FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT DE CEM B ER 21, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NOT P UB L I S H] I N TH E U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 10016 N on - A r gu m e n t C al e n d ar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 0 - 0 3 1 0 6 - C V - T MP J O H N N Y C A R R O L L , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s C O R R E C T I O N A L M E D I C A L S E R V I C E S , R A L P H H O O K S , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A p p ealfr om th e U n i te d S tate s D i st ri ct C ou rt f o r t h e No r t h e r n Di s t r i c t o f Al a b a ma

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 21, 2005) B efo re B L A C K , B A R K E T T a n d W IL S O N , C i rcu i t J u d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Carroll does not raise any argument involving def

endant Ralph Hooks. Theref ore, such 1 claims areabandone d. Se eMa rek v . S ingle tar y , 62 F.3d 1295, 1298 n.2 ( 11th Cir. 1995) (“I ssues not clea

rly raised in the briefs are considered a bandoned” ). 2 J ohnny C a rr ol l , a n A l aba m apr i s one rpr oc e e di ng p ro se , appe a l s the di sm i ss al of hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3 ci vi l com pl ai ntand rai se s f ou r s epar at e i ss ues concerni ng the di stri ctcourt ’ s gra ntof sum m ary j ud gm entfor C orre ct i on al M e di c a l S e rvi c e s ( “ C M S ” ) a nd the m a gi s tr a t e j udge ’ s de ni a l of C a rr ol l ’ s m ot i ons f o rd e f a u lt ju d g m e n t, f

o rap p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n s e l, a n d f

o raju ry tr ia l. F ir s t,

1 C a rr o ll a r g u e s th a t, b e c a u s e C M S d id n o t a n s w e ro rp le a d in r e s p o n s e to h is c la im for a l m oston e y ea r, he w as ent i t l ed t o j ud gm entby defaul t . C arrol l cont ends that C M S ’ s i nact i on w as del i bera t e a nd C M S ’ s e xcuse f or fa i l ure t o p l ea d w as i nsuffi ci ent . S ec on d, C arrol l ar gu es thathe shou l d h ave been appoint ed coun se l be c a us e of

hi s phy s i c a l c ondi t i on, the c om pl e xi ty of hi s c a s e , a nd the na tur e of the ri gh t s i nv ol ved. C arrol l al so cont ends thathe w as further hi nd er ed because he w as ho used i n the m edi ca l un i tor re cuperat i ng fr om surgery w hen the pl ea di ng s w er e f ile d . T h ir d , C a rr o ll a s s e r ts th a t C M S v io la te d h is c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts b y w r o n g ly di agno si ng hi m w i th C rohn ’ s di se as e, fa i l i ng t o revi ew hi s m edi ca l re cords that n o te d ac h a n g e in h is d ia g n o s is , a n d d e la y in g th e r e v e r s a l o f h is ile o s to m y , in vi ol at i on of hi s E i gh tA m endm entprot ec t i on agai nstcruel and u nu sual puni s hm e nt . F our th, C a rr ol l a r gue s tha thi s de m a nd f oraj ury tr i a l w a s not3

unt i m e l y be c a us e the l a s tpl e a di ng f i l e d i n hi s c a s e w a s notthe s pe c i a l r e por tby CM S. I. W e r e vi e w ade c i s i on t o gr a ntorde ny am ot i on f orde f a ul tj udgm e ntf

or ab u s e o f d is c r e tio n . W

ah l v. McI ve r , 77 3 F . 2d 11 69 , 11 74 (11th C i r. 19 85 ) ( per c u r ia m ) . G r a n t o f

d e f a u lt ju d g m e n t “is ad r a s tic r e m e d y w h ic h s h o u ld b e u s e d o n ly i n extre m e s i tuat i on s. ” Id . H e r e , C a rr o ll m o v e d f

o rad e f a u lt ju d g m e n t a g a in s t C M S a f te rit f a ile d to subm i ta s peci al re po rtw i thi n 6 0 d ay s of the m agi stra t e j ud ge’ s order . In an order e nt e r e d on S e pt e m be r30, 2003, the m a gi s tr a t e j udge de ni e d C a rr ol l ’ s m ot i on because “ [c ] ou nsel for [ C M S ] cont ac t ed the court[] and i nform ed the courtthat coun se l had n otre ce i ved a copy of the O rderre qu es t i ng that[C M S ] fi l e aspec i al rep o rti n resp o n se t o [C arro l l ’ s] al l eg at i o n s ag ai n sti t . ” In l i g h to f th ese ci rc um st ance s a nd “ the usual pref er ence thatca se s be hea rd on the m er i t s, ” id . , the m a gi s tr a t e j udge ’ s de ni a l of C a rr ol l ’ s m ot i on w a s nota n abus e of di s c r e t i on. II.

