi rem en t was in te nd edby Con gr es s t o a m en d t he well -es tabl is he d l aw th atin jun ct iv e rel ie f is
av ai labl e inth e fi rs t i ns tanc e “ to pre ve nta subs tant ia l ri skof s eri ou s i nju ry fro m rip en in g i nt o a ctua l h arm ,” i.e., t o p rev en t fu tu re h arm . Farm er, 5 11 U.S. at 8 45 , 11 4 S . Ct. at19 83 . The PLRA’s n eed -n arro wne ss -in tru si ve ne ss li m it at io n g ov ern s th e in it ia l en try of anin

jun ct iv e rel ie f in pri so n l it ig at io n c as es . 18 U.S.C. § 36 26 (a)( 1) (A). Whe th er the re i s a “ cu rren t an d o ng oi ng ” co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n su ffi ci en t t o a vo idterm in at io n o f th e cu rren t i nju nc ti on is a m atte r to be co ns id ered up on m ot io n b y

eit he r pa rty in aterm in at io n p ro ceed in g, atlea sttwo y ears aft er the di st ric t co urt’s i ni ti al awardof r el ie f. 18 U.S.C. § 3 62 6( b) (3 ). Thi rd , th e d efen dant s co nt en d t ha t the DOC’ s re cen t re fo rm s h av e ren de red th e award edin

jun ct iv e rel ie f un ne ces sa ry . The d efen da nt s p oi ntto th e ad di ti on al tra in in g i n a ss es si ng th e b eh av io r of in m at es th atis no w pro vi de d t o c orrect io ns of fic ers work in g i n c lo se -m an ag em en t wi ng s, the in crea se inm en ta l h eal th st aff,
64an d the DOC’ s d is co nt in ua nc e o f th e m os t h arm fu l ch em ic al ag en t p rev io us ly

em pl oyed atFSP. W e h av e rec og ni zedth at“ [s ]ubs eque ntev en ts , su chas im pr ov em en ts inth e al le ge dl y in firm co nd it io ns of c on fin em en t, wh il e p ot en ti al ly rel ev an t, ar e n otde te rm in at iv e” o f whe th er i nju nc ti ve rel ie f is no lo ng er warr an te d. LaMar ca, 9 95 F.2dat 1 54 1. Th is is esp eci al ly true “ [w]hena de fen da ntco rrec ts th e al le ge d i nf

irmity aft er s ui t h as be enfil ed ,” id ., “ fo r pr act ic es m ay be rei ns ta te d
as swi ftl y as t he y were s us pe nd ed ,” Gate s, 5 01 F.2dat 1 32 1. Th e d efen da nt s 3 1 fil edth is laws ui t i n S ep te m be r of 20 04 , andm an y

of the rel ie d- up on refo rm s wer e en act edas r ecen tl y

as J ul y 31 , 20 08
. See Th om as , 20 09 W L 64 61 6, at*2 8 n .51
.

3 2 Thu s, t o re ly on i nt erv en in g e ve nt s o ccu rri ng aft er s ui t h as be enfil edth e de fen da nt s m

us t s at is fy

th e h eav y

bu rd enof e st ab li sh in g t ha t the se su chev en ts

“ ha ve co m

pl et el y an d i rrev oc ab ly eradi cat edth e eff ect s o f th e al le ge d v io la ti on s.” LaMar ca, 9 95 F.2dat 1 54 2 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n a ndcit at io n o m it te d)
. Altho ug h the DOC’ s re cen t re fo rm s m ay rep res en t af

firm at iv e res po ns es to The district cour

t noted that the re cord e stablishes that multi ple policy ref orms 3 1 had bee n instated and subseque ntly discontinued by

the DOC in the past dec ade. See Thomas, 2009 WL64616, at *29. The D OC instated a univer sal policy that all uses of for ce be videotaped, only

to subsequently

provide a larg e exception for F SP. I d. The DO C also completely

discontinued its prior prac tice of pr oviding medic al staff with a list of inmates at risk of dec ompensation from e x posure to che mical ag ents. I d.

