### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Febru ary 24, 20 05 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ N o. 02- 1199 4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ D
. C. D oc ke t N o. 00- 0003 6 C V -6 MOLLIE JO PURC ELL, as na tur al pare nt and a dm ini str at or of the E sta te of

Ma tth ewS ha w n M or ga n, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us TOOMBS COUNTY, GA, D ef en da nt, ALVIE KIGHT, JR ., indiv iduallyand in his o fficial c ap a c i t y a s S h e r i f

f o f To o mb s C o u n t y, JERR Y W HITE, ind ivi dua lly

a nd i n hi s of

fi ci al c ap ac ity a s De t e n t i o n Ad mi n i s t r a t o r o f To o mb s C o u n t y, D ef en da nts -Appe llants
.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ (F eb ru ar y 24 , 200 5)Honora ble J erome Fa

rris, United States Circuit J udg e for the Ninth Circu i t , s i t t i n gby * desig nation. 2 Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, BI RC H a nd F A RR IS , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. * E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e: While detained at the Toom bs Coun ty

Jail, Matthew Morgan w as beaten
an d in j ur ed by thr ee oth er

inm at es . Mo lli e Jo P ur ce ll br ough t this a ct ion , pur suant to 42 U.S .C. § 1983 , on behalf of M organ, her now decea sed son. She alleged that Toom bs Coun ty , S heriff Kight and Jail Adm inistrator White viol ated Matthew Mor ga n’ s E igh th and F ourte en th A m en dm en t r igh ts i n f ai lin g to pr ev en t this inm at e- on- inm at e atta ck
. T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d D ef en da nts K igh t and Whit e qua lif ie d im m uni ty in the ir ind ivi dua l c ap ac iti es a nd a lso de nie d D ef en da nt K igh t E le ve nthA m en dm en t im m unityfrom

suit in h is official ca

pacity
. W e conclude that the district court
erre d in deny ing Kight and W hite qualified imm unity . I n additio n, given our en ba nc de ci si on in Man de rs v. Lee, 3 38 F.3d 13 04 (11 th Cir . 20 03 )(en ba nc ), we
co nc lud e tha t the E le ve nthA m en dm en t pr ec lud es sui t a ga ins t S he ri ff K igh t, in his of fi ci al c ap ac ity , f

or e sta bli shi ng the j ai l po lic ie s and o the r j ai l pr ac tic es pe rt ine nt to Pu rcel l’s cl ai m s. Th eref or e, we rev ers e.Morg an had been incar cer ated six teen times at T oombs County J ail by 9 Fe bruar y 1999 and, by 1 a ll a c c ounts , w a s n e ve r b e fo re inv olv e d in a vio le nt a lte rc atio n w ithoth e r i nmate s. For this appeal, we resolve a ll the proper ly disputed fac ts in accor d with Plainti ff’ s view of the fa cts. In makingcell assig nments for inmates, c orre ction office rs consider the “ty pe of crime that was 2 c omm itt e d, ra c e , a g e , . . . the ir he a lth ” and

wh e the r p ro ble ms e xist b e tw e e n in div idu a l inmate s. Correc tion officer s normally will not assign inmates to ce lls where all other inmates a re of another rac e. B ut Morg an, a white male, was an exceptional case : he repe atedly had bee n incar cer ated at the J ail, knew many

of i t s inmates, and a sked to be plac ed in an a ll-black c ell beca use those inmates wer e his frie nds from the “ street.” Th e ov e rh e a d lights we re no rm a lly tur ne d of f at 11 p. m, le avin gon ly

night l ig hts on

in t he c e lls
. 3 Def endants c ontend Matthew Mor g an took some money from one of

the attac kers, Johnny

“Ike” 4 Mc Cla in. Witn e ss a c c ounts su pp or t th is c on te nti on

but la rg e ly fr om h e ars ay

e vid e nc e . Reg ard le ss of whe ther Matthew

Morg an took the money , McClain seeming ly thought he did and, in reta liation, rec ruited two other inmate s (L ashon Holloway and Romato Kent) to a ssist i n attackingMorg an. 3 Ba ck gr ound

O n 9 F eb ru ar

y 199 9, Ma tth ewMo rg anw as a rr es te d and i nc ar ce rate d inthe T oom bs C ounty

Ja il. Mo rg anha d be ena rr es te d f or tw o m isd em eanor s, but

he 1 al so ha d a n o ut st an di ng fel on y -p ro ba ti on warran t p en di ng . Mor ga n a ske d f

or a nd w as a ssi gne d to c el l 5, w he re his f ri en ds from the “ street” w ere being held
. O n the nigh t of 21 February 1999 , thre e 2 inm ates in cell 5 attacked Morgan w hile he was a sleep. T he daytim e lights had b e e n tu rn e do f

f
. Th e t h r e e i n mat e s k i c k e da n dp u n c h e dM o r g a n r e p e a t e d l y, 3 leaving Morgan beaten on th e prison floor. 4The Toombs County J ail had eight housing units (128-be d total capa city ) conta ining individual 5 cells on two leve ls that formed a circ le ar ound the ce ntral control towe r. Both J ailers Brown and Dickerson t estified to having diffic ulties seeingfrom the towe r into the 6 c e lls at night duri ng lights out. Se rg e ant Hi ll, the bo ok ing se rg e ant, te sti fi e d th at he ha d at on e tim e notified J ail Administrator Wh i t e t h at i t was diffic ult for jailers in the c ontrol tower to view what was ha ppeningin the inmate sleepingare as af ter lig hts o u t
. Accordingto Hill, W hite had maintenanc e cr ews c ome on seve ral oc casions to make the exis ting lig hts “work pr operly .” The Jail, buil t in 1993, origina lly had a functioningintercom sy stem with call box es in the c e lls . The int e rc om sy ste m, how e ve r, wa s no long e r func tio na l in mo st o f t he c e lls , in c lud ingc e ll 5. Nothing e vidence s an attempt to repa ir this intercom sy stem. Daniel Morg an, the victim’s brothe r, who was incar cer ated in a n adjac ent ce ll, said that seven 7 to ten minutes elapsed be tween when the be atingbeg an an d wh en t he lig hts came on a nd then another five minutes bef

