2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 3-22-2006 

# F ord v . M e rce r C ty C orr C tr P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 03-3758

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " F or d v . M e r c e r C ty C orr C tr " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1405. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1405NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N os . 03- 3758 and 03- 4524 J ONETHAN FORD; GARY THOM P S ON; J AM ES TARVER ; KAR L RE E VE S ; AKE E M M UT OM BO ; RO BE RT E DWARDS v. ME R C E R C O U N T Y C O R R E C T I O N A L C E N T E R ; D E N N I S C U N N I N G H A M;

RO BERT D . PRUN ETTI ; J OH N FA RM ER; J . M CCA LL; S WANS ON C OM M I S S AR Y C OM P ANY; P RE VI OUS CO M M I S S AR Y C OM P ANY; W ATE R M ANA GEM ENT COM P ANY ; LI NDA ROGERS ; P AULA PUL GAR; P ATRI CI A HU TCHI NSON, DR. A keem M ut om bo, A ppel l ant J ONETHAN FORD; GARY THOM P S ON; J AM ES TARVER ; KAR L RE E VE S ; AKE E M M UT OM BO ; RO BE RT E DWARDS v. ME R C E R C O U N T Y C O R R E C T I O N A L C E N T E R ; D E N N I S C U N N I N G H A M;

RO BERT D . PRUN ETTI ; J OH N FA RM ER; J . M CCA LL; S WANS ON C OM M I S S AR Y C OM P ANY; P RE VI OUS CO M M I S S AR Y C OM P ANY; W ATE R M ANA GEM ENT COM P ANY ; LI NDA ROGERS ; P AULA PUL GAR; P ATRI CI A HU TCHI NSON, DR. A keem M ut om bo, A ppel l ant2 A p p ea ls from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 00- cv- 01623) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Fr eda L. W ol fs on

A r gued J anuary25, 2006 B efor e: R E N D E L L and ST A PL E T O N , C i r cui tJ udges

and G I L E S*, D i s tr i ctJ udge ( Fi l ed M ar ch 22, 2006)

Da v i d R. F i n e [ AR GUE D] M ar i a G . M acus - B r y an K irp atri ck & L o ck h art N i chol s on G r aham 17 N or th Second St r eet 18 Fl oor th H arr i s bur g, PA 17101 C ouns el f orAppel lant S a r a h G. Cr o wl e y[ AR GUE D] K i m ber l eyM . W i l s on O ffi ce of C ount yC ouns el C ountyof M er cer 640 Sout h B r oad Str eet M cD ade A dm i ni s tr at i on B ui l di ng T r ent on, N J 08650 C ouns el f orAppel l ee

* H o n o rab le Jam es T . G il es, Jud g e o f th e U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e E astern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.A lso joinin g in the o ri g inal co m p lai n t w ere fe ll o w inm ates Jo n etha n F o rd, G ary 1 T hom ps on, J ames Tar ver , K ar l R eeve s , and R obertE dw ar ds . For d, T arver , R eeve s , and E dw ar ds w er e di s m i s s ed fr om the ac t i on byor derof the D i s tr i ctC our ton O ct ober20, 2000. O n February15, 2001, the D i s tr i ctC our tal s o ent er ed an or derdi s m i s s i ng T hom ps on forl ack of