Although some ref

orms, such as the O sterbac k trainingintended to teac h 3 2 corr ections off

icer s to identify

signs of acute mental illness, may have be en in ef

fec t prior to suit, the def endants have not proff

ere d any evidenc e to that ef

fec t. See Thomas, 2009 WL64616, at *9 n.28. 65reco gn iz edde fic ie nc ie s i n i ts ab il ity to ad dr es s the ne ed s o f it s g ro win g m en ta ll y il l in m at e p op ul at io n, s ee Th om as , 20 09 W L 64 61 6, at*9 –1 1, the de fen da nt s h av e n ot es tabl is he d tha t the y

ha ve erad ic at edth e eff

ect s o f th e co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io ns fo un d b y th e d is tri ctco urt. In de ed , th ere h as be enno subs tant ia l ch an ge to th e cru ci al asp ectof t he no n- sp on tane ou s u se -o f-fo rce p ol ic y th atledto th e co ns ti tu ti on al de fic ie nc y

fou ndby the di st ric t co urt. See Fla . Adm in . Cod e Ann . r. 33 -6 02 .21 0( 17 )(n ), (o ). The p ol ic y st il l ap pl ie s t o a ll S-3 in m at es , reg ard le ss of th ei r m en ta l h eal th hi st ory . Nor h as th e DOC ad op te d the reco m m en da ti on s o f th e Fl or id a Co rrec ti on al Med ic al Autho rit y to in st at e a p re-u se -o f-fo rce m en ta l-h eal th
ev al ua ti onforS-3 in m at es . See Th om as , 20 09 W L 64 61 6, at*8
. Als o, the reco rd cal ls in to qu es ti on whet he r th e Ost erb acktra in in g h as ha d a ny suc ces s i n t rai ni ng co rrec ti on s o ffi cers to di ffer en ti at e sym pt om s o f m en ta l i ll ne ss fro m pure reca lc itran ce. See id . at * 9 & n.5 3 (s umm ari zi ng tes ti m on y of S erg ean t Kei th Mu ss el m an , a co rrec ti on off ic er re cei vi ng th e Ost erb acktra in in g, wh o a dm it te d t o be in g u nabl e to di st in gu is h b etweenreca lc itran ce an d a cute si gn s o f m en ta l i ll ne ss , ev enaft er re cei vi ng th e tr ai ni ng ). AndDr. Burns tes ti fie d s pe ci fic al ly tha t s ecu rit y st aff wo ul d b e unl ik el y

to vi ew McKi nn ey ’s beh av io r as a sym pt om of a cu te
m en ta l i ll ne ss be cau se of h is rep ut at io n o f be in g “ ba d a nddi sr up ti ve .” Id . at * 26
. Add it io na ll y , as the di stric t co urt p oi nt edou t, the ad di ti on of t ran si ti on al do rm s fo r 66“ freque nt -fl ie r” i nm at es tra ns ferr edbe twee n F SP an d UCI st il l l eav es to th e

di sc ret io n o f se cu rit y

st aff m on it or in g t he N-Dorm, whi chho us es ne wly returne d in m at es to FSP, wh ethe r to us e ch em ic al ag en ts or c al l m en ta l h eal th for
co ns ul ta ti on . Id. at*2 9. Fu rth erm or e, no rece ntrefo rm ad dr es se s the lac k o f
acce ss of a ny corre ct io ns st aff, wh ethe r tr ai ne d i n c ris is in te rv en ti on or n ot , to an in m at e’s m en ta l h eal th reco rd s. Id
. Inli gh t o f th e DOC’s hi st ory of c on st itut io na l v io la ti on s an d i ts fai lu re t o gi ve “ an y ex pr es s as suran ce” t ha t M cKin ne y wil l n otbe ex po se d t o the us e o f ch em ic al ag en ts m erel y

be cau se he is ex hi bi ti ng sym pt om s o f hi s m en ta l i ll ne ss in th e fu tu re, the se refo rm s ar e in su ffi ci en t t o e li m in at e th e n eedforin jun ct iv e rel ie f. See Off ne r v. Sh el l’s Ci ty, In c., 37 6 F .2d57 4, 5 76 (5t h C ir. 1 96 7) (“ Invi ew of
su chpa sthi st ory

an d the fai lure o f Sh el l’s t o g iv e an y ex pr es s as suran ce tha t Offn er wi ll no t b e d ep riv edof t he servi ces an d fa ci li ti es of the res taur an t i n t he fu tu re, we can no t s ay

th atth e cas e is m oo t.”) . Thu s, the di st ric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d et erm in in g tha t the de fen da nt s fa il edto de m on strat e th atth e DOC

“ wou ldno t re tu rnto it s fo rm er, unc on st itut io na ll y de fic ie ntst at e.” See LaMar ca, 99 5 F .2dat 1 54 1 (“ [A] court m ay ne ve rth el es s g ran t i njunc ti ve rel ie f un le ss th e de fen da ntsh ows th atab se ntanin jun ct io n, the in st itut io n wo ul d n otreturn t o i ts fo rm er, unc on st itut io na ll y de fic ie ntst at e.”).

