FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEPTEMBER 26, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U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- 14 19 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cv -0 35 90 -ODE SIRI CA BUMP US, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us HARRELL WATTS, MR. PETERSON, Jo hn Doe; em

pl oyed as Dent is t at Bu reauof P ris on s atUSP Atl an ta , JOHN R. RIC E, Co rrec ti on al Offic er atUSP Atl an ta , G. DUNCAN, Uni t M an ag er atUSP Atl an ta , LOREN GRAYER, W ard en , USP Atl an ta , et al ., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s- App el le es .__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 26 , 20 11 ) Befo re EDMONDSON, BARKETT andKRAVITCH, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Si ric a Bu m

pu s, p ro ceed in g pr o s e , app eal s the di st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l o f hi s ci vi l ri gh ts co m

pl ai ntforfai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m up on whi chrel ie f co ul d b e gr an te d, p ur su an t t o 2 8 U.S.C. § 19 15 A. Bum pu s’s ci vi l ri gh ts co m

pl ai nt , fil ed 1 pu rs ua ntto Bive ns v. Si

x Unk no wn Na med

Agen ts of

Fed. Bu re au of

Na rc ot ic s , 40 3 U.S. 3 88 (19 77 ), as se rte d tha t the de fen dant s h adbe ende li be rat el y in di ffer en t to hi s s eri ou s m ed ic al ne edby fail in g t o p ro vi de hi m with ro ut in e p rev en ti ve de nt al care whi le in carc erat ed , invi ol at io n o f th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t. Bu m pu s al so ass ert edth athe was d en ie d e qu al pro te ct io n a s a r es ul t o f pr is on off ic ia ls requi rin g h im

an d o th er i nm at es who work edonlan ds cap in g d et ai l

We review de novo a district cour t’s dismiss al for f

ailure to state a

claim pursuant to 28 1 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) , using the same standa rds that g overn F ed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) dismissals. Leal v. Ga. De

p’t of Corr ., 254 F.3d 1276, 1279 ( 11th Cir. 2001). Under those standards, w e acc ept the alleg ations in the complaint as true a nd construe the m in the light most favora ble to the plaintiff. Timson v. Sampson , 518 F.3d 870, 872 ( 11th Cir. 2008). The district cour t may dismiss the complaint if the fa cts as pled do not state a claim for r elief that is plausible on its fac e. Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. ___, 129 S.C t. 1937, 1950, 173 L .Ed.2d 868 (2009). 2to ch eck -inwith p ris on off ic ia ls foracco un tabi li ty on the ir d ay s o ff, whi le in m at es in othe r job s wer e n otrequi redto do so . Last ly, Bu m pu s as se rte d v io la ti on s o f hi s Fi rs t Am en dm en t ri gh ts , all eg in g tha t (1 ) a co rrec ti on s o ffi cer f il eddi sc ip li na ry ch arg es ag ai ns t h im

inret al ia ti on forass ert in g agri ev an ce; an d (2 ) whe n B um pu s ap pe al edth e d is ci pl in ary act io n a ga in sthi m , th e d efen da nt s fu rth er re ta li at ed ag ai ns t h im

by rem ov in g h im

fro m lan ds cap in g d et ai l, tran sf erri ng hi m

to a lo wer pa y in g p ris on job , con fis cat in g h is leg al m at eri al s, an d p la ci ng hi m in“ th e h ol e” du rin g apre te xtua l i nv es ti ga ti on . W e ad dr es s ea chof B um pu s’s cl ai m s i n turn. I. Ei gh th Am endment Cla im The Supr em e Co urt h as reco gn iz edth atth e Eig ht h Am en dm en t’s pr oh ib it io n a ga in stcru el an d u nu su al pu ni sh m en t re qu ire s the st at e to pro vi de ad equa te m ed ic al care to in carc erat edpri so ne rs . Est el le v. Gamb le , 42 9 U.S. 9 7, 10 4 (1 97 6) . Howev er, n otev ery cl ai m by a pri so ne r th athe ha s n otrece iv ed ad equa te m ed ic al tre atm en t, wi ll st at e a v io la ti on of t he Eig ht h Am en dm en t. Id. at 10 5. The di stric t co urt d idno t err by dis m is si ng Bu m pu s’s Ei gh th Am en dm en t co m pl ai ntforfai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m . Becau se Bu m pu s o nl y ass ert edth atrou ti ne de nt al care wou ldpre ve ntfutur e d en ta l p ro bl em s, h e h as fai le d t o s ho w an ob jecti ve ly seri ou s m ed ic al ne ed . Se e Far ro w v. W es t , 32 0 F .3d12 35 , 12 43 (11 th 3Ci r. 20 03 ) (“ To s ho w th ata pr is on off ic ia l ac te d wi th de li be rat e in di ffer en ce t o se rio us m ed ic al ne ed s, a p la in ti ff m us t . . . setforth ev id en ce o f anob jecti ve ly se rio us m ed ic al ne ed .”). Inad di ti on , Bum pu s was no t d en ie d a cces s t o d en ta l tre atm en t; pri so ne rs were p erm it te d o ne cle an in g app oi nt m en t p er y ear, wh ic h was de lay edon ly by

