FI L ED
U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S

EL EVENTH CI RCUI T
J UNE 28, 2011

J OHN L EY
CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

No. 1 0- 11 91 9

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

D.C. Dock et No. 5 :0 8- cv -0 03 51 -WT H-GRJ

DAVID I. MACMI LLAN,

Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt

,

ve rs us

LANE RODDE NBERRY, i nd iv id ua ll y , and in hi s of fic ia l ca pa ci ty as Lak e Co un ty D ep ut y Sh eri ff, SHANE PITMAN, in di vi du al ly, an d i n h is off ic ia l ca pa ci ty

as Lake Co un ty D ep ut y

Sh eri ff, et al.,

Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees

.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t for th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
(J un e 2 8, 2 01 1)

Befo re EDMONDSON an d M ARCUS, Ci rcu it Ju dg es , and LAW SON, Dis tri ct *

Ju dg e.

Honora

ble Hug h L awson, United States District Judge for the Middle D istrict of *

Geor g ia, sitting by

desig nation.PER CURI AM:

In th is ci vi l rig ht s cas e, Dav id I. Mac Mi ll an , who su ffer ed a le g in jury aft er he

was rep eat ed ly ta se d by two de pu ty sh eri ffs du rin g an arre st ari si ng ou t of a do m es ti c- 1

vi ol en ce 91 1 cal l, ap pe al s a di st ric t co ur t o r d e r g r a nt in g su m m ary jud gm en t on hi s

m un ic ip al li ab il it y cl ai m s of ex ces si ve fo rce an d de li be rat e in di ffer en ce to hi s se rio us

m ed ic al ne ed s. He al so ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of hi s m ot io n fo r a ne w tri al

on acco un t o f al le ge d ev id en ti ary erro rs at th e tri al of hi s ex ces si ve fo rce cl ai m s

a g a i n s t t he two de pu ty sh eri ffs su ed in th ei r in di vi du al cap aci ti es

. Afte r th or ou g h

rev ie w, we affi rm

th e jud gm en ts of t he di st ric t co ur t.

I.

The ba si c fact s are thes e: On th e ev en in g of Sep te m be r 1, 20 04

, Hol ly Fert el l,

who was at th e ti m e li vi ng wit h Mac Mi ll an , cal le d 91 1 to al ert th e po li ce th at

Mac Mi ll an was hu r ti ng he r. Dep ut y Sh eri ffs Lan e Ro dd en be rry an d Sh an e Pi tm an

were cal le d to th e sc en e. A 91 1 C o m pu te r-As si st ed Dis pa tc h Rep or t in tro du ced at

tri al rev eal ed th at Fert el l cl ai m ed th at Mac Mi ll an m ig ht be arm ed

, an d sh e to ld th e 91 1

di sp at ch er t ha t s he ha d t o h an g u p o r sh e “ wil l b e d ead .” (Dk t. 2 0- 6 a t 1 07 -1 08 )

“Ta ser” is a trade mark used f or a hig h-voltag e stun g un. See Mann v. Ta ser I nt’l, I nc., 1 588 F.3d 1291, 1298 n.1 ( 11th Cir. 2009). “To tase ” a pe rson means to shock him or he r with a

taser.

2Acco rd in g to Mac Mi ll an ’s te st im on y at hi s c iv il rig ht s tri al

, he di d no t kn ow

th at Fert el l ha d pl aced th e cal l, an d al l th at ha d oc cu rred be twee n th em was th at Fert el l

ha d arri ve d at th e ho us e in to xi cat ed , a nd he ha d to ld he r no t to dr iv e an d to ok away

th e car ke y s. S h e t h e n l e f t, an d as he was pr ep ari ng to sh owe r, he su dd en ly sa w

D eput y Sh eri ff Ro dd en be rry ou ts id e th ro ug h an open ba thr oom w ind ow

. Ro dde nbe rr y

or de red hi m to free ze and th en im m ed ia te ly ta se d hi m on hi s bare ch es t. Mac Mi ll an

fel l fo rward in pa in ; Rod de nb erry th en ta se d hi m a se co nd ti m e in th e ch es t. Dep ut y

S h e r iff Pi tm an al so ta se d hi m

. Mac Mi ll an co ll ap se d an d st um bl ed in to th e g a r a g e

.