67Norare we p ers ua de d b y th e d efen da nt s’ fin al arg um en t tha t the in jun ct io n i s un ne ces sary

be cau se McKi nn ey

alr eady ha s an ad equa te rem edy

at l aw to ad dr es s th e v io la ti on of h is rig ht s. See U.S. Arm y Co rp s o f Eng ’rs, 42 4 F .3dat 1 12 8. Th e pl ai nt iff s al read y set tl edth ei r da m ag es cla im s ag ai ns t the in di vi du al off ic ers ut il iz in g c he m ic al ag en ts pri orto tri al . The u nd erl y in g i nju nc ti ve rel ie f is de si gn ed to rem edy

no t i nd iv idua l wro ng do in g o n the pa rt o f anoff ic er b utMcKi nn ey ’s
co nt in ue d e xp os ur e to th e DOC’s no n- sp on tane ou s u se -o f-fo rce p ol ic y as a co nd it io n o f hi s co nf

in em en t atFSP. No r em edy at l aw wil l p ro vi de pro te ct io n fo r McKi nn ey

fro m th is un co ns ti tu ti on al co nd it io n o f co nf in em en t i n t he futur e, no r wil l an y m on et ary rel ie f pr ot ectag ai ns t fu tu re i rrep arab le in jury. The d efen da nt s’
su gg es ti on th atth e p la in ti ffs waitun ti l a f utur e v io la ti onari se s wo ul d re su ltin
un ne ces sary

an d c os tl y

dupl ic at iv e li ti ga ti on . In s um , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n c on cl ud in g t ha t i nju nc ti ve rel ie f was warran te d a nd
ne ces sa ry to rem edy

th e id en ti fie d v io la ti onof M cKin ne y ’s Eig hth Am en dm en t rig ht s. ii
. W orkabi li ty, Sco pe , andInt ru si ve ne ss The di stric t co urt’s p erm an en t i nju nc ti onread s as fol lo ws: Inth e ev en t tha t p la in ti ffs Jer em iah Th om as or M ic ha el McKi nn ey are pl acedinth e Fl or id a St at e Pri so n (F SP) Cl os e Mana ge m en t (C M) win g, d efen da nt s Walt er Mc Neil , as Se cret ary of th e Fl or id a Dep art m en t o f Co rrec ti on s, an d R an da ll Bry an t, as W ard enof t he 68Fl or id a St at e Pri so n, i n the ir o ffi ci al cap aci ti es , are en joi ne d fr om al lo win g the no ns po nt an eo us ap pl ic at io n o f ch em ic al ag en ts to pl ai nt iff s Th om as or M cKin ne y

witho utfir stco ns ul ti ng with DOC’s tra in edm en ta l h eal th st aff s o tha t a m en ta l h eal th pro fes si on al can de te rm in e whe th er the ap pl ic at io n o f th e ch em ic al ag en ts is da ng ero us to th e in m at e’s well be in g, l ik el y to ex acerba te th e cu rren t cr is is or whe th er, o n a cco un t o f m en ta l i ll ne ss , th e in m at e is curren tl y un ab le to co nf orm hi s co nduc t t o c om

pl y with t he di rect iv es be in g g iv ento hi m by corre ct io na l s ta ff. Onc e co nt act ed , th e m en ta l h eal th pro fes si on al wil l u se hi s o r he r pr of

es si on al jud gm en t t o d et erm in e whe th er the no n- sp on tane ou s u se of c he mic al ag en ts is co nt rai nd ic at edforth at in m at e atth atti m e (s im il ar t o t he pri orco ns ul ta ti on s wh ic h n ow o ccu r with m ed ic al st aff b efo re n on -s po nt an eo us ap pl ic at io n o f ch em ic al ag en ts is pe rm it te d) . If, aft er co ns ul ta ti on , th e m en ta l h eal th pr of es si on al de em s the us e o f ch em ic al ag en ts to be co nt rai nd ic at ed , ch em ic al ag en ts m ay

no t b e em

pl oyed atth atti m e. Tho m as , 20 09 W L 60 53 06 , at * 2. Th e d efen da nt s m ak e two sp eci fic arg um en ts th atth is in