pr os ecut i on. O n M ar ch 26, 2002, the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed M ut om bo’ s m ot i on forappoi nt m entof pr o bono co u n sel. M C C C m o v ed fo r sum m ary ju d g m e n t o n J u ly 1 , 2 0 0 3 . 3 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge. T his i s an app eal from the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s grantof sum m aryj ud gm ent agai nst A keem M ut om bo on hi s § 1983 cl ai m s ar i s i ng outof the pr i s on condi t i ons he expe r i ence d as a pr etr i al det ai nee a nd as an i nm at e i ncar cer at ed atM er cerC ountyC orr ect i onal C ent er (“M C C C ”). In hi s pro se compl ai nt , M ut om bo al l eged the fol l ow i ng condi t i ons w hi ch 1 vi ol at ed hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s : ( 1) poorai rqual i ty , i ncl udi ng the pr es ence of ai rbor ne as bes t os , the fa i l ur e of M C C C t o cl ean i t s ai rfi l t er s and duct s , and the al l ow ance of ci gar ett e s m oki ng atM C C C , expos i ng hi m t o s econd- hand s m oke; ( 2) over cr ow ded and uns ani t arycondi t i ons ; ( 3) pol l ut ed and uns ani t arydr i nki ng w at er ; ( 4) fai l ur e t o pr ovi de hi m w i th acc es s t o l egal m at er i al s ; ( 5) fai l ur e t o pr ovi de hi m w i th a copyof the gr i evanc e form he compl et ed; and ( 6) r et al i at i on. W e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t.A tvar i ous poi nt s i n hi s aff i davi tand compl ai nt , M ut om bo cl ai m s t o have e xper i ence d 2 sh o rtn e ss o f

b re a th , d im in ish e d lu n g c a p a c ity , p ro d u c tio n o f a b lac k su b sta n c e in h is l ungs , ey e i r r i t at i on, l i ghtheade dnes s , for get ful nes s , a gene r al l ack of ener gy , and heada ches purpor t edl ydue t o s econd- hand s m oke expos ur e. 4 I. M u to m b o w a s h e ld a t M C C C a s a p re trial d e tain e e f ro m A u g u st 2 0 , 1 9 9 9 u n til N ovember17, 1999, and then as a convi ct ed i nm at e fr om N ovember18, 1999 thr ough M a y9 , 2 0 0 0 . M u to m b o h a s s u b m itt e d a len g th ya f f id a v it w h ich , tak e n to g e th e r w ith h is com plai nt, con st i tutes the m aj or port i on of the evidence p res ented. In these do cum ents , he compl ai ns of hi s expos ur e t o s econd- hand s m oke, poorai rqual i tyand l ack of vent i l at i on. H e ave r s thathe s uffe r ed var i ous heal th pr obl ems as a r es ul t , butpr ovi des 2 no r ecor d of tr eatm ent , orm edi cal evi dence r egar di ng thes e condi t i ons . H e cont ends t hat the ai rfi l t er s w er e notchange d r egul ar l yand thatther e w as a l ay erof dus ton the l i ght fi xtur es and ai rfi l t er s . H e ave r s thatpoorw at erqual i tycaus ed hi m s t om ach i rr i t at i on and bo w el trouble. H ow ever, he p rovi des no qu anti t at i ve o r qual i t at i ve m easure of t hese f a c ts , n o r t ie s th e m to a n ys p e c if ic h e a lth c o n d itio n f

o r w h ic h h e h a s re c e iv e d tr e a tm e n t. M u to m b o ’s s o le m e d ica l ev id e n c e c o n sis ts o f h is a v e rre d a c c o u n t o f

tw o v isits to se e a p h y sic ian o r n u rse . O n D e c e m b e r 7 , 2 0 0 0 , M u to m b o c o m p lain e d o f sk in dis color at i on and w as exam i ned byP at ri ci a H utchi nson , w ho diagnosed the co nd i t i on as a f u n g u s. O n M a rc h 3 , 2 0 0 0 , M u to m b o c o m p lain e d o f sto m a c h p ro b lem s a n d w a s a g a in5

exami ned byM s . H ut chi ns on, w ho pr es cr i bed hi m an ant i bi ot i c and ga ve hi m a dandruff s h a m p o o to h e lp w ith h is s k in c o n d itio n . B ey o n d h is aff