W he n t he off

ic ers fou nd hi m

in th e g arag e, hi s ba ck was to th em , and he was s it ti ng

on a be nc h. The de pu ti es or de red hi m to pu t hi s ha nd s in th e ai r, an d he co m pl ie d, bu t

th ey ta se d hi m st il l ag ai n. Eve n aft er he was co m pl et el y su bd ue d, th ey jum pe d on hi s

ba ck an d co nt in ue d ta si ng hi m , al so in juri ng hi s le g at so m e po in t. The de pu ti es th en

fo rci bl y pu ll ed hi s arm s b e h i n d h i s ba ck an d co nt in ue d to ta se hi m ev en as he was

ha nd cu ffed , cau si ng sev ere p ai n a nd in jury to h is sh ou ld er. (Dk t. 7 6 a t 4 9- 62 )

Not su rp r i s i n g ly, th e de fen da nt s’ acco un ts di ffer ed sh arp ly. Befo re Dep ut y

Ro dd en be rry ta se d Mac Mi ll an , he id en ti fie d hi m se lf an d or de red Mac Mi ll an to sh ow

hi s ha nd s. In st ead of co m pl y in g, Mac Mi l l a n cu rs ed an d ap pr oa ch ed Dep ut y

Ro dd en be rry in an ag gr es si ve m an ne r. Mac Mi ll an was un affe ct ed by th e fir st ta si ng

an d, no ta bl y , fai le d to co m pl y wit h th e of

fic er’s co nt i n u e d o r de rs , so Ro dd en be rry

3ta se d hi m ag ai n, st il l wit ho ut effe ct ; th en Pi tm an ta se d hi m

. W he n th ey fo un d hi m in

th e ga rag e, Mac Mi ll an ag ai n fai le d to co m pl y wit h th e co m

m an d to ge t on th e gr ou nd

an d st art ed ap pr oa ch in g th e of fic ers , so Ro dd en be rry ag ai n ta se d hi m ; on ly th is ti m e

th e ta se was effe ct iv e. Ro dd en be rry th en pe rfo rm ed a “ dr iv e st un ”
-- whi ch in vo lv ed

us in g th e ta se r wit ho ut a ca r tri dg e -- to Mac Mi ll an ’s bi cep whi le he was be in g

ha nd cu ffed be cau se he was re si st in g. (Dk t. 7 7 a t 1 22 -3 3)

Mac Mi ll an was ta ke n di rect ly t o t h e ho sp it al by th e de pu ti es

. X-rays were

ta ke n. The x- rays di d no t rev eal an y frac tu res

. Mac Mi ll an was pr ov id ed a m et al kn ee

br ace fo r hi s le ft le g an d was tra ns po rte d to Lak e Co un ty Ja il an d bo ok ed on ch arg es

of do m es ti c vi ol en ce, po ss es si on of co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc es , an d res is ti ng arre st wit ho ut

vi ol en ce. Wh i l e in carc erat ed

, Mac Mi ll an co m pl ai ne d to jail pe rs on ne l rep eat ed ly

ab ou t pa in in hi s le ft le g an d as ke d to se e a do ct or an d/ or ha ve an MRI pe rfo rm ed

. He

fel l se ve ral ti m es , an d he was gi ve n cru tc he s, a w h e e l c h ai r, an d pa in m ed ic at io n.

Thre e da y s aft er hi s arre st

, he was ta ke n to th e ho sp it al fo r ad di ti on al x- rays an d pa in

m ed ic at io n, bu t th e x- rays (wh ic h are on ly cap ab le of de te ct in g frac tu res ) di d no t sh ow

an y pro bl em s.

4In Decem be r 20 04

, aft er Mac Mi ll an was gi ve n a CT sc an an d sa w a ph y si ci an

at th e jail (ap pa ren tl y fo r th e fir st ti m e), th e ph y si ci an or de red an MRI of hi s le ft le g. 2

An MRI was pe rfo rm ed on Ja nu ary 5, 20 05

, an d it r e v e a l e d t h at Mac Mi ll an ha d a

pa rti al te ar of hi s le ft qu ad ric ep te nd on , whi ch req ui red su rg ery. He was rel eas ed on

ba il an d s ub se qu en tl y

un de rwen t s ur ge ry

to rep ai r th e te nd on

.