jun ct io n i s u nwo rk ab le an d t he n m ak e two co nc lu so ry arg um en ts with
res pe ctto th e sc op e an d i nt ru si ve ne ss of the in jun ct io n. We firs t ad dr es s the ir t wo sp eci fic arg um en ts : tha t the in jun ct io n d ep riv es th e DOC o f an y m ean s t o “ st op an un di sp ut edda ng er t o the pri so n andit s emplo y ees ” an d m an da te s a “ cel l fr on t”
co ns ul ta ti on th atwil l b lu r th e li ne be twee n m en ta l h eal th an al y si s an d s ecu rit y m eas ur es to th e d etriment o f McKi nn ey . Thes e ch al le ng es to th e workabi li ty of th e di st ric t co urt’s i nju nc ti on are b as edon si gn ifi can tl y m is ta ke n p rem is es . Fi rs t, co nt rary to the de fen da nt s’ bal d a ss ert io n t ha t the in jun ct io n l eav es th em with n o c on st itut io na ll y

pe rm is si bl e way

to st op a di sturba nc e en da ng eri ng an of fic er o r in m at e, th e in

jun ct io n d oe s n o s uc h t hi ng . If th ere i s an imm ed ia te

69da ng er, the in jun ct io n h as no effe ctat a ll . The i nju nc ti on ad dr es se s o nl y no nem erg en cy

si tu at io ns an d o nl y

th e DOC’s no n- sp on tane ou s u se -o f-fo rce p ol ic y . Eve n i n s uc h n on -em erg en cy si tu at io ns —b y

de fin it io n a ll owi ng forti m e fo r th e m en ta l h eal th co ns ul ta ti on—the in jun ct io n l eav es th e u lt im at e d eci si on as t o t he
no n- sp on tane ou s u se of c he m ic al ag en ts to th e d is cret io n o f DOC pe rs on ne l. The in jun ct io n m erel y

requi res pa rti ci pa ti on of am en ta l h eal th pro fes si on al inth at de ci si on . Seco nd , th e d efen da nt s as su m e th atth e in jun ct io n m an da te s ce ll -fro ntm en ta l he al th ev al ua ti on s. Th is cla im is pu zzl in g, i n l ig htof t he di st ric t co urt’s ex pr es s st at em en t i n i ts ord er awar di ng in jun ct iv e rel ie f th atth e d eci si on whet he r orno t t o us e a ce ll -fro ntpro cedur e is lef t t o t he di sc ret io n o f th e DOC. See i d. at*2 n.4 (“ Thi s re qu ire d p rio r co ns ul ta ti on with m en ta l h eal th st aff m ay or m ay no t l eadto th e m en ta l h eal th pro fes si on al go in g c el l fr on t t o s pe akto th e in m at e. Thi s i s l eft to th e jud gm en t o f th e m en ta l h eal th pro fes si on al an d s ecurit y st aff i n t he gi ve n si tu at io n.” ). Als o re la te d t o the work ab il ity of t he in jun ct io n i s the de fen da nt s’ ass ert io n th ro ug ho utth ei r br ie fs th atth e n on -s po nt an eo us us e o f ch em ic al ag en ts on in m at es is th e le as t h arm fu l al te rn at iv e av ai labl e to th e d efen da nt s t o re sp on d t o apri so n di sturba nc e. W e al so rejectth is ass ert io n. Th e d efen da nt s co m pa re the us e o f
70ch em ic al ag en ts to th e al le ge dl y m uc h m or e d an ge ro us us e o f ph y si cal cel l
ex tra ct io ns , whi chha ve res ul te d i n i nm at e d eath i n t he pa st . In d oi ng so , ho wev er, The de fen da nt s fa il to reco gn iz e th atth ere a re l es s h arm fu l m ean s o f adm in is te rin g ch em ic al ag en ts . As pr ev io us ly not ed , th e CM A has rep eat ed ly recomm en de d the in cl us io n o f a p re-u se -o f-fo rce c on su lt at io n wi th m en ta l h eal th pro fes si on al s. See Tho m as , 20 09 W L 64 61 6, at*8 . The Fe de ral Bureauof P ris on s h as alr eady ad op te d s uc h apo li cy . See i d. UCI f un ct io ns witho utth e ro ut in e u se of c he m ic al ag en ts as am ean s o f en fo rci ng pri so n d is ci pl in e; in st ead , m en ta l h eal th st aff in te rv en es , us in g atec hn ique si m il ar t o t he di st ric t co urt’s i nju nc ti on . Id. at*5
. Mo reo ve r, th e UCI ex pe rie nc e in di cat es th atth e co op erat io n b etweenm en ta l h eal th
an d s ecurit y

st aff o ccurs witho utim

pl ic at in g t he de fen da nt s’ st at edco nc ernth at in m at es wil l co nf

us e d oc to rs with c orrect io ns st aff, cr eat in g an e nv iro nm en t o f di st ru st . Id. at*1 0. Hav in g re jecte d the de fen da nt s’ sp eci fic ch al le ng es to th e workabi li ty of th e in jun ct io n, we turn n ex t t o the ir c on cl us ory arg um en ts th atth e in