idav it s, the o n lyev iden ce M u tom b o p rod u ce d sh o w ed that M C C C ’s pr i s on popul at i on had s l i ght l yexce eded i t s m andat ed capaci tyovera r el at i vel ybr i ef p e r i o d i n 1 9 9 9 a n d h a d a to n e p o i n tp e r m i t t e d c i g a r e t t e s t o b e s o l d f r o m i t s c o m m i s s a r y – a pr act i ce w hi ch has s i nce c eas ed. M ut om bo al s o s ubm i t t ed s ever al aff i davi t s compl et ed b yh is f e llo w p riso n e rs a ttes tin g to v a rio u s p h y sic a l h a rm s a lleg e d lyre su lti n g f ro m th e ir i ncar cer at i on. T he pr i s oner s compl ai n uni form l yof s ki n di s col or at i ons and abnorm al gr ow ths on thei rhands , attr i but i ng the condi t i ons t o cont ami nat ed w at er . N one of the pri soners has subm i t t ed m edical recor ds i n sup po rtof h i s cl ai m ed co nd i t i on s. II. A se c tio n 1 9 8 3 c laim p ro v id e s re d re ss f o r th e in f rin g e m e n t o f

c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts u n d er c o lor o f law . 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 . T h e c o n sti tuti o n al ri g h ts atissue in this ca se a re th o se p ro tec ted b yth e D u e P ro c e ss C lau se o f th e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t an d th e E ig h th A m en d m en t’ s p roh ibit ion o n cru el an d u n u su al pu n ishm en t. P retri al de tai n ee s are pr ot ect ed bythe D ue Pr oces s C l aus e of the Four t eenth A m endment , w hi ch pr ohi bi t s t hem fr om bei ng “puni s hed pr i ort o an adj udi cat i on of gui l ti n acc or dance w i th due pr oces s of l aw . ” B el lv. W

olf ish , 441 U . S. 520, 535 ( 1979) . C onvi ct ed pr i s oner s , on the otherhand, a re p ro te c te d f

ro m “ c ru e l a n d u n u s u a l p u n is h m e n ts ” b yth e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t. R hodes v. C hapm an , 4 5 2 U .S . 3 3 7 (1 9 8 1 ).6

I n or dert o det erm i ne w hetherthe cha l l enged c ondi t i ons of M ut om bo’ s pr e- tr i al c o n f in e m e n t a m o u n te d to p u n is h m e n t w ith o u t d u e p ro c e s s o f la w , [a] courtm us tdeci de w hetherthe di s abi l i tyi s i m pos ed forthe purpos e of p u n ish m ent orw hetheri ti s but an i ncidentof som e otherl egit i m ate governm ent al purpos e. A bs enta s how i ng of an expr es s ed i nt entt o puni s h on the p art o f th e d eten ti o n fa cil ityo ff ici als, that d eterm ination g en era ll yw il l tu rn on w hether[i thas ] an al t ernat i ve purpos e . . . and w hether i tappea r s exce s s i ve i n r el at i on t o [that ] purpos e. . . . T hus , i f a part i cul ar condi t i on orr es tr i ct i on of pr etr i al det ent i on i s r eas onabl y r el at ed t o a l egi t i m at e governm ent al obj ect i ve, i tdoes not , w i thoutm or e, amount t o "puni s hm ent . " Conver s el y , i f a r es tr i ct i on orcondi t i on i s notr eas onabl yr el at ed t o a l egi t i m at e goal - - i f i ti s arbi tr aryor purpos el es s - - a courtm ayperm i s s ibly inf erthatthe purpos e of the governm ent al act i on i s puni s hm entthatm aynotconst i tut i onal l ybe i nfl i ct ed u p o n d e ta in e e s q u a d e ta in e e s . W olf ish , 4 4 1 U .S . a t 5 3 8 -3 9 (c ita tio n s , b ra c k e ts , a n d in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). A ccor di ng t o t he Supr eme C our t , “conf i ni ng a gi ven numberof peopl e i n a gi ven amount of s pace i n s uch a manneras t o caus e them t o endur e genui ne pr i vat i ons and har ds hi p overan ext ended pe r i od of t i m e mi ghtr ai s e s er i ous ques t i ons underthe D ue P rocess C l ause as t o w hethertho se cond i t i on s am ou nted t o p un i shm ent. " I d. at542. O ur i nqui ryi nt o w hethergi ven condi t i ons cons t i tut e " puni s hm ent " mustther efor e cons i dert he to ta lity o f