On Decem

be r 1, 20 05

, Mac Mi ll an was acq ui tt ed of al l th e cri m in al ch arg es

le ve le d a ga in st hi m

. 3

Mac Mi ll an th en br ou gh t t h is la wsu it un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 in th e Uni te d

St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of Fl or id a on Au g u st 25

, 20 08

. His

or ig in al co m

pl ai nt al le gi ng ex ces si ve fo rce an d de li be rat e in di ffer en ce was lo dg ed

ag ai ns t Lak e Co un ty Sh eri ff Gary Bo rd ers in hi s of fic ia l cap aci ty an d ag ai ns t si x

de pu ty sh eri ffs in th ei r in di vi du al an d of fic ia l cap a c it ie s, in cl ud in g Ro dd en be rry ,

Pi tm an , a de pu ty na m ed G r eg Bare (ab ou t who m Mac Mi ll an la te r vo lu nt ari ly

di sm is se d al l cl ai m s)

, an d th ree un na m ed de pu ti es (ab ou t who m th e di st ric t co ur t

co nc lu de d th at Mac Mi ll an h a d a b a nd on ed hi s cl ai m s be cau se he m ad e no arg um en t

I t is unclear how

long Ma cMillan had be en inca rce rate d at this point. Alt houg h the 2 period may

have be en as muc h as three months after he was a rre sted and jailed, in his complaint and appe llate brief

MacMillan say s that he had be en inca rce rate d for some 45 da

y s. The district court likewise pla ced the time at 45 day s.

A jury found him not guilty

of possession of contr olled substances a nd resisting arr est 3 without violence; the domestic-violenc e cha rg e ag ainst him had alrea dy been dr opped.

5in su pp o r t o f t h e m (Dk t. 50

, SJ Ord er at 1 n.1 )). Sh eri ff Bo rd ers an d Dep ut ie s

Ro dd en be rry an d Pi tm an m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, an d al l pa rti es fil ed m ot io ns

in li m in e pr io r to th e sc he du le d tri al da te

. Mac Mi ll an ’s m ot io n in li m in e so ug ht to ba r

th e ad m is si bi li ty of hi s pr io r a rres ts

, co nv ic ti on s, an d al le ge d us e of st ero id s. The

de fen da nt s’ m ot io n in li m in e, in tu rn , so ug h t t o b l o c k th e ad m is si bi li ty of fif te en

ci ti zen co m

pl ai nt s ag ai ns t th e Lak e Co un ty Sh eri ff’s Offi ce th at Mac Mi ll an in te nd ed

to in tro du ce an d t o p rev en t M acM il la n fr om cal li ng do ct or s as ex pe rt wi tn es se s.

Afte r he ari ng arg um en t on th e pe nd in g m ot io ns , th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d

su m m ary jud gm en t to th e de fen da nt s on al l of fic ia l cap aci ty cl a i ms , b ut it de ni ed

su m m ary jud g men t t o th e two de pu ty sh eri ffs on th e in di vi du al cap aci ty ex ces si ve

fo rce c la im s, s et ti ng th e rem ai ni ng cla im s fo r tr ia l. The d is tri ct co ur t al so rul ed th at

al l bu t on e of th e ci ti zen co m pl ai nt s were no t rel ev an t, an d th at th e ad mi s s i b i l i t y of

ev erythi ng el se , in cl ud in g th e on e rem ai ni ng ci ti zen co m pl ai nt an d Mac Mi ll an ’s pr io r

arre st s, wo ul d b e ru le d o n a t t ria l.

Dur in g th e jury tr ia l, Mac Mi ll an ’s c ou ns el ob jecte d to th e de fen da nt s’ e ffo rts

to el ic it te st im on y co nc ern in g th e de fen da nt s’ pr io r kn owl ed ge th at Mac Mi ll an ha d a

pr op en si ty to vi ol en ce. Fi rs t, Dep ut y Sh eri ff Ro dd en be rry was as ke d, “ [b ]ased up on

y ou r ex pe rie nc e wit h Mr. Mac Mi ll an , wha t di d y ou wan t to do up on arri va l at th e

ho us e? ” (Dk t. 77 at 11 8) Mac Mi ll an ’s co un se l o b je c t e d

, bu t th e di st ric t co ur t

6ov erru le d th e ob jecti on be c a u s e “[w] ha t he un de rs to od or be li ev ed as it go es to hi s

st at e of m in d an d wha t he t h en di d or refr ai ne d fro m do in g is fo r th e jury’ s

ev al ua ti on .” (Dk t. 77 at 11 8) Ro dd en be rry was th en as ke d, ov er ob jecti on , whe th er

he ha d “ an y kn o w l e d g e or ba ck gr ou nd in co nn ect io n wit h th e po te nt ia l fo r vi ol en t

act io n” fro m Mac Mi ll an

. He an swe red th e qu es ti on affi rm at iv el y . ( Dkt . 7 7 a t 11 9)

Late r th at da y , Dep ut y Pi tm an was as ke d if he kn ew Mac Mi ll an pr io r to th e in ci de nt

.