jun ct io n e xt en ds furth er tha n n eces sa ry

to co rrec t the vi ol at io n a ndis ov erl y in tru si ve . The de fen da nt s d o n otart ic ul at e an y pa rti cu lar as pe ctof t he in jun ct io n t ha t the y

cla im
ex te nd s b ey on d the vi ol at io n fo un d b y th e d is tri ctco urt o r is ov erl y in tru si ve . It i s of co ur se tru e th atth e cas e la w has lo ng est ab li sh edth atth e sc op e o f anin jun ct io n 71sh ou ldno t ex ceedth e id en ti fie d v io la ti on . See Ca li fan o, 4 42 U.S. at 7 02 , 99 S. Ct.

at25 58 ; LaM arca , 99 5 F .2dat 1 54 3. Itis als o tru e th atth e PLRA o nl y pe rm it s the
en try of i nju nc ti ve rel ie f th at“ is na rro wly dr awn , ext en ds no furth er tha n n eces sa ry to co rrec t the vi ol at io n o f th e Fed eral rig ht , andis th e le as t i ntru si ve m ean s ne ces sa ry to co rrec t the vi ol at io n o f th e Fed eral rig ht .” 18 U.S.C. § 3 62 6( a)(1 )(A). The di st ric t co urt was ke en ly aware of th es e requi rem en ts an d s eem in gl y ha s fas hi on eda na rro w in

jun ct io n t arg et in g t he vi ol at io n o f McKi nn ey ’s con st itut io na l rig ht s i n am os t n on -in tru si ve m an ne r. See Th om as , 20 09 W L 60 53 06 , at * 1. In li gh t o f th e d efen dant s’ fai lu re t o a rti cu la te an y sp eci fic de fic ie nc y

inth is reg ard , an d i n l ig htof o urob se rv at io ns be lo w, we can no t co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n fa sh io ni ng th e in jun ct iv e rel ie f in th is cas e. 3 3 Especia lly

in light of the de fenda

nts’ failure to assist the district court in 3 3 fashioningthe equitable r elief in this case , we hold that all arguments relatingto the underlying injunction not raised spec ifically by the def endants on a

ppeal a re de emed a

bandoned. F or example, the defe ndants do not specific ally argue that the district cour t erre d by not making the require d particula

rized findings that the proposed injunction satisfies the PL RA’s nee dnarr owness-intrusivene ss require ment. See Johnson v. Bree den, 280 F .3d 1308, 1326 (11th Cir. 2002) (r eading§ 3626(a) (1)( A) of the PL RA as re quiringa district cour t to “discuss [the nee dnarr owness-intrusivene ss] fac tors and ente r finding s that are as spec ific to the ca se as the circ umstances pe rmit”); Oluwa v. G omez, 133 F.3d 1237, 1239 (9th Cir. 1998) (“ [B]efore grantingprospec tive injunctive relief , the trial cour

t must m ake the finding s mandated by the PL RA.”). B ut see Gates, 376 F.3d at 336 n.8 (holding that § 3626(a)( 1)(A) , unlike § 3262(b)( 3), does not requir e such written finding s). B eca use this issue is abandoned, w e nee d not decide whether the district court’s or der satisfied our circ uit’s interpretation of § 3626(a) (1)( A). In any event, the district c ourt was c learly sensitive to the nece ssity to make the ne ednarr owness-intrusivene ss findings. The court c ited § 3626(a) (1)( A) a nd quoted its releva

nt languag e. The court lame nted the def endants’ r efusa l to assist the cour t with proposals for the injunction, noting that DOC off icials would be in the be st positi on to sugg est the lea st intrusive means of r emedy