c ir c u m s ta n c e s w ith in a n in s titu tio n . H ub ba rd , 399 F. 3d at160. W ith re sp e c t to th e p e rio d o f tim e a f ter M u to m b o ’s c o n v ictio n , “th e tre a tm e n t a p riso n e r re c e iv e s in p riso n a n d th e c o n d iti o n s u n d e r w h ich h e is c o n f in e d a re su b

jec t to s crut i nyunderthe Ei ghth A m endment . ” Hel l i ng v. McK i nney , 5 0 9 U .S . 2 5 , 3 1 (1 9 9 3 ). T he Ei ghth A m endmentpr ohi bi t s puni s hm enti ncons i s t entw i th “evol vi ng s t andar ds of7

dece ncythatm ark t he pr ogr es s of a matur i ng s oci ety . ” Este lle v . G a m b le , 429 U . S. 97, 102 ( 1976) ( quot i ng Trop v . D ul l es , 356 U . S. 86, 101 ( 1958) ) . C ondi t i ons of pr i s on confi nementvi ol at e the Ei ghth A m endmentonl yi f they“depr i ve i nm at es of the mi ni m al ci vi l i zed meas ur e of l i fe’ s nece s s i t i es . ” R hodes , 45 2 U . S . at34 7. P ri son o ffi ci al s m ust “t ake r eas onabl e meas ur es t o guar ant ee the s afe tyof the i nm at es . ” H uds on v. P alm er , 468 U . S. 517, 526- 27 ( 1984) . A pr i s on offi ci al ’ s “del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence ” t o a s ubs t ant i al ri s k o f s e ri o u s h a rm to a n in m a te v io la te s th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t. Far m erv. B r ennan , 511 U . S. 825, 828 ( 1994) . A s the C our ts t at ed i n D e Sh a n e y v . W in n e b a g o C o u n ty D e

p t. of Soci al Servi ces, 4 8 9 U . S . 1 8 9 , 1 9 9 -20 0 (19 8 9 ), w h e n th e S tate tak e s a p e rso n in to its c u sto d y a n d h o ld s h im th e re a g a in st h is wi l l , th e Co n s t i tu t i o n i mp o s e s u p o n i t a c or r e s p o n d i n g d u tyt o a s s u me s o me re s p o n s ib il ityf

o r h is s a f

e tya n d g e n e ra l w e ll b e in g .. .. T h e ra tio n a le f o r th is p rin c ip le is sim p le e n o u g h : w h e n th e S tate b yth e a f f irm a tiv e e x e rc ise o f

its pow ers o r es tr ai ns an i ndi vi dual ’ s l i bertythati tr ender s hi m unabl e t o car e for hi m s el f, and at the same t i m e fai l s t o pr ovi de for hi s bas i c human needs – e .g ., food, cl othi ng, s hel t er , m edi cal car e, and r eas onabl e s afe ty– i ttr ans gr es s es the s u b s ta n tiv e lim its o n s ta te a c tio n s e t b yth e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t.... I n H el l i ng , the Supr eme C our tdet erm i ned thata ca us e of a ct i on exi s t s underthe E ig h th A m e n d m e n t w h e n a p riso n e r a lleg e s th a t p riso n o f f icia ls h a v e e x p o se d h im , w ith del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence , t o l evel s of envi r onm ent al t obacc o s m oke ( E T S) thatpos e an u n re a s o n a b le ri s k o f

h a rm to h is f

u tu re h e a lth . Hel l i ng , 5 0 9 U .S . at 3 5 ; A tki ns on v. Tayl or , 3 1 6 F .3 d 2 5 7 , 2 6 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). T h e C o u rt e sta b lish e d a tw o -p a rt tes t th a t a p lain tiff m u st m e e t to sta te a v a lid c laim u n d e r th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t. F irst, th e p riso n e r m u st s h o w th a t h e h im se lf is8