“ W e r evi ew a . . . deci si on no tt o app oi ntcoun se l for a n abu se of di sc re t i on . ” U ni ted Stat es v. B er

ger , 3 7 5 F .3 d 1 2 2 3 , 1 2 2 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) .

“ A pp oi ntm entof coun se l i n a ci vi l ca se i s nota c on st i tut i on al ri gh t . ” Fow l erv.4

Jones , 8 9 9 F .2 d 1 0 8 8 , 1 0 9 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) . R a th e r , “[ i]t is ap r iv ile g e th a t is j ust i fi ed on l y by e xcept i on al ci rc um st ance s, such as w here the fa ct s a nd l egal i ss ues a re so no vel or com pl ex as t o requi re the as si st ance of a tra i ned prac t i t i on er . ” Id . In thi s c as e, there w er e no except i on al ci rc um st ance s thatw ou l d requi re appo i ntm entof coun se l , as the fa ct s a nd l egal i ss ues w er e nei ther part i cul ar l y nov el norc om pl e x. T he r e f

or e , the m a gi s tr a t e j udge di d notabus e hi s di s c r e t i on w he n he d e n ie d C a rr o ll’s m o tio n s f o rap p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n s e l. III. W e r e vi e w adi s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof s um m a ry j udgm e ntde novo, vi e w i ng th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to th e p a r ty o p p o s in g th e m o tio n . Mc C or v e y v . B ax te rH

e al thc ar e C or

p. , 2 9 8 F .3 d 1 2 5 3 , 1 2 5 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . F e d e r a l R u le o f

C iv il P r o c e d u r e 5 6 ( c ) s ta te s th a t s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t is ap p r o p r ia te

“ i f the pl ea di ng s, depo si t i on s, answ er s t o i nt errogat ori es and adm i ss i on s on fi l e, t oge the rw i th the a f

f i da vi t s , i f

a ny , s how tha tthe r e i s no ge nui ne i s s ue a s t o a ny m a t e r i a l f

a c ta nd tha tthe m ovi ng pa r ty i s e nt i t l e d t o aj udgm e nta s am a tt e rof la w .” “A m e r e ‘s c in tilla ’ o f e v id e n c e s u p p o r tin g th e o p p o s in g p a r ty ’s p o s itio n w ill nots uf f i c e ; the r e m us tbe e nough of as how i ng tha tthe j ury c oul d r e a s onabl y f i nd for thatparty. ” W

alke rv . D ar by , 91 1 F . 2d 15 73 , 15 77 (11th C i r. 19 90 ).5

“ [D ] el i bera t e i nd i ff

er ence t o ser i ou s m edi ca l needs of pri soners const i tut es th e u n n e c e s s a ry a n d w a n to n in f lic tio n o f p a in p r o s c r ib e d b y th e E ig h t A m e n d m e n t. Es te lle v . G a m b le , 429 U . S . 97, 104, 97 S . C t . 285, 291, 50 L . E d. 2d 251 ( 1976) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . H o w e v e r , “[ m ]e d ic a l tr e a tm e n t v io la te s th e [ E ]ig h th [A ] m endm enton l y w hen i ti s s o g ross l y i ncom pet ent , i nadequ at e, or exces si ve as t o sho ck the consci ence or t o b e i nt ol er abl e t o fun dam ent al fa i rnes s. M er e i nci dent s of negl i gence or m al prac t i ce do no tri se t o the l evel of const i tut i on al vi ol at i on s. ” H

arris v . T higp en , 94 1 F . 2d 14 95 , 15 05 (11th C i r. 19 91 ) ( i nt ernal quot a t i on om i tt e d) . “ A n i nm a t e w ho c om pl a i ns tha t[ a ] de l a y i n m e di c a l tr e a tm e nt r os e t o ac ons t i tut i ona l vi ol a t i on m us tpl a c e ve r i f y i ng m e di c a l e vi de nc e i n the r e c o r d to e s tab lis h th e d e tr im e n ta l e f f e c t o f [ th e ] d e la y in m e d ic a l tr e a tm e n t to succ ee d. ” Hi l l

v. D eKa lb R eg ’l

Y o u th D et . C tr. , 40 F . 3d 11 76 , 11 88 (11th C i r. 1 9 9 4 ) , ab roga ted on other groun ds by H op e v . P el

ze r , 5 3 6 U .S . 7 3 0 , 1 2 2 S . C t. 2 5 0 8 , 1 5 3 L . E d . 2 d 6 6 6 ( 2 0 0 2 ) . “W h e th e rth is d e la y in tr e a tm e n t w a s to le r ab le depend s on the nature of the m edi ca l need and the re as on for the del ay . ” Farrow v. W est , 32 0 F . 3d 12 35 , 12 47 (11th C i r. 20 03 ) ( i nt ernal qu ot at i on om i tt ed).