ing the constitutional viol ation. Then the c ourt ac knowledg ed that it 72W e fi rs t re ject t he de fen da nt s’ con cl us ory arg um en t tha t the di st ric t co urt’s in jun ct io n e xt en ds be y on d the id en ti fie d c on st itut io na l v io la ti on . To th e co nt rary, we co nc lu de th atit s s co pe is ex ceed in gl y narro w. The d is tri ctco urt h el d t ha t the DOC vi ol at edth e co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s o f on ly two i nm at es , andth e in jun ct io n n ow, du e to Tho m as ’s dea th , go ve rn s the DOC’ s treat m en t o f on ly one in m at e o utof th ou sa nd s h ou se d a t FS P. The i nju nc ti on als o o nl y tar ge ts th e n arro w co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n i de nt ifi edby the di st ric t co urt. The di st ric t co urt d idno t ho ldth atitis cat eg or ic al ly unc on st itut io na l t o a dm in is te r ch em ic al ag en ts on FSP in m at es with d ia gn os es of s eri ou s m en ta l i ll ne ss . Nor i s i t ca te go ric al ly
un co ns ti tu ti on al to adm in is te r ch em ic al ag en ts on FSP i nm at es with ahi st ory of tra ns fers be twee n F SP an d UCI . Rath er, i t i s o nl y th e rep eat edsp raying of i nm at es with s uc h p ro fu se an d p atho lo gi cal reco rd s o f ps y ch ol og ic al di st res s— atti m es in th atth ey were ex hi bi ti ng un de ni ab le sym pt om s o f th ei r m en ta l i ll ne ss es ren de rin g th em un ab le to un de rs tandan d c om pl y with o ffi cers ’ or de rs —tha t v io la te d t he Eig ht h Am en dm en t. Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt’s i nju nc ti on do es no t p ro hi bi t

never theless had a

duty to fashion appr opriate injunctive r elief, obviously with refe renc e to the needs- narr owness-intrusivene ss require ment just quoted. Moreover , as indicate d in the text below, the district cour

t’s order demonstrates that it plainly strove to satisfy

those requir ements in fashioningthe injunctive re lief aw arde d McKinney . Had the de fenda nts objected in the district court to a fa ilure to expressly articulate the nee d-nar

rowne ss-intrusiveness finding s or argued that such e x press finding s were require d, it is clear f rom the re cord that the district court would have ma de these finding s. 73al l n on -s po nt an eo us us e o f ch em ic al ag en ts on McKi nn ey bu t m erel y

requi res th at th e DOC’s tra in edm en ta l h eal th st aff ev al ua te hi s p sycho lo gi cal st at e p rio r to au th or iz in g s uc h fo rce. Mo reo ve r, th e d is tri ctco urt re frai ne d fr om en te rin g a ny sy st em -wid e rel ie f pr ot ect in g abro ad er cl as s o f in m at es de sp it e th e CM A’ s re co m m en da ti on th atth e DOC ad op t s om e fo rm

of m en ta l h eal th co ns ul ta ti on pri orto a us e o f no nsp on tane ou s fo rce o n a ll S-3 in m at es . Com pa re Go m ez v . Vern on , 25 5 F .3d11 18 , 11 30 (9t h C ir. 2 00 1) (“ The di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly lim it edit s i nju nc ti on to a co m bi na ti on of p ro sp ect iv e an d re tro sp ect iv e rel ie f gr an te d t o ju stsi x i nm at es , de nyin g c la ss -wid e in

jun ct iv e rel ie f.”) wi th Lewis v. Ca se y , 51 8 U.S. 3 43 , 35 8– 59 , 11 8 S . Ct. 2 17 4, 2 18 3– 84 (19 96 ) (h ol di ng th atsyste m -wid e rel ie f was in ap pr op ria te ly tail or edto pro te ctag ai ns t v io la ti on s o f on e in m at e’s ri gh ts ). In t hi s reg ard , th e in

jun ct io n app ro pr ia te ly bal an ces res pe ctforth e DOC’s adm in is tra ti on of it s o wn af

fai rs with the ne edto en su re tha t M cKin ne y is no t fu rth er s ub

jecte d t o th e DOC’s no n- sp on tane ou s u se -o f-fo rce p ol ic y witho utreg ardforhi s m en ta l he al th hi st ory

or c urren t m en ta l s ta te . In s um , we con cl ud e th atinad di ti onto be in g cl os el y tethe redto th e id en ti fie d h arm , th e d is tri ctco urt p la in ly adh eredto th e PLRA’s requi rem en ts th atin jun ct iv e rel ie f be “ na rro wly dr awn ” an d e xt en d “ no furth er tha n n eces sa ry ” to co rrec t the vi ol at io n o f a co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht . 18 U.S.C.
74§3 62 6( a)(1 )(A).