P i t man s ai d th at he di d. Mac Mi ll an ’s co un se l ob jecte d ag ai n, an d th e co ur t ag ai n

ov erru le d th e ob

jecti on be cau se th e qu es ti on rel at ed to Pi tm an ’s st at e of m in d. (Dkt

.

77 at 19 6) Pi tm an was th en as ke d

, “[b ]ased up on y ou r ba ck gr ou nd an d ex pe rie nc e

wit h Mr. Mac M i l l a n , di d y ou feel th at he ha d a pr op en si ty to ward s vi ol en ce? ” He,

to o, an swe red th e q ue st io n a ffi rm at iv el y . (Dkt . 77 at 1 98 )

Mac Mi ll an ’s co un se l ag ai n o b je ct ed

, on th e gr ou nd s th at th e pl ai nt iff ’s

pr op en si ty to vi ol en ce co ns ti tu te d im pr op er ch arac te r ev id en ce, an d m ov ed fo r a

m is tri al . (Dkt . 77 at 1 99 ) The d is tri ct co ur t d en ie d t he m ot io n, ex pl ai ni ng :

I t s e em s to m e th e is su e fo r th e jury to de te rm in e is whe th er un de r t h e ci rcu m st an ces as kn own to or reas on ab ly be li ev ed by th e de fen da nt

, th e

us e of fo rce was reas on a b l e , a n d an y th in g th at he m ay ha ve ha d in hi s

m in d, ev en th ou gh it was erro ne ou s, it seem s to m e, is ad m is si bl e. And
th e weig ht to be gi ve n it is fo r th e jury’ s de te rm in at io n, so I’ll ov erru le
th at ob jecti on

.

7(Dk t. 77 at 1 9 9

- 2 0 0 ) F i n al ly, a th ird de pu ty who arri ve d on th e sc en e te st ifi ed th at

Ro dd en be rry an d ot he r de pu ti es al read y on th e sc en e to ld hi m “ th at it was a do m es ti c

c al l, th at th ere was a hi st or y of vi ol en ce.” (Dk t. 78 at 28 -2 9) Mac Mi ll an ’s c o u n s e l

ag ai n ob jecte d, an d ag ai n th e co ur t ov erru le d th e ob jecti on be cau se th e co m

m en t was

no t of fere d fo r th e tru th of th e m at te r as se rte d, bu t on ly to il lu m in at e th e of fic ers ’ st at e

of m in d. (Dk t. 78 at 29 ) At no po in t di d an y de pu ty te st ify m or e sp eci fic al ly ab ou t th e

ba si s fo r hi s kn owl ed ge ab ou t Mac Mi ll an or ab ou t an y sp eci fic pr io r cri m es , wro ng s,

or act s.

A t t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f t he tri al

, th e jury ren de red a ve rd i c t i n f a v o r o f

R o dd en be rry an d Pi tm an

. Ten da y s aft er th e ve rd ic t was ha nd ed do wn, Mac M i l l a n

fil ed a m ot io n fo r a ne w tri al

, whi ch th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed

. Th i s ti m el y ap pe al

en su ed

.

II.

W e r e vi ew a di st ric t co ur t’s or de r gr an ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo ,

“ ap pl y in g th e sa m e st an da rd th at bo un d th e di st ric t co ur t an d vi ewin g th e ev id en ce an d

al l reas on ab le in fere n c e s in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to ” th e no n- m ov in g pa rty.

Ro dr ig ue z v. Sec’y fo r Dep ’t of Co rr., 50 8 F.3 d 61 1, 61 6 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 07 ). Su m m ary

jud gm en t is ap pr op ria te whe re “ th ere is no ge nu in e di sp ut e as to an y m at eri al fact an d

th e m ov an t is en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w.” Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 5 6 (a). The

8m ov in g pa rty b ears th e in it ia l bu rd en of pr od uc ti on

. Fi ck li ng v. Uni te d St at es , 50 7

F.3 d 1 30 2, 1 30 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7)

.