b e in g e x p o s e d to u n re a s o n a b ly h ig h le v e ls o f E T S . Id . at35. Second, he musts how t hat th e p ri s o n o f

f ic ia ls w e re d e lib e ra te ly in d if f e re n t to th e s e ri o u s ri s k o f h a rm . Id . a t 3 6 . I n H el l i ng , the S u p re m e C o u rt re jec ted th e n o tio n th a t, i n o rd e r to p ro v e h is E ig h th A m endmentcl ai m , a pr i s onerm us tpr ove thathe i s curr ent l ys uffe r i ng s er i ous m edi cal p ro b le m s (o r c u rr e n tly e x h ib itin g s ym p to m s ) c a u s e d b ye x p o s u re to E T S . I d. at33 (o b se rv in g , b yw a yo f

e x a m p le, th a t an in m a te c o u ld su c c e ss f u llyb rin g a n a c tio n to re d re s s d e m o n s tr a b ly u n s a f e d ri n k in g w a te r w ith o u t w a itin g f o r a n a tta c k o f

d y s e n te ry). T he C our tobs erved thatthe Ei ghth A m endmentpr ot ect s pr i s oner s agai ns tfutur e harm , as w e ll a s p re s e n t h a rm . Id . T he Ei ghth A m endment“r equi r es thati nm at es be furni s hed w i th the bas i c human needs , one of w hi ch i s r eas onabl e s afe ty . ” I d. ( i nt ernal quot at i on o m itte d ). III . I n l i ghtof thes e r equi r ement s of the Four t eenth and Ei ghth A m endment s , the ques t i on befor e us i s w hetherM ut om bo has pr es ent ed evi dence thatthe condi t i ons at M C C C co n sti tuted p u n ishm en t or an u n rea so n ab le da n g er to h is he alth . M u tom b o ’s a l l e g a t i o n s mu s tb e t a k e n a s tru e , a n d wh e n h i s a s s e r t i o n s c o n f l i c twi th th o s e o f

M CCC, the movant , the form erm us tr ece i ve “the bene fi tof the doubt . ” G oodm an , 534 F. 2d at 573. N everthel es s , i f M ut om bo has fai l ed t o “make a s how i ng s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h the exi s t ence of an e l ementes s ent i al ” t o hi s cas e, and on w hi ch he be ar s the bur den of pr oof a t tr ia l, w e m u s t a f

f ir m th e e n tr yo f

s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. C e lo tex C o rp . v. C a tre tt , 4779

U .S . 3 1 7 , 3 2 2 (1 9 8 6 ). W h ile M u to m b o m a yre lyso lelyo n a f f id a v its, h e m u st “ d e sig n a te s peci fi c fa ct s s how i ng thatther e i s a genui ne i s s ue fortr i al . ” I d. a t 3 2 4 . A n iss u e is genui ne i f “the evi dence i s s uch thata r eas onabl e j urycoul d r eturn a ver di ctforthe nonm ovi ng party . ” A nders on , 477 U . S. at248. A m er e “s ci nt i l l a” of evi dence i s i ns uffi ci ent to d e f e a t a m o tio n f

o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. I d. a t 2 5 2 . T o survi ve sum m aryj ud gm ent on his pre- con vict i on cl ai m s, M utom bo m ust pr es entevi dence upon the t ot al i tyof w hi ch a r eas onabl e j urycoul d fi nd thatthe c o n d itio n s a t M C C C c o n s titu te d p u n is h m e n t, i . e. , w e re n o t re late d to th e leg iti m a te g o v e rn m e n tal in ter e st in p re trial d e ten tio n . T o su rv iv e su m m a ryju d g m e n t o n h is p o stco n v ict ion claim s, M u tom b o m u st pro v ide s u ch ev iden ce u p o n w h ich a rea so n ab le j u ry coul d fi nd that , w i th del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence , he w as i nvol unt ar i l yexpos ed t o l evel s of E T S o r o th e r h a rm th a t, i n f a c t, ha rm e d h is th e n -p re se n t h e a lth , o r p o se d a n u n re a so n a b le ri s k o f s e ri o u s d a m a g e to h is f u tu re h e a lth . Hel l i ng , 509 U . S. at35. I n the cour s e of pr ovi ng the Ei ghth A m endmentcl ai m , he mustal s o es t abl i s h thati ti s contr aryt o curr ent st and ards of dece ncyfor any on e t o b e so exp osed ag ai nsthis w i l l – thati s, that i ti s a r i sk th a t to d a y ’s s o c ie ty ch o o s e s n o t to to le ra te . I d. a t 3 5 -3 6 . In h is p lea f