ore ja ilers attende d to Matthew Morg an. Morg an spent two months i n a coma, sustainingperma nent mental impairment. He later 8 committed suicide in 2000. 4 A t the ti m e of

the inc ide nt, the T oom

bs C ounty

Ja il he ld 1 18 i nm at es a nd
w as sta ff ed a t no rm al le ve ls, ha vin g f ive of fi ce rs on d

uty
. Ja ile rs Br ow n and 5 D ic ke rs on, both st at ion ed in the c ontro l t ow er , be cam e aw ar e of the a lte rc at ion when they

heard a “ bangin g nois e” in cell 5. Brow n turned on the overhead 6 da ytim e lig hts ; and a ft er

the li ght s w ar

m ed up, the of

fi ce rs sawMo rg anly ing on the se co nd- le ve l f

loo r. B ro w n th enpho ne d th e Ja il’ s f ro nt o ff ic e, r ea ch ing j ai l 7 st affe r Sm it h a nd Serg ean t Hi ll who cam e b ackto th e sc en e o f th e in ci de nt
. Sh ortly the re af te r, a nothe r of

fi ce r ca lle d an a m

bul an ce that arr ive d aro und te n or el ev enm inu te s late r. Mo rg anw as the n take n to ahos pit al
. 8 Kight tookoffice as T oom bs Coun ty ’ s newly

elected sherif

f in Novem

ber 1998
. Before the incident inv olvin g Matthew Morgan, Sherif f K ight h ad directedJ ailers pe riodically conducte d shakedowns to ensure inmate s did not have more tha n the allowed 9 $3 0. Th e re c or d, ho we ve r, a lso sh ow s that thi s in sp e c tio n w a s n ot a fo ol- pr oo f s y ste m; a

nd so me inmates might at times accumulate amounts of ca sh in ex cess of $30. In her unve rified Ame nded Complaint, Plaintiff alleg es that an inmate, Elroy Odom, was be aten 10 by fellow c ellmates in an e ffor t to s t ea l Odom’s money . But, Odom wa s not deposed; and no a ff ida vit a pp e ars in t

he re c or d o n h is b e ha lf

. T he re c or d e vid e nc e we se e tha t mi g ht p ot enti a lly support this incident actually does not: J ail Administrator Whit e testified that the only thing he c ou ld re c a ll a

bo ut Od om wa s that “ may be so me bo dy

is s up po se d to have sto le so me thi ngfr om h im. . . . Idon’t reme mber nobody attackinghim.” 5 that a new com

m issary sy stem be institu ted at the T oom bs Coun ty

Jail. T he new
co m put er iz ed c om m iss ar y sy ste m w oul d ke ep up w ithinm at e funds w ith out the i n ma t e s h a v i n g t o k e e p mo n e y o n t h e i r p e r s o n s . T h e n e wc o mmi s s a ry s ys t e m, ho wev er, h adno t b een pu t i n p la ce b y th e d ay of t he Mat th ew Mo rg an in ci de nt
. At the tim e of the pertinent incident, the T oom bs Coun ty

Jail had a policy

that al low ed inm at es to ha ve up t o $3 0 f or m ak ing pur ch as es f

ro m ve ndi ng m ac hin es . 9 Re co rd e vid en ce sho w s th at

som e inm at es w oul d gam ble w ithm one y

w hil e play ing card gam es, and Deputy Michael H arlin testified that som e fights resulted
ove r card ga m es . 10 Daniel Morgan (Matthew Morgan’ s brother) gave depositio n testim ony that several inm ate-on-inm ate fights occurred a t the Jail during the m onth s beforeDaniel Morg an appe ars to have been inc arc erated at the Toombs C o u n t y J ail beg inning on 5 11 J anuar y 1999. Daniel Morg an also t es t i fi ed to having hea rd throug h others of a

n incident wher e a bla ck 12 inmate, Roge rs, attac ked a H ispanic inmate at night by pulling a she et over

the Hispanic inmate ’s head a nd smashing the Hispanic inm ate’ s fac e with a stee l-toed boot. But we -- like the district c ourt

-- wi ll no t con side r t

his sp e c if ic e vid e nc e in s up po rt

of Pur c e ll’ s c a se on

summa ry jud g me nt: objected- to hear say . See Mac uba v. De boer, 193 F.3d 1316, 1322-23 (11th Cir. 1999) (stating that he ars ay e vid e nc e may

no t be c on side red on su mmar y jud g me nt u

nle ss i t c an b e “ re du c e d to admissible form”)
. The Eig hth Amendment applies to c o n v i ct ed inmates. A pre trial detaine e’s “ constitutional 13 ri g hts ari se no t f

ro m th e Ei g hth

Am e ndme nt, but fro m th e Du e Pr oc e ss C la us e of the F ourt e e nth Amendment.” H ale v. Ta llapoosa County , 50 F.3d 1579, 1582 n.4 (11th Cir. 1995). At the time of the 9 Fe br

ua ry 19 99 inc ide nt, Mo rg an w a s a pr e tr ia l de ta ine e on

many c ha rg e s; M or g an w a s a lso beingheld for having violated t he terms of hi s probation from a prior felony conviction. Whether or not we tre at Morg an as a pretria l detainee or a c onvicted prisoner makes no diff

ere nce. “ [T] he standard f or providingbasic human ne eds to those incar cer ated or in detenti o n is the same under both the Eig hth a