W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s ev id en ti ary ru li ng s fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n, an d we

m ay on ly ov ert ur n su ch a ru li ng if th e m ov in g pa rty es t a bl is he s th at it res ul te d in a

“ su bs ta nt ia l pr ejud ic ia l effe ct .” Sch oo l Bd

. of Co ll ie r Cn ty. v. K.C., 2 8 5 F

. 3 d 9 77

,

98 0 ( 1 1 t h Ci r. 20 02 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. “ W he n ap pl y in g an ab us e of di sc ret io n

st an da rd

, we m

us t affi rm un le ss we at le as t de te rm in e th at th e di st ric t co ur t ha s m ad e

a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t, or ha s ap pl ie d an i n c or rect le ga l st an da rd .” Id

. (q uo ti ng

Pi am ba Co rte s v. Am

. Airl in es , In c., 17 7 F.3 d 12 72

, 13 05 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 99 )) (in te rn al

qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

. W e li ke wis e rev ie w th e de ni al of a m ot io n for a ne w tri al

fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. Ac t io n Mar in e, In c. v. Co nt ’l Carb on In c., 48 1 F.3 d 13 02

,

13 09 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ).

Mac Mi ll an fir st arg ue s t ha t th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in gr an ti ng su m m ary

jud gm en t on hi s of

fic ia l cap aci ty c l a im s ag ai ns t Sh eri ff Bo rd ers , whi ch are

fu nc ti on al ly cl ai m s ag ai ns t Lak e Co un ty. See Vin ey ard v. Cn ty. of Mu rray, 99 0 F.2 d

12 07 , 12 10 n.3 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ); B us by v. Cit y of Orl an do , 93 1 F.2d 76 4, 7 76 (11 th

Ci r. 19 91 ). Howev er, as th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s he ld

, whe re th ere ha s be en a jury

ve rd ic t fin di ng th at th e in di vi du al de fen da nt s (h ere Dep ut y Sh eri ffs Ro dd en be rry an d

Pi tm an ) di d no t in fli ct a co ns ti tu ti on al in jury (i.e

., us e of ex ces si ve fo rce in vi ol at io n

9of th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t), th ere can be no m un ic ip al li ab i l i t y f

or th e no ne xi st en t

co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n. Ci ty of Los Ang el es v. Hell er, 47 5 U.S. 79 6, 79 9 (1 98 6) ; se e

al so Ro on ey v. W at so n, 10 1 F.3 d 13 78

, 13 81 -8 2 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 96 ) (“ [O]ur fin di ng th at

th e Ro on ey s di d no t su ffer an y co ns ti tu ti on al de pr iv at io n m ak es it un n eces sa ry to

co ns id er Vol us ia C o u n t y’s po li cy or cu st om .”). Si nc e th e jury in th is cas e sq ua rel y

fo un d th at Ro dd en be rry an d Pi tm an di d no t us e ex ces si ve fo rce, Mac Mi ll an ’s ap pe al

fro m th e su m

m ary jud gm en t or de r in f a v o r o f th e Sh eri ff in hi s of fic ia l cap aci ty

ne ces sa ril y

m us t fa il , as wel l.

W e are al so un pe rs ua de d by Mac Mi l l an ’s ev id en ti ary ch al le ng e to th e tri al

jud ge ’s ru li ng s on Mac Mi ll an ’s hi st or y of vi ol en ce. The Su pr em e Co ur t h el d in

Grah am v. Co nn or , 49 0 U.S. 38 6 (1 98 9)

, th at “ a free ci ti zen ’s c l a i m t ha t la w

en fo rcem en t of

fic ia ls u s ed ex ces si ve fo rce in th e co ur se of m ak in g an arre st

. . . [ is ]

pr ope rl y an al y ze d unde r the Fo ur th A m endm en t’s ‘objec ti ve reas on ab le ne ss ’ st anda rd

,

rat he r th an un de r a su bs ta nt iv e du e pr oc es s st an da rd .” Id

. at 38 8. The ob jec t iv e

reas on ab le ne ss an al y si s i nv ol ve s a c aref ul ev al ua ti on of t he fact s and ci rcu m st an ces

su rro un di ng each cas e, in cl ud in g (1 ) th e se ve rit y of th e cri m e at is su e, (2 ) whe th er th e

s u sp ect po se s an im m ed ia te th reat to th e sa fet y of th e of fic ers or ot he rs , an d ( 3 )

whe th er th e su sp ect is act iv el y res is ti ng arre st or at te m pt in g to f l e e

. I d

. at 39 6.