“ T o s how tha tapr i s on of f i c i a l a c t e d w i th de l i be r a t e i ndi f f e r e nc e t o s e r i ous m edi ca l needs, a pl ai nt i ff m ustsa t i sf

y both an o bj ec t i ve and a subj ec t i ve i nq ui ry . ” Id . at12 43 . A pl ai nt i ff

m ustfi rs tshow “ an obj ec t i vel y s er i ou s m edi ca l need. ” Id .We note that the mag istrate judg e, the district cour t, and Carroll in his initial brief, treat 2 CMS as an individual, while CMS argues that it is a corporate entity and therefore is “not c a pa bleof ‘p ers on ally ’ viol atingthec on stitution al rightsof an individual.”Ho wever, it i s unnece ssary

to addre ss this di stinction, as Carroll has failed to establish a constitutional violation. 6 H e m u s t th e n “p r o v e th a t th e p r is o n o f f ic ia l a c te d w ith a n a ttitu d e o f d e lib e r a te i nd i ff er ence t o thatse ri ou s m edi ca l need. ” Id . (quo t at i on om i tt ed). H ere, C arro l l ’ s co n d i t i o n w as o b j ect i v el y seri o u s as i tw as d i ag n o sed b y a p h y s i c i a n w h o m a n d a t e dtr e a tm e n t . H o w e v e r , C a rr o l l h a s f a i l e d t o s h o w th a tC MS a c t e d w i th de l i be r a t e i ndi f f e r e nc e , a s C a rr ol l w a s e xa m i ne d, m oni t or e d, e va l ua t e d, a nd c a r e d f

orr e gul a r l y by phy s i c i a ns a nd nur s e s a tthe pr i s on a nd l oc a l out s i de f a c ilitie s . A c c o r d in g ly , C a rr o ll h a s n o t s h o w n av io la tio n o f h is E ig h th A m e ndm e ntr i ght s , a nd the di s tr i c tc our tpr ope r l y gr a nt e d s um m a ry j udgm e ntf or CM S. 2 I V. I n a ddr e s s i ng the i s s ue of m ootne s s , w e ha ve he l d tha tac l a i m “ i s m oot w h e n th e is s u e s p r e s e n te d a r e n o lo n g e rliv e o rth e p a r tie s la c k ale g a lly c o g n iz ab le i nt er es ti n the ou t com e. ” D up re e v . P alm er , 284 F . 3d 1234, 1237 ( 11th C i r . 2002) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . J u r is d ic tio n m a y ab a te d u e to m o o tn e s s w h e n “( 1 ) it c a n b e s a id w ith a s s u r a n c e th a t th e r e is n o r e a s o n ab le e x p e c ta tio n . . . th a t th e a lle g e d v io la tio n w ill re cur, and (2) i nt er i m re l i ef or event s have c om pl et el y a nd i rr evocabl y e ra di ca t ed7

the ef fe ct s of the al l eged vi ol at i on . ” Id . B ec ause w e have af fi rm ed the di stri ct c our t ’ s gr a ntof

s um m a ry j udgm e nt , C a rr ol l ’ s appe a l of the de ni a l of

hi s m ot i ons f o raju ry tr ia l is m o o t. C on c l u s i on Up o n r e v i e w o f

th e r e c o r d a n d c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f th e p a r t i e s ’ b r i e f

s , we di s c e rn no r e ve r s i bl e e rr ori n: ( 1) the m a gi s tr a t e j udge ’ s de ni a l of C a rr ol l ’ s m ot i on f orde f a ul tj udgm e nt ; ( 2) the m a gi s tr a t e j udge ’ s de ni a l of C a rr ol l ’ s m ot i on f

or appoi ntm e ntof

c ouns e l ; ( 3) the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof s um m a ry j udgm e nti n f a vor o f C M S ; o r( 4 ) th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e ’s d e n ia l o f C a rr o ll’s m o tio n s f

o raju ry tr ia l. A c c o r d i n g l y , w e a f

f i rm. AF F I RME D.