nd Four teenth Amendme nts.” Marsh v. B utler County , Ala., 268 F .3d 1014, 1024 n.5 (11th Cir. 2001)(e n banc) . In this case, we will refe r only to the Eig hth Amendment. 6 M a t t h e wM o r g a n ’s b e a t i n g . Th r e e f i g h t s we r e e v i d e n c e db y h i s t e s t i mo n y. 11 12 O ne of the f igh ts i nvol ve d an in m at e na m ed “ T an k” w ho M at the wMo rg anc oul d he ar be ing be at enby

agr oup of

inm at es in an oth er

c el l. D an ie l M or ga n w as able to not ice that it took jailer s “ about five m inutes” to arrive and help “ Tank.” D aniel Morgan also recalled tw o black inm ates, “ He ad” and Jam es Polk, beating up three Hispanic inm ates and witnessed “ two w hite guy s square off [ ] over a m eal[. ] ” Mollie Jo Purcell, M atthew Morgan’ s m other, f iled this lawsuit allegin g that Sheriff Kight and Jail Adm inistrator White, in their individ ual and official
ca pa ci tie s, vio la te d M or ga n’ s E igh th and F ourte en th A m en dm en t r igh ts i n f ai lin g t o p r e v e n tt h i s i n mat e - o n - i n mat e b e a t i n g . On t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f d i s c o v e ry, 13To omb s Co un ty is n o p art y to t his int e rl oc uto ry

a pp e a l. 14 7 D ef en da nts m ove d f

or sum m ar y j udgm en t. D ef

en da nts a rg ue d th at

ins uf fi ci en t
ev i d en ce ex i s t ed o n t h e r ec o rd t o s up p o rt a c o n cl u s i o n th at Mo rg an ’s
co nst itu tio na l r igh ts h ad

be envio la te d and a lso a rg ue d th at D ef en da nts , in the ir ind ivi dua l c ap ac iti es , w er e en tit le d to qua lif ie d im m uni ty
. I n a ddi tio n, both Sh er if f K igh t and J ai l A dm ini str at or Whit e ur ge d th at

the E le ve nthA m en dm en t pr ote ct ed the m f ro m sui t i n th ei r of

fi ci al c ap ac iti es . 14

D isc uss ion

I. Clai m s A gai nst

She rif f K igh t an d J

ail A dm ini strato r W hit e in t he ir I ndi vi dual Capacities
. T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d su m m ar y j udgm en t t o D ef

en da nts K igh t and Whit e, in the ir

ind ivi dua l c ap ac iti es , r ej ec tin g th ei r de fe nse of qua lif ie d im m uni ty to Pu rcel l’s § 19 83 cla im s. W e ha ve j ur isd ic tio n ov er thi s a ppe al be ca

use the S upr em e Co urt and this Court long ago determ ined that a district court’ s denial of a claim of qualified im m uni ty is anappe al ab le int er loc uto ry or de r. Mi tc he ll v. F or syth, 105 S
. Ct
. 2806 , 281 7 ( 1985 ); Jon es v. Cannon , 174 F
. 3d 1 271, 128 0 ( 11th C ir
. 199 9)
. T his8

co urt r ev ie w s de nov o th e de nia l of qua lif ie d im m uni ty on s um m ar y j udgm en t, construin g the evidence in the ligh t m ost favorable to Plaintiff. Jones, 174 F.3d at 12 81
.

“ Qualified im

m unityprotects governm ent officials perf orm ing di scretionary func tio ns f

ro m c ivi l tri al s [ ] a nd f

ro m li ab ili ty if the ir c ondu ct vio la te s no c le ar ly
es ta bli she d st at

uto ry or c onst itu tio na l r igh ts o f w hic h ar ea sona ble pe rs on w oul d ha ve kno w n. ” L as sit er

v. A la ba m a A &M U niv er sity , Bo ar d of T ru ste es , 28 F
. 3d 1146 , 114 9 ( 11th C ir
. 199 4) (e n banc )( quot ing H ar lowv. F itz ge ra ld, 102 S
. Ct
. 2727 , 273 8 ( 1982 ))
. T his im m uni ty pr ote ct s “ al l but the pla inl y inc om pe te nt o r tho se w ho know ing ly

vio la te the law . ” Mc Co y v. W eb ste r, 47 F
. 3d 4 04, 407 ( 11th Ci r. 199 5) ( quot ing Ma lle y v. Br igg s, 106 S
. Ct
. 109 2, 109 6 ( 1986 ))
. F or the purpos es of this appeal, w e w ill decide two things: (1) w hether the sum m ary j udgm en t e vid en ce , vie w ed in the li ght

m ost f av or ab le to Purc el l, sho w s a vio la tio n of

ac onst itu tio na l r igh t; an d, if so ( 2) w he the r tha t r igh t w as , on 2 1 Fe br ua ry 199 9, a lr ea dy

c le ar ly e sta bli she d insuc h apart ic ulari ze d w ay to m ak e obvi ous th e conclusion for all r easonable, sim ilarly situated jail off

icials that what Defen da nt s wer e d oi ng vi ol at edPla in ti ff’s fed eral rig ht s u nd er t he cir cu m st an ces . Marsh v. B utler County , A la., 268 F.3d 1014 , 1024 n.5 (11th Cir. 2001)(en banc).When enforc ing the duty to provide “r easo n ab l e s af ety” to inmates, such a

standard r equire s 15 “due r eg ard f

or prison off

icials’ ‘une nviable task of ke epingdang erous men in safe c ustody under humane c onditions.’” Fa

rmer, 114 S.Ct. at 1983 (citations omitted).