W e al so rejectth e d efen da nt s’ con cl us ory arg um en t tha t the in

jun ct io n i s ov erl y in tru si ve . Our rev ie w of the in jun ct io n’s t erm s d em on st rat es th atit s t erm s are m os t n on -in tru si ve an d thu s s at is fy th e PLRA’s fi na l re qu ire m en t. The in jun ct io n l eav es to th e co m pl et e d is cret io n o f th e DOC b ot h h ow t o c on du ctth e requi redpre -u se -o f-fo rce m en ta l h eal thco ns ul ta ti on an d wh ethe r th e n on sp on tane ou s u se of c he m ic al ag en ts is ul ti m at el y ap pr op ria te . To en su re tha t the in jun ct io n d oe s n otex ces si ve ly im pe de up onth e DOC’s in te rn al adm in is tra ti on , th e d is tri ctco urt b orro wedlan gu ag e fro m th e DOC’s curren t p ol ic y requi rin g a m ed ic al co ns ul ta ti on pri orto th e u se of n on -s po nt an eo us for ce an d a n e xi st in g DOC reg ul at io n e nt it le d “ Use of F or ce wi thMen ta ll y Dis or de redInmates .” Fla
. Adm in . Cod e Ann . r. 33 -4 04 .10 7( 1) . This reg ul at io n p ro vi de s tha t i n n on em erg en cy

(th atis , “ no n- sp on tane ou s” ) si tu at io ns , for ce m ay be us edon“ th os e in m at es with adi ag no se d m en ta l i ll ne ss on ly as a la stres ort” ex cep t wh ere “ th e u se of for ce i s l es s l ik el y

to res ul t i n p hysic al in

jury to the in m at e an d s ta ff.” Id. In 3 4
em erg en cy

si tu at io ns inwhi chth ere i s an“ immin en t thr eatof b od il y ha rm to th e in m at e o r ot he rs ,” fo rce m ay be us edon in m at es with m en ta l i ll ne ss , alt ho ug h

As the district court noted, the parties did not put on any evidenc e as to how this 3 4 policy is curre ntly

implemented. Thomas, 2009 WL64616, at *2 n.9. 75“ whe n t im e an d c irc um st an ces pe rm it , m ed ic al an d m en ta l h eal th care st aff s ha ll be

co ns ul te d t o a ss es s i f th e fo rce t o b e u se d i s d an ge ro us to th atin m at e’s well -b ei ng , orli ke ly to ex acerba te th e cu rren t cr is is .” Id
. Add it io na ll y , th e DOC al read y requi res a po st -u se -o f-fo rce e va lu at io n. Se e Fl a. Adm in . Cod e Ann . r. 33 -6 02 .21 0( 17 )(o )(5 ) (“ Men ta l h eal th st aff s ha ll ev al ua te th e in m at e n otlat er tha n th e n ex t wo rk in g d ay , to de te rm in e whe th er a h ig he r le ve l o f m en ta l h eal th care (is ol at io n m an ag em en t, tran si ti on al or c ris is st ab il iz at io n) is in di cat ed .”). Furth erm or e, m

ul ti pl e ex pe rts , in cl ud in g Drs . Inf an te an d B urns , as wel l as th e fo rm er ward enof F SP, Ro na ldMcAn dr ew, all tes ti fie d t o t he feas ib il ity of a pr e-u se -o f-fo rce m en ta l h eal th co ns ul ta ti on . Andacco rd in g t o M cAn dr ew th e nu m be r of us es of c he m ic al ag en ts actua ll y dro pp eddram at ic al ly dur in g h is ten ur e as a res ul t o f th is in te rv en ti on . Cha se Riv el an d, the pl ai nt iff s’ correct io na l s y st em s ex pe rt, a ls o t es ti fie d tha t m an y st at e p ris on syste m s— in ad di ti onto th e Fed eral Bu reauof P ris on s— al ready requi re m en ta l h eal th in te rv en ti on be fo re ch em ic al ag en ts are u se d. Fi na ll y , as the di st ric t co urt p oi nt edou t i n i ts ord er, the in jun ct io n wi ll requi re l ittl e to no ad di ti on al ex pe nd itur es onth e p artof t he DOC, as i t al read y em pl oys a la rg e num

be r of m en ta l h eal th pro fes si on al s o n t he clo se -m an ag em en t win gs of F SP wh o c ou ldbe av ai labl e to ass is t i n e va lu at in g M cKin ne y . Nor d oe s 76th e in

jun ct io n re qu ire on ero us co nt in uo us supe rv is io n b y th e co urt o r jud ic ia l in te rfer en ce i n ru nn in g F SP. Cf. Lewi s, 5 18 U.S. at 3 62 , 11 6 S . Ct. at21 85 (v acat in g d is tri ctco urt’s i nju nc ti on th atwas “ in or di na te ly—in de ed , wil dl y —i nt ru si ve ” b ecau se itm ic ro -m an ag edth e m inut ia e o f pr is on op erat io ns ); LaMar ca, 9 95 F.2dat 1 54 3 (v acat in g i njunc ti on th atde ta il edth e m etho ds by whi chth e d efen da nt s m