o r re lief f ro m th e D istric t C o u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t, M ut om bo has ar gued thats um m aryj udgm ents houl d notbe gr ant ed bec aus e, t o the ext ent thatM ut om bo has fai l ed t o m eethi s bur den of pr oduct i on, i ti s onl yas a r es ul tof the D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s re f

u s a l to a p p o in t a n e x p e rt w itn e s s p u rs u a n t to F e d . R . E v id . 7 0 6 .10

H ow ever , w e fi nd thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n r efus i ng t o appoi nt an i ndepende ntexpertpur s uantt o R ul e 706. R u le 70 6 af

fo rds th e tri al j u d g e b roa d d iscreti o n to ap p o int an ind ep en d en t exp ert an sw era b le t o the c o u rt , w h ethe r su a sp o n te o r o n th e m o tio n o f a p a rt y . 

### Th e polic y b eh in dth e ru le is to p ro m o te th e j ury ’s f actf in d in g ab ility . See 29 Charl e s Al l e n Wri ght & V icto r Jam es G o ld , Federal Practic e and Procedure: Evidence § 6304 ( 1997) . “ The m ost im po rt ant fac tor in f

avor of appo inting an expert

is that the c as e inv olves a

com plex or e s ot e ri c s ubje c t

be yond the tri e r - of- fa c t ’ s abi l i ty t o a de quat e ly

unde r s t and wi thout expert as si st ance .” Id . A tr i al j udge does notabus e hi s di s cr et i on i n decl i ni ng t o appoi nt an i ndepende ntexperts ol el yt o benef i ta partyw ho has otherw i s e fa i l ed t o gathers uch e v id e n c e a s w o u ld s u f

f ic e to o v e rc o m e s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. C f . Ledf or d v. Sul l i van , 1 0 5 F . 3 d 3 5 4 , 3 5 9 -60 (7th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) (find ing juryco u ld co m p reh en d w h ethe r plainti ff ’s m edi cal needs w er e “s er i ous ” w i thoutthe ai d of a c our t - appoi nt ed expe r t ; obs ervi ng, “the sy m p to m s w h ich [ P lain tiff ] e x p e rie n c e d w e re n o t b e y o n d a lay pe rso n ’s g ra sp .”); buts ee W ri g h t & G o ld § 6 3 0 4 (distr ictco u rtm ayp rop erlyap p o int an ex p ert w itn ess w h ere p lain tiff is in d ig e n t an d e x p e rt is n e e d e d b ytrier o f f a c t to u n d e rsta n d c o m p lex , tec h n ica l, o r e so ter ic s u b

jec t ); McK i nney v . A nders on , 9 2 4 F . 2 d 1 5 0 0 , 1 5 1 0 (9th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ); W ebst er v. So w ders , 8 4 6 F .2 d 1 0 3 2 , 1 0 3 8 (6 th C ir. 1 9 8 8 ); U ni t ed Stat es Mars hal

s Ser vi ce v. Means , 741 F. 2d 1053, 1058 ( 8th C i r . 1984) ) . H er e, the D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed M ut om bo’ s m ot i on fora court - appoi nt ed medi cal expert , fi ndi ng thatthe medi cal i s s ues11