9 V iolati on o f a Co nst itu tio nal

R igh t

T he E igh th A m en dm en t, w hic h th e Su pr em e Co urt ha s e xte nde d to the St at es , pr ohi bit s th e inf

lic tio n of “ cr ue l and u nusu al pun ish m en ts. ” U
. S. Co nst
. am en d. V II I. “ W e be ginw iththe pr opos iti on tha t, w hil e the Co nst itu tio n do es not require prisons to be com fortable, it also does no t perm it them to be inhu m ane,

‘ and it is no w settled that the .
. . conditi ons un der w hich [a prisoner] is confined
ar e subj ec t t o sc ru tin y

und er the E igh th A m en dm en t. ’ ” Jor da n v. D oe , 38 F
. 3d 1 5 5 9 , 1 5 6 4 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 9 4 ) ( c i t a t i o n s o mi t t e d )
. “ ‘[ P ]r i s o n o f f i c i a l s h a v e adu t y

. . . to pr ote ct

pr iso ne rs f

ro m vio le nc e at

the hands of

oth er pr iso ne rs . ’
. . . I t i s no t, however, every

injury suffere d by

one prisoner at the hands of anoth er that tr an sla te s in to [ a] c onst itu tio na l l ia bil ity
. . . . ” F ar

m er v. Br en na n, 114 S
. Ct
. 197 0, 1976 -77 (1994) (citations o m itted). 15 T o sh owavio la tio n of

Mo rg an ’ s E igh th A m en dm en t r igh ts, P la int if f m ust

“ pr oduc e suf

fi ci en t e vid en ce of

( 1) asub stanti al r isk

of se ri ous ha rm ; ( 2) the de fe ndants ’ de lib er at e ind if fe re nc e to tha t r isk ; and ( 3) c au sa tio n. ” H al e v. T al la poos a Co unty , 50 F
. 3d 1 579, 158 2 ( 11th C ir
. 199 5)
. T o be de lib er at el yPla int if f a sse rt e d th at g ambl ingcon tr ib ute d to the a lle g e d s ub sta nti a l r isk of se ri ou s h arm ; 16 n o th i n g i nth e r ec o rd , h o we v er , i n d i ca t es M at th ew M o rga n ’s b ea t i n g wa s re l at edt o gam b l i n g. 10 ind if fe re nt a pr iso n of fi ci al m ust kno wof a nd d isr eg ar d “ ane xc es siv e ri sk t o inm at e he al th o r sa fe ty ; the of fi ci al m ust both be a w ar e of

f ac ts f ro m w hic h th e inf er en ce c oul d be dr awn th at asub stanti al r isk

of se ri ous ha rm

e xis ts, a nd h e m

ust al so drawthe inf

er en ce . ” F ar

m er , 114 S
. Ct
. a t 19 79. W e w ill not a llo wthe advantage of hinds ight to determ ine whether conditi ons of confinem ent am ount ed to “ cr ue l and u nusu al ” puni shm en t. S ee Br ow n v. H ughe s, 894 F
. 2d 1 533, 153 7 (1 1thCi r. 199 0)
. W

he the r a subs tanti al r isk

of se ri ous ha rm

e xis ts s o th at

the E igh th A m en dm en t m igh t be vio la te d in vol ve s ale ga l r ule that t ak es f

orm thr ough its appl ic at ionto fa ct s. F or sum m ar y j udgm en t purp ose s, w e re sol ve a ll the tr uly dis put ed f ac ts i n a cc or d w ithP la int if f’ s vi ewof

the f ac ts; but w e, a s j udge s, de ci de the le ga l c onse que nc es of the giv enf

ac ts, that i s, w he the r the sup pose d f ac ts
am ount to a vio la tio n of

the E igh th A m en dm en t. Purc el l dr aw s our atte nti on t o th e fo llo w ing c ondi tio ns a t the T oom bs CountyJail: inm ates w ere allowed to keep m oney in their cells; inm ates w ere al low ed to play c ar ds and g am

ble ; the phy sic al lay out

of the Ja il hin de re d gu ar ds 16Purcell also argued that Matthew Morg an’s having been place d in a n all-blac k cell constituted 17 a substantial risk of ser ious harm. B ut, as the di strict court corre ctly noted, t hat M atthew Morg an reque sted to be plac ed in the all-bla ck ce ll beca use he “ hungout with them on the street and he knew all of them rea lly well” is undisputed. The Undisputed Statement of Fa cts sets out that rac e played no role in Morg an’s being attacke d, and no rec ord evidence calls this fac t into question. Thus we rea dily conclude that Morg an’s plac ement in an a ll-black c ell did not amount t o an ele ment of a substantial risk of serious h ar m t o h i s s afe ty . By the way , Serg eant Hill testified that, bec ause of Morg an’s r elationships with the i nmates of cell 5, it was safer and would lead to “less conf lict” for him to be placed in the a ll-black c ell. Purcell also claimed that inmates wer e not prope rly seg reg ated ba sed on their pr oclivity for violence, but the r ecor d does not support this c ontention: Matthew Morg an had a f elony conviction fo r b ri ng inga

de a dly we a po n o nto sc ho ol pr op e rt

y . Un dis pute d fa c ts sh ow that To omb s County Jail inmates wer e assig ned to cells based on a variety of factors: “the ty pe of c rime committed, rac e, ag e, . . . their health
. . . whether there ’s a pr oblem with -- if we put somebody in a ce ll block and they ’re havingproblems [with] another individual, we try

to avoid that.” We r e c og nize tha

t on e inm ate (H oll ow ay

) i nv olv e d in

the inc ide nt u

nd e rl yingth is laws uit ha d a lso be e n inv olv e d we e ks e arl ie r i n a no the r - - a lbe it n ot s o s e ve re -- e pis od e of inm ate -o n- inm ate violence. Ac co rd i n gto Daniel Morg an’s testimony , that ear lier incident a rose f rom a pre i n c ar c e r at i o nc l a s hb e tw e e nH o l l o w ay ’ s b r o th e r a n d “ T an k , ” th e i n m at e at t a c k e d b y H o l l o w ay . In contra st, nothing in the rec ord sug g ests that Holloway was g ener ally violent towa rd other inmate s or that Holloway an d M atthew Morg an had a “proble m” with eac h other be fore Matthew wa s attacke d. T h e at t ac k o n Matthew Morg an wa s led by inmate McClain, the per son who thoug ht Matthew ha d taken his money : the belief that spurred on the attack. 11 fr om pr ev en tin g in m at e- on- inm at e at ta ck s; and a his tor y of inm at e- on- inm at e fi ght s. 17 W e ac ce pt tha t an e xc es siv e ri sk o f inm at e- on- inm at e vio le nc e at aj ai l
cr ea te s asub stanti al r isk