us t ef fectua te th ei r po li ci es of d is ci pl in in g g ua rd s b ecau se itun ne ces sa ril y

in tru de d upo n the pri so n’s o pe rat io ns ). Thi s i nju nc ti on m erel y requi res th atth e DOC p os t a n ot ic e o f th e in jun ct io n o n M cKin ne y ’s cel l d oo r, no ti fy th e d is tri ctco urt an d o pp os in g c ou ns el when McKi nn ey is returne d t o F SP
an d o f an y

no n- sp on tane ou s u se -o f-fo rce o n M cKin ne y , andvi de ot ap e al l s uc h in ci de nt s, as is alr eady

requi redun de r DOC po li cy . See Fl a. Adm in . Cod e Ann . r. 33 -6 02 .21 0( 5) (b ) (“ The adm in is tra ti on of c he m ic al ag en ts onanin m at e cre at in g a di sturba nc e in hi s o r he r cel l wh enth e o ffi cer i s at te m pt in g t o re so lv e th e si tu at io n witho utex tra ct in g the in m at e fro m th e cel l wi ll als o b e v id eo reco rd ed .”). Far 3 5 fro m ab us in g i ts di sc ret io n, the di stric t co urt ap pa ren tl y wentto gre ateffo rts to acco m m od at e an d c om

pl em en t the DOC’ s cu rren t re gu la to ry stru ctur e d es pi te th e DOC’s un wil li ng ne ss to ass is t the co urt i n fa sh io ni ng th e m os t ap pr op ria te rel ie f.

There is one exception to this pol icy : videotapingis not required if a n inmate 3 5 stops his di sruptive behavior at the sight of the video c amer a but then re sumes it once the videotapingoffice rs leave , a proc ess re fer red to a s “g aming ” the sy stem. Fla. A dmin. Code Ann. r. 33-602.210( 5)(b) (2). 77Insu m , creat in g a n a dd it io na l re qu ire m en t tha t co rrec ti on s s ta ff co ns ul t wi th

m en ta l h eal th st aff p rio r to sp raying McKi nn ey with c he m ic al ag en ts ad ds bu t o ne lay er t o alo ng li stof e xi st in g p rere qu is it es to th e u se of n on -s po nt an eo us for ce at FSP tha t wi ll at m os t af

fecton ly a few is ol at edde ci si on s o ve r th e co ur se of McKi nn ey ’s futur e in carc erat io n. Se e Gom ez, 2 55 F.3dat 1 13 0 (uph ol di ng th e sc op e o f anin

jun ct io n tha t wo ul d a t m os t af fect“ a few i so late d d eci si on s o ve r th e co ur se of t he [] inm at es ’ se nt en ces ”). Acco rd in gl y , whi le “ [c]on st an tl y m in df ul th at th e fed eral co urts sh ou ldno t u nd ert ak e to run th e p ris on ,” we co nc lu de th atth e rem ed ia l m eas ur es ord eredby the di st ric t co urt n ei th er re qu ire “bu rd en so m e im pl em en ta ti on ” n orare the y “be y on d t he rem ed ia l juris di ct io n o f th e d is tri ct co urt.” Gat es , 50 1 F .2dat 1 31 0. To th e co nt rary, the d is tri ctco urt’s i njunc ti on m erel y co ns tru ct s the “ m in im al fou nd at io n” foren su rin g M cKin ne y ’s futur e co nf in em en t atFSP d oe s n otrun afo ul of the Eig ht h Am en dm en t. See id . For t he fo reg oi ng reas on s, we re

ject t he de fen da nt s’ arg um en ts th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n e nt eri ng th e und erl y in g i nju nc ti on an d uph ol d the di st ric t co urt’s awar d o f in

jun ct iv e rel ie f to McKi nn ey .

IV. CONCLUSION W e co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err ingra nt in g ade cl arat ory jud gm en t i n fa vo r of

McKi nn ey

on hi s Ei gh th Am en dm en t co nd it io ns -o f78co nf

in em en t cl ai m . W e al so co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s di sc ret io n i n e nt eri ng th e in st an t i njunc ti on . Accor di ng ly, with re sp ectto McKi nn ey , th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt i s af firm ed
. 3 6 AFFIRMED.

Due to his death, the injunction with respect to Thomas is vac ated, a nd the matter 3 6 is remande d to the district court with instructions to dism iss his m otion for an injunction as moot. Howeve r, wegrant the motion for substitution filed by Thomas’s fa

ther in orde r to allow the district court to resolve Thomas’s pendingmotion for attorney ’s fe es. 79