Mo reo ve r, “ [t]he ‘reaso na bl en es s’ of a pa rti cu la r us e of fo rce m us t be jud ge d fro m th e

10pe rs pe ct iv e of a reas on ab le of fic er on th e sc en e, rat he r th an wit h t he 20 /2 0 vi si on of

hi nd si gh t.” Id

.

W e ha ve al so ex pl ai ne d th at whe th er th e am ou nt of fo rce us ed by a po li ce

of fic er was pr op er req ui res a co ur t to as k “ whe th er a reas on ab le of fic er wou ld be li ev e

th at th is le ve l of fo rce is ne ces sa ry in th e si tu at io n at ha nd .” McC ul lo ug h v. Ant ol in i,

55 9 F.3 d 12 01 , 1 20 6 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 09 ) (q uo ti ng Lee v . F erra ro , 2 84 F.3 d 11 88 , 1 19 7

(1 1t h Ci r. 20 02 )). Thi s req ui res th at “ in th e en d we m us t . . . s lo sh ou r way th ro ug h

th e fact bo un d m or as s of ‘reaso na bl en es s.’” Sco tt v. Harri s, 55 0 U.S. 37 2, 38 3 (2 00 7) ;

se e al so Pen le y

v. Es li ng er, 6 05 F.3d 84 3, 8 52 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ).

The te st im on y al lu di ng to Mac Mi ll an ’s pr op en si ty to vi ol en ce was of fere d an d

rece iv ed by t he di st ric t co ur t no t fo r th e tru th of t he m at te r as se rte d, bu t on ly, as th e

di st ric t co ur t ru le d, to es ta bl is h th e st at e of m in d of th e arre st in g of fic ers an d th ereb y

el uc id at e th e rea s on ab le ne ss of Ro dd en be rry ’s an d Pi tm an ’s act io ns

. Tha t th e

arre st in g de pu ti es ha d so m e reas on to be li ev e Mac Mi ll an was vi ol en t bo re di rect ly on

th ei r vi ew th at Mac Mi ll an po se d an im m ed ia te th reat to th ei r sa fet y an d to th e sa fet y

of ot he rs an d on th e reas on ab le ne ss o f t h e i r co nd uc t. W e can di sc ern no ab us e of

di sc ret io n h ere. No ta bl y , th e d ep ut ie s’ tes ti m on y was l im it ed to on e co m

m en t ea ch

,

no effo rt was m ad e to ex pl or e th e fo un da ti on s of th e co m m en ts

, an d th e di st ric t co ur t

ex pl ai ne d t o t he jury th at th e p ur po se of t he co m

m en ts was l im it ed to st at e o f m in d.

11Bu t ev en if we were to as su m e th at th e di st ric t co ur t ha d com m it te d evi de nt ia ry

erro r, Mac Mi ll an ha s fai le d to es ta bl is h th at it ha d a su bs ta nt ia l p r e ju di ci al effe ct

.

Oth er ev id en ce ad m it te d a t t ria l (t o wh ic h M acM il la n di d no t ob ject) als o s ug ge st ed

th at Mac Mi ll an act ua ll y was vi ol en t. Thu s, fo r ex am pl e, th e of fic ers te st ifi ed th at th ey

were i nf or m ed sp eci fic al ly tha t t he 91 1 c al le r sa id Mac Mi ll an m ig ht ha ve a gu n a nd

th at th e co m

pl ai ni ng wit ne ss sa id sh e ha d to ha ng up or sh e “ wil l be de ad .” Mo reo ve r,

th e 91 1 Co m

pu te r-As si st ed Dis pa tc h Rep or t, whi ch was ad m it te d in to e v id en ce

wit ho ut ob

jecti on , al so rel at ed th at Mac Mi ll an ha d an “ ex te ns iv e [cri m in al ] hi st or y .”

(Dk t. 7 7 a t 5 9, 7 1- 72 )

III.