p r e s e n t e d we r e n o ts o c o mp l e x a s t o r e q u i r e a n i n d e p e n d e n tc o u r t - a p p o i n t e d e x p e r t . On thes e fa ct s , w e w i l l nots econd- gues s the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entas t o i t s ow n need f or a n in d e p e n d e n t e x p e rt . H ere , M u tom b o h as n o t pro v ided su ff ici en t evid en ce su ch that a re aso n ab le j u ry coul d concl ude he w as expos ed t o an unr eas onabl e r i s k of harm orthatthe condi t i ons at M C C C w er e puni t i ve. W i th r es pectt o hi s al l egat i ons r egar di ng over cr ow ded and u n sa n itary co n d iti o n s, f a ilu re s b yp riso n o f

f icia ls to p ro v id e leg a l m a ter ials a n d re c e ip ts forgr i evanc e form s , uns ani t arydr i nki ng w at er , and r et al i at i on, M ut om bo has not pr oduced e vi dence upon w hi ch a r eas onabl e j urycoul d fi nd a cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on had occurr ed. T hatthe ave r age popul at i ons atM C C C exce eded the perm i s s i bl e maxi m um by a sm a ll n u m b e r o f

p e rso n s o v e r a re lativ e lysh o rt p e rio d o f tim e d o e s n o t rise to overpopul at i on l evel s vi ol at i ng the Ei ghth and Four t eenth A m endment s . T hatM ut om bo beca m e i l l aft ercons um i ng w at er , w i thoutanyotherevi dence , cannotal one es t abl i s h t hat he had, orthatthe w at ercaus ed, a s er i ous i l l nes s . Fur ther , M ut om bo has art i cul at ed no bas i s forfi ndi ng thatM C C C ’ s fai l ur e t o gi ve hi m a r ece i ptcopyof gr i evanc e form s he s u b m itte d v io la te d h is c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts . W i th r es pectt o M ut om bo’ s ai rqual i tycl ai m s , M ut om bo has nots ubm i t t ed the type o f e v iden ce u p o n w h ich a juryco u ld rea so n ab lyreturn a v erd ictin h is fav o r. M u tom b o ’s s t at ement s do notdes cr i be the condi t i ons of hi s expos ur e i n a fa s hi on thatcoul d l ead t o a rea so n ab le j u ryfin d ing that h e w as e x p o sed to an u n rea so n ab le an d ind ec en t r isk o f h arm12

o r t h a t th e h a rm w a s in f lic te d u p o n h im a s a f

o rm o f p u n is h m e n t. See H

el l i ng , 50 9 U. S. at36 ( pr i s onerm us ts how thatthe r i s k i s s o gr ave i tvi ol at es cont empora rys t andar ds of dece ncyt o expos e anyone to it u n w ill in g ly ); W olf ish , 4 4 1 U .S . at 5 4 0 n .2 3 (c o u rts s h o u ld d e f e r to g o v e rn m e n t’s in ter e st in o p e ra tin g p re trial d e ten tio n in stitu tio n s in a m a n a g e a b le f a sh io n a b se n t su b sta n tial c o n tra rye v id e n c e in th e re c o rd ). H is a lleg a tio n s a re g e n e ra l in n a tu re a n d p ro v id e f

e w o f th e d e tails w h ich a f

a c t-f in d e r w o u ld re q u ire . A b se n t m e d ica l, scien ti fic, or o ther q u an ti tat ive a n d q u ali tat ive e v iden ce o f c au sati o n an d h arm , a jury cou l d o nlyspeculat e as t o the ul t i m at e i ssues needed t o b e prove d at tri al . In ot her w ords, M ut om bo has notpr es ent ed fa ct s upon w hi ch a r eas onabl e j urycoul d fi nd thathe w as s ubj ect ed t o an unr eas onabl e, i ndece nt , and unci vi l i zed r i s k of harm i n vi ol at i on of the E i ghth A m endmentorthatthe condi t i ons atM C C C cons t i tut ed puni s hm entw i thoutt r i al in v io la tio n o f

th e F o u rt e e n th A m e n d m e n t’ s re q u ir e m e n t o f d u e p ro c e s s . I V. Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e fi nd thatther e i s no genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac t a n d w ill a f

f ir m th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s g ra n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t.

____________________________