of se ri ous ha rm ; “ oc ca sio na l, iso la te d a tta ck s by one pr iso ne r on anothe r m ay

not c onst itu te c ru el a nd u nusu al pun ish m en t, [ but ] confinem ent in a prison where violence and terr or reign is actionable. Aprisoner has a right, sec ured by

the eighth . .
. am endm ent[] , to be r easonably protected from constant threat of violence and sexual assault b y his fellow inm ates[. ] ”12

W oodh ous v. Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir. 1973 ) (c itation o m itted). W e, how ev er , se e ins uf

fi ci en t e vid en ce in the r ec or d to sho wthat i nm at es in the T oom bs C ounty

Ja il w er e ex pose d to som ethin g e ve n a ppr oa ch ing the “ co nst an t thr ea t of vio le nc e. ” S ee id. ; se e al so Z at le r v. W ai nw ri ght , 802 F
. 2d 3 97, 400 (11th Cir. 1986). On substantial risk o f serious harm , “ [t] his ob j ective standard ‘e mb o d i e s “ b r o a da n di d e a l i s t i c c o n c e p t s o f d i g n i t y, c i v i l i z e ds t a n d a r d s , h u man i t y, and decency

. . . ,” ’ but m

ust be balanced against com peting p enolog ical goals.” L aM ar ca v. T ur ne r, 995 F
. 2d 1 526, 153 5 ( 11th C ir
. 199 3) ( ci ta tio ns o m itt ed ). A nd
we stress that a “prison cust odian is n ot the guarantor of a prisoner’ s safety .” Po pha m v. Ci ty of T al la de ga , 908 F
. 2d 1 561, 156 4 ( 11th C ir
. 199 0) ( j ai l su ic ide
cas e). Viewi ng th e rec or d e vi de nc e in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to Pu rcel l, we
co nc lud e, a s am atte r of

law , the c ondi tio ns a t T oom bs C ounty

Ja il fa ile d to pos e the subs tantial risk of serious harm necessary

for a violatio n of the federa l Co nst itu tio n. Abr ie f sur ve y of c ondi tio ns s ai d by

thi s C ourt, und er

F ar m er , to
es ta bli sh o bj ec tiv el y

a n e xc es siv e ri sk o f inm at e- on- inm at e vio le nc e supp orts this
co nc lu si on .13

In Marsh, we said that the com plaint had alleged facts that, if tr ue, w ere suf fi ci en t t o e sta

bli sh a sub stanti al r isk

of inm at e- on- inm at e vio le nc e. T he hos t of j ail conditio ns und erly ing th at determ ination wa s extensive: 1) the re w as no s eg re ga tio n of non vio le nt i nm at es f

ro m vio le nt inm at es , pr etri al de ta ine es f ro m c onvi ct ed

c ri m ina ls, j uve nil es f

ro m adults, or inm ates w ith m ental disorders from those without m ental dis or de rs , 2) a t t im es the Ja il hous ed m or e pr iso ne rs than th e ce lls could accom

m odate, 3) the Jail w as routinely understaffed, 4) no head counts o f prisoners we re m ade to m ake sure they we re a ll accounted fo r, 5) loc ks o n c el l do or s w er e not f unc tio na l, a llo w ing inm at es to roam fre ely at all hours of the day , 6) hom em ade w eapons were re ad ily a va ila ble by f as hio nin g w ea

pons f ro m m at er ia l t or

n f ro m the dil ap ida te d stru ct

ur e of the Ja il, 7) no l oc k do w n of pr iso ne rs in the ir ce lls oc curr ed

a t any poi nt d ur ing the day

or nig ht, 8) c el ls w er e not vis ua lly ins pe ct ed , 9) no j ai le r w as a ssi gne d to m ai nta in p ri sone rs ’ se curi ty on the se co nd f

loo r w he re m ost

of the inm at es w er e hous ed , 10) the Ja il w as not

ope rate d ina cc or da nc e w ithw ri tte n po lic ie s, 11) inm at es w er e not

sc re en ed f or m en ta l he al th, m ed ic al c ondi tio ns o r co nf lic ts w ithoth er

pr iso ne rs be fo re e nte ri ng the Ja il, a nd 1 2) pr iso ne rs w er e not

dis ci pli ne d or

se gr eg at ed

w he n th ey

a tte m pte d to escape, threatened j ailers, destroy ed property or assaulted other inm at es . 268 F.3d at 1029
. In a sim ilar w ay in Hale , w e determ ined that a plaintiff survived
summ ary j udgm ent by

subm itting evidence that 1) pr iso ne rs w er e not

se gr eg at ed

ba se d onthe ir

pr oc liv ity

f or violence, 2) there wa s onlyone j ailer on duty , 3) the j ailer’ s quarters w er e out of e ar shot a nd e y es igh t of

the pr iso ne rs ’ c el l, a nd 4 ) fi ght s occurred betw een inm ates on a regular basis re sultin g in injuries req ui rin g m ed ic al att en ti on an d h os pi ta li zat io n . . . . Marsh, 268 F.3d at 1033 n.12 (citing Hale , 50 F. 3d at 158 1-84).Pla int if f al le g e s that nor

ma l sta ff ing le ve ls at the Jail sh ou ld h ave be e n in c re a se d to re sp on d to 18 inmate alter cations. Ther e could a lway s be more sta ff at a jail. Nothi ngin the rec ord, howe ver, de mon str ate s th at th e a c tua l st a ff ingle ve l - - fi ve of