W e tu rn fin al ly to Mac Mi ll an ’s cl ai m s t h a t Sh eri ff Bo rd ers was de li be rat el y

in di ffer en t to Mac Mi ll an ’s se rio us m ed ic al ne ed s an d t h a t he fai le d to tra in an d/ or

su pe rv is e th e jail pe rs on ne l co nc ern in g th e pr ov is io n of m ed ic al tre at m en t. Alt ho ug h

M acM il la n sa y s in a who ll y co nc lu so ry m an ne r th at th e Sh eri ff was de li be rat e l y

in di ffer en t to hi s se rio us m ed ic al ne ed s (Ap pe ll an t’s Br. at xi

, 15

, 17

, 18

, 24 ), he do es

no t m ak e a n y a rg um en t in su pp or t of th is cl ai m

. He ha s th eref or e ab an do ne d th e

arg um en t on ap pe al

. See Acces s Now, In c. v. Sw. Airl in es Co

., 38 5 F.3 d 13 24

, 13 30

(1 1t h Ci r. 20 04 ) (“ [T]he la w is by no w well se tt le d in th is Ci rcu it th at a le ga l cl ai m or

12arg um en t t ha t ha s no t be en br ie fed be fo re th e co ur t is de em ed ab an do ne d an d it s

m eri ts wil l n ot be ad dr es se d.” ).

Bu t ev en if we were to co nc lu de th at Mac Mi ll an ’s br ie f to th is co ur t m an ag ed

to pr es erv e th e cl ai m , we st il l co ul d no t fin d on th is reco rd th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d

i n g r a nt in g su m

m ary jud gm en t to th e Sh eri ff in hi s of fic ia l cap aci ty. To be gi n ,

Mac Mi llan doe s not al le ge tha t Sh eri ff Bo rd ers pe rs on al ly pa rti ci pa te d in Mac Mi ll an ’s

in carc erat io n, an d th ere is no vi cari ou s li ab il it y un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83

. Co ok ex rel

.

Est at e of Tess ie r v. Sh eri ff of Mo nr oe Cn ty., 40 2 F.3 d 10 92

, 11 15 -1 6 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ).

Thu s, to su ccee d on th is cl ai m , Mac Mi ll an m us t es ta bl is h ei th er th at Sh eri ff Bo rd ers

was o n n o t i c e of a hi st or y of ab us e at Lak e Co un ty Ja il

, or th at he ha d es ta bl is he d

cu st om s or po li ci es th at res ul te d in d e l i b erat e in di ffer en ce to Mac Mi ll an ’s

co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s. We s t v

. Til lm an , 49 6 F.3 d 13 21

, 13 28 -2 9 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 07 ).

Mac Mi ll an ha s pr es en te d no ev id en ce th at Sh eri ff Bo rd ers ad op te d a cu st om or po li cy

of de nyin g in m at es m ed ic al care

. As fo r no ti ce, he ha s of fere d on ly two is ol at ed

co m pl ai nt s, on ly on e of whi ch oc cu rred pr io r to hi s in carc erat io n. Neit he r co m pl ai nt

be ars an y si m il ari ty to Mac Mi ll an ’s cas e. In th e fir st co m pl ai nt

, whi ch to ok pl ace in

20 02

, al l th at is kn own fro m th is reco rd is th at a Lak e Co un ty Ja il in m at e’s un kn own

m ed ic at io n fo r an un kn own ai lm en t was red uc ed un de r un kn own ci rcu m st an ces , an d

no po li cy vi ol at io ns were fo un d aft er su bs eq ue nt rev ie w. (Dk t. 50

, SJ Ord er at 13 ) As

13fo r th e se co nd co m pl ai nt

, whi ch to ok pl ace in 20 08

, an in mat e co m pl ai ne d th at th e

m ed ic al st aff at Lak e Co un ty Ja il refu se d to ta ke hi s co m pl ai nt s of pa in se rio us ly; th e

co m pl ai nt was in ve st ig at ed an d ag ai n aft er rev ie w fo un d to be un su bs ta nt ia te d. (Id .)

Aga in

, we rep eat th at cl ai m s fo un de d in ne gl ig en ce or ev en gr os s ne gl ig en ce wil l no t

be en ou gh to st at e a cl ai m fo r de li be rat e in di ffer en ce. See, e.g ., You m an s v. Gag no n,

62 6 F .3d 55 7, 5 64 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ).

Acco rd in gl y , we di sc ern no erro r in th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r of fin al su m m ary

jud gm en t o r in an y

of i ts ev id en ti ary ru li ng s.

AFFIRMED

.

14