fi c e rs -- wa s ins uf

fi c ie nt to ha

nd le c omp e te ntl y sit ua tio ns that w ou ld b e re a so na bly anti c ipate d. No e xpe rt

te st if ied that th e Jail , g ive n it s inmate c a pa c ity , w a s und e rs ta ff

e d. Al tho ug h o ne of

the ma le g ua

rd s w a s in the fr on t of

the Jail at th e tim e this incident beg an (leaving one male and one f emale in the c ell are a), the Undisputed Statement of Fa cts establishes that it took no longe r than twe nty seconds f or the floor

g uard a nd the desk ser g eant to arrive at ce ll 5 upon rece iving a call fr om the tower a

bout the disturbance
. To include this incident, in which all thre e assa ilants were criminally char g ed and c onvicted. 19 In M ay 19 98 , tw o ja ile rs , E do n B a c on and Jona s T obler ha d ta

ke n tw o whit e ma le inm ate s, 20 br oth e rs Do nn ie and

Ti m K e lle y

-- bo th i nc lin e d to the vie ws of “ wh ite po we r” -- and

pla c e d th e se Ke lle y br oth e rs int o s e pa

rate a ll- bla c k c e lls . Jai le rs B a c on and To ble r e nc oura g e d th e inm ate s to “tak e ca re of them.” The Kelley brothers w ere beate n by

other inmates a

nd wer e g iven medica l attent io nat t

h e Ja il
. T h e n e xt d ay , th e s e s ame tw o ja il e r s to o k an o th e r w h it e inmate , Wi lliam Campb e ll, la

be le d a s a “ sk inh e a d, ” int o a

ho ldi ng c e ll a nd be at hi m ba dly . Wh ite ha d th e tw o ja ile rs ’ c on du c t inve sti g ate d b y

the Ge or g ia

B ur e a u o f I nv e st igatio n. Af

te r t he inv e sti g atio n, Whit e te rm inate d the e mpl oy

me nt of bo th ja ile rs To ble r and B a c on ; and wa rr ants we re take n o ut f

or the ir arr e st. 14 Inc ontra st, the e vid en ce pr es en te d inthi s c as e pa int s apic tur e, w hil e not ide al , that i s le ss s ev er e than w ha t w oul d be suf fi ci en t t o r ise to the le ve l of dem onstrating objec tively a substantial risk o f serious harm to inm ates. Inm ates at T oom bs C ounty

Ja il w er e se gr eg at ed

ba se d onanum

be r of part ic ulari ze d f

ac tor s, inc lud ing the kin d of

c ri m e co m

m itt ed a nd an in m at e’ s po te nti al pe rs ona l c onf lic ts
w ithoth er s. Mo re ove r, the Ja il w as not und er sta ff

ed on the nig ht o f the a tta ck : five office rs w ere on du ty , which is ty pical for T oom

bs Coun ty
. Jail officials had

18
a his tor y of pun ish ing inm at e vio le nc e, r athe r than lo oki ng the oth er w ay to 19 pr es er ve the status quo . A nd w hil e inm at e fi ght ing doe s ha ppe n inT oom

bs 20 County , the r ecord is insufficient to sho w that ser ious in m ate-on-inm ate violenceNot many serious fig hts seem to have ha ppened at this J ail. Despite his conc lusory comment 21 that fig hts are “ a re g ular thing ” in the Jail, Daniel Mor g an’s de position t estimony produce d a dmi ssi ble e vid e nc e of on ly thr e e fi g hts
. Of the se thr e e , on e wa s se ri ou s e no ug h to re su lt i n a tr ip to the hospital, one resulted in a noseblee d (it is unc lear whether a hospital visit was nece ssary ), and o n e wa s a skirmish at most. Beyond Daniel Morg an’s testimony , one of the deposed ja ilers who worke d the nig ht shift for over t wo y ea rs could re member only two or three inmate fig hts. W hen Deputy Har lin (another ja iler) wa s asked if he could remember inmate fig hts involvi nga trip to the hospital, Deputy

Har lin, who had worke d the night shift f or over four y ear s, vaguely responde d that there had bee n “seve ral incide nts over the year s;” but h e co u l d re count no spec ific incidents or numbers. Nothingin the rec ord indicate s that serious inmate-on- inmate violen ce at the Jail was perva sive. “I n response to a summary judgme nt motion . . . pl aintiff ca n no longe r re st on . . . ‘mere alleg ations,’ but must ‘set forth’ . . . ‘ specific fac ts.’” Lujan v. Def ender s of Wildl ife, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 2137 (1992) ( citations omitt ed). “Infer ence s from the nonmoving party ’s ‘spec ific fa cts’ as to other materia l fac ts, however , may be dra wn only if they are rea sonabl e i n view of othe r undisputed background or c ontext ual fa cts and o n l y if such infe renc es ar e per missibl e under

the g overning substantive law.” Mize v. Jeffer son City Bd. of Educ., 93 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir. 1996) (quoting T. W. E le c . Se rv . Inc . v. Pa c . El e c . Contr a c tor s As s’ n, 80 9 F .2 d 6 26 , 6 31 (9 th C ir . 1 98 7) ). In a ja il that houses over

a hundred i n m at es , evidenc es of two to thre e pre tty serious inmate fights over a period of nine months and of not ve ry many other fights over a f our-year span, ca nnot establish that serious inmate-on- inmate violence was fr equent a nd perva sive. By the way , we acknowledg e that it, in cer tain circ umstances, mig ht be possible to base a n Eig hth Amendment violation o n i n m at e-on-inmate violence in the absenc e of a history of such violence. See M arsh, 268 F.3d at 1033-34. But given the other c ircumstance s here , this case is not such a c ase. 15 wa s the norm

or som ething clos e to it. A lso, the fights that did occur w ere linked 21 to no recurring specific ca use: causes ran the gam

ut from disagreem ents over television channels, to reta liation for pre-incarc eration street a ctivity , to card ga m es , to fo od. P u r c e l l h a s p r o du c e de v i d e n c e , mai n l y fr o m Da n i e l M o r g a n ’s t e s t i mo n y, tha t a f ewse ri ous fi ght s oc curr ed ( se ve re e noug h to r es ult

in a tr ip t o th e hosp ita l) atth e Ja il be fo re Ma tt he w Mo rg an ’s att ack . No rec or d e vi de nc e, ho wev er, s ho wsWe d o n ot d e c ide tha t K ig ht a nd Whit e are re sp on sib le fo r t he Jail ’s phy sic a l c on dit ion ; but if 22 they wer e, our c onclusion would not chang e. The Jail’s policy

manual in ef

fec t at the time of this incident require d that g uards make rounds 23 in t he ja il a re a “ a s o ft e n a s p os sib le but no t le ss t ha n o nc e pe r h our. ” Stand ard practi ce wa s to co n d u ctth re e “ b edco un t s ” a tn i gh t , two o f th em af t er “l i gh t s o u t ” ( ap p ro x i m at el y 1 1 : 0 0 ). Al th o u gh Daniel Morg an re members Jailer Dicke rson makinga round a fter “ lights out” on the night of the incident, Dicke rson does not r eca ll making that round. The Constit ution does not require that ever y inmate in a jail be obse rved by a g uard ever y twenty minutes. See g ener ally Popham, 908 F.2d at 1565. 16 that thos e incidents related to m oney . The district court see m ed to place critica l im portanc e on the Ja il’ s po lic y of a llo w ing inm at es to ha ve m one y w hil e incarce rated. While such a policym ay possi bly not be the best practice, we are unprepared to say

that it is a violatio n of the federa l Constitu tion to allow inm ates to ha ve so m e cas h i ns id e a jail
. Nor does the Jail’ s phy sical plant itself (j ails can alm ost alway s be better
an d m or e se cure ) pr es en t an ob j ec tiv el y sub stanti al r isk

of se ri ous ha rm . T he

22
re co rd e vid en ce , a t w or st, sho w s th at the phy sic al lay out

of the Ja il pr es en te d th e j ai le rs w ithdif

fi cu lty in se ei ng i nto c er

ta in i nm at e ce lls , dur ing the nig ht, f ro m the
co ntr ol t ow er . Gua rd s a lso te sti fi ed that the y c oul d no t he ar

a s w el l f ro m ins ide the tower as they

could when standin g outs ide it. B ut in practice, the guards left the tow er a nd w al ke d aro und the c el lbl oc k are a to c ondu ct pe ri odi c ch ec ks; noth ings s uggests difficulty in seeing into the cells or hear ing cell activity when
w al kin g aro und. 2317

The r ecord does not su pport Purcell’ s contentio ns that the cond ition s -- be ar ing e ve ry

thi ng i n m ind

- - ro se to the le ve l of

a“ subs tanti al ”o r “ suf

fi ci en tly serious” risk as oppo sed to som e lesser r isk of harm . S ee F arm er, 114 S.Ct. at 1977
. In the j ail setting, a risk of harm to som e degree alway s exists bythe nature of it s be ing aj ai l. S ee W ils on v . S ei te r, 111 S
. Ct
. 232 1, 232 4 ( 1991 ) (“ T he Co nst itu tio n, w e sa id, doe s no t m an da te c om fo rt ab le pr iso ns, a nd o nly tho se deprivation s deny ing th e m inim al civilized m easure of life’ s necessities are sufficiently

grave to form

the basis of an Eighth Am endm ent violatio n.” ( internal citations and q uotatio ns om itted)). T hus we conclude that Purcell has f ailed to set out e vid en ce on s um

m ar y j udgm en t tha t su

ppor ts the c onc lus ionthat the T oom bs Co unty Ja il co ndi tio ns ( one thi ng, take n w itha nothe r) pos ed asub stanti al r isk

of
se ri ous ha rm

to Mor ga n or

oth er inm at es a nd, thu s, c oul d be ar out a n E igh th A m en dm en t vi ola tio n. W e do n ot, by

tod ay ’ s c onc lus ion , e sta

bli sh e ith er

Mars h or H al e as the pr ove rb ia l “ fl oor ” of

li ab ili ty f or E igh th A m en dm en t purp ose s. W e onl y de ci de tha t the c ondi tio ns e vid en ce d by the r ec or d he re w er e not suf fi ci en tly gr av e to violate the Const itutio n. W e note also that Plaintiff has survived su m m ary j udgm ent on her state lawclaim s soun ding in neglig ence against the indivi dual defendants and m ight su ccee d at trial on those claim s. W e do not decide tod ayWe s e e an e rr or in t he dis tr ic t c ourt ’s a

pp lic atio n o f t

he su bj ect ive a sp e c t of

the Ei g hth 24 Am e ndme nt i nq

uir y . In a sse ssi ngthe e vid e nc e pr e se nte d b y Pur c e ll, the dis tr ic t c ourt a ppe ars to have f ocused e ntirely

on whether

or not the complaine d-of c onditi o n s posed a substantial risk of se ri ou s harm a

nd wh e the r t

he c on dit ion s c a

us e d M or g an’ s in

jur ie s. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

se e min g ly failed a ltoge ther to test the evide nce f or the c ru ci al l ink betwee n the alleg ed substantial risk of serious h ar m p osed by

the conditions and De fenda nt Kight’ s and De fenda

nt Whi te’s ac tual awa re ne ss of that pur

po rt e d sub sta

nti a l risk
. B e c a

us e we c on c lud e the c ir c ums tanc e s p re se nte d f a il the Eig hth Amendment s t an d ar d at the “substantial risk” sta g e, it follows that Def endants did not have subje ctive knowledg e of c ircumstance s amounting to a constitutional viol ation. About immunit y , we need not addre ss the element of preexis ting clear ly established law. B ut 25 ou t o f ana b un d a n c e o f c a u ti o n , w e s tate th e o b v io u s : b e c a u s e w e s e e n o f

e d e r a l c o nstitut ional violation, it foll ows that no pree x isting law put De fenda nts on notice that the jail conditions at Toombs County

clea rly violated th e C onstitut ion. Even if a f eder al-lawviolation is presented by the se fa c ts, De fe nd ants are du e qu a lif ie d immunit

y fr om sui t. Th e c ir c ums tanc e s her e we re no t so 18 tha t P la int if

f is d ue no r em edy . B ut w e, a s a m at te r of law , do c onc lud e tha t no
rem edy against Kight and W hite, in their individ ual capacities, is supp lied to her by the E igh th A m en dm en t’ s pr ohi bit iona ga ins t c ru el a nd u nusu al pun ish m en t: the Co nst itu tio n do es not “ supp lant tra dit ion al tor

t l awin lay ing dow n r

ule s of conduct to regulate liability for inj uries that attend livin g togeth er in society .” Daniels v. W illiam s, 106 S. Ct. 662, 665 (198 6). “ Reasonable car e” under tort law is not th e sam e thing as reasonable safety within the m eaning of the federa l Co nst itu tio n. Our c onclusi on that Purcell has failed to establish that Defe ndants v iolated Ma tth ewMo rg an ’ s c onst itu tio na l r igh ts unde r the E igh th A m en dm en t r em ove s th e
ne ed to re ac h th e re m ai nin g qu es tio ns o f de lib er at e ind if fe re nc e, c au sa tio n, or

24 pr eex is ti ng cle arl y

est ab li sh edlaw. 25terrible to violate the Eig hth Amendment clea rly and on its fac e. In Hope v. Pelzer, 122 S.Ct . 2508, 2516-17 (2002) , a pre vious Circuit decision (Gate s v. Colli er, 501 F .2d 1291 (5th Cir. 1974)) ho lding unconstitutional the “handc uffing[of] inmates to the fenc e and to c ells” was a sufficie nt foundation for notice that handcuf

fing inmates to a hit ching post also was unc onstitut ional: the Supreme Court saw no re as o n t o d ra w a distinction betwee n Gates a nd Hope. I d. at 2517. Unlike Hope , the pree x isting ca se law here varie d enoug h from the materia l f acts of this c ase that a re asonable jailer co u l d believe that the fac tual differ ence s could make the situation at this J ail lawful e ven whe n c ir c ums tanc e s in

the e arl ie r c a se s w e re de te rm ine d to b e un lawf ul u nd e r f e de ra l la w: the pr e c e de nts do not “ s qu ar e ly g o v e r

n ” th e c a s e h e r e . Se e g e n e r a ll y B r o s s e a u v . H a u g e n , 1 2 5 S. Ct
. 5 9 6 , 600 (2 00 4) . F or

fu rt he r b a c kg ro un d o n th e us e of jud ic ia l de c isi on s a s n oti c e tha t pr e e xistin glaw c le arl y established that ce rtain conduc t violated fede ral law , see Pac e v. Capobianc o, 283 F.3d 1275, 1283 (11th Cir. 2002), and Ma

rsh, 268 F.3d a

t 1031-33. We reviewsuch a denial of Eleventh Amendment immunity on motion for summary

judgme nt 26 de novo. Mande rs v. L ee, 338 F .3d 1304, 1307-08 (11th Cir. 2003)(e n banc)
. 19 II. Elev enth Am endment Im munity.

Sh er if f K igh t arg ue s th at , in his of fi ci al c ap ac ity , he is en tit le d to E le ve nth A m en dm en t i m

m uni ty be ca use in es ta

bli shi ng and a dm ini ste ri ng j ai l po lic ie s and pr ac tic es , he - - as she ri ff

- - func tio ns a s an arm

of the S ta te of

G eo rg ia
. T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d E le ve nthA m en dm en t i m m uni ty to Sh er if f K igh t ba se d onthi s Co u rt ’s p an el o p i n i o n i n Ma n d er s v . Le e, 2 8 5 F. 3 d9 8 3 (1 1 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 2 ). W e 26 ha ve sin ce va ca te d th e Mande rs pane l op ini on and i ssu ed a n e n banc de ci sio n de te rm ini ng, und er

the c ir cu m stanc es of

that c as e, that a

G eo rg iashe ri ff

sue d in his of fi ci al c ap ac ity

f unc tio ns a s an “ ar

m of the S ta te
. ” Mande rs v. L ee , 338 F
. 3d 1304 , 1305 (11th Cir. 2003)(en banc).J ail Administrator Whit e wa s also sued in his official c apac ity . The district co u rt d i dnot 27 addre ss whether

Whit e would be entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunit y and that issue wa s not raised be fore us on appea l. 20 A lth oughw e de cl ine d to de te rm ine that a G eo rg iashe ri ff

w ears a“ sta te hat” for a ll functions , w e decided that a sheriff ’ s “ authorityand dutyto adm inister th e jail in hi s ju ris di ct io n fl ows fro m th e St at e, no t [t he ] Co un ty.” Id. at13 15
. Thus Manders controls our determ ination here; S heriff Kight functions as an ar m of the S ta te - - not

of T oom bs C ounty

- - w he n pr om

ulg at ing pol ic ie s and pr oc edur es go ve rn in g c on di ti on s o f co nf in em en t at th e Too m

bs Co un ty Jail
. Ac cordingly , e ven if Purce ll had establish ed a constitutio nal violatio n, Sher iff Kight would be entitled to Eleventh Am endm ent im m unityfrom

suit in h is official
c ap a c i t y. 27 REVERSED.