th e la ckof ahygie ni stat t he faci li ty. Thu s, h e h as no t al le ge d fact s tha t wo ul d s up po rt afin di ng th atth e d efen da nt s ac te d wi th de li be rat e in di ffer en ce t o h is m ed ic al co nd it io n, as th ey di d n otdi sr eg arda ri skto hi s fu tu re de nt al he al th , no r di d the ir c on du ctam ou ntto m or e th anm ere n eg li ge nc e. Se e Bro wn v. Jo hn so n , 38 7 F .3d13 44 , 13 51 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (“ To es tabl is h . . . de li be rat e in di ffer en ce . . . th e p ris on er m us t p ro ve th ree f

act s: (1) subjec ti ve kn owl ed ge of aris k o f se rio us ha rm ; (2 ) di sr eg ardof tha t ri sk ; an d (3 ) co nduc t tha t is m or e th anm ere n eg li ge nc e.”). The refo re, we aff irm th e d is tri ctco urt’s di sm is sa l o f Bu m

pu s’s Ei gh th Am en dm en t cl ai m . II . Equa l Pro tect io n Cla im To p le adanequa l p ro te ct io n c la im , a pl ai nt iff m us t al le ge th at“ th ro ug h st at e act io n, s im il arl y

si tu at edpe rs on s h av e b eentre at eddi sp arat el y .” Th ig pe n v . Bib b C nt y., Ga., S he ri ff’s Dep’ t , 22 3 F .3d12 31 , 12 37 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ), ab ro ga te d on othe r gro un ds byNa t’l R.R. Pas se ng er

Co rp . v. Mor

ga n , 53 6 U.S. 1 01 , 12 2 (2 00 2) . The Supr em e Co urt h as reco gn iz ed“ cl as s o f on e” equa l p ro te ct io n c la im s. 4Vil l. o

f Will ow br oo k v. Ole ch , 52 8 U.S. 5 62 , 56 4 (2 00 0) . A pla in ti ff can e st ab li sh a “ cl as s o f on e” cl ai m

by sho win g tha t h e was “ in te nt io na ll y tre at eddi ffer en tl y fro m othe rs si m il arl y

si tu at edan d tha t the re i s n o ra ti on al ba si s fo r th e d iff eren ce in tre atm en t.” Id . The di stric t co urt d idno t err by dis m is si ng Bu m pu s’s “ cl as s o f on e” equa l pr ot ect io n c la im

be cau se Bu m

pu s fa il edto sh ow tha t h e was si m il arl y si tu at edin al l re le va ntasp ect s t o i nm at es inothe r job s wh o wer e n otrequi redto ch eck -in on th ei r da y s o ff. Bu m

pu s ac kn owl ed ge d tha t as a m em be r of th e la nd sc ap in g d et ai l, he was p erm it te d t o wo rkou ts id e th e p ris on , whi le othe rs who were as si gn edto area s s uc h a s the ki tc he n wer e n otpe rm it te d o ut si de . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm th e di st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l o f hi s equa l p ro te ct io n c la im . II I. Firs t Am endment Reta li at io n Cla im

“ The Fir stAm en dm en t fo rb id s p ris on off ic ia ls fro m

ret al ia ti ng ag ai ns t pr is on ers forex erci si ng th e ri gh t o f free sp eech .” Far ro w , 32 0 F .3dat 1 24 8. Itis well est ab li sh edth ata pr is on er ex erci se s h is Fir stAm en dm en t ri gh t wh enhe co m pl ai ns ab ou t h is co nd it io ns of c on fin em en t. Id . An in m at e m ay m ai nt ai n a cau se of a ct io n fo r ret al iati on by sho win g tha t a p ris on off ic ia l’s ac ti on s wer e “ th e res ul t o f [the in m at e’s] hav in g fi le d agri ev an ce co nc ern in g the co nd it io ns of h is im pr is on m en t.” O’Bry an t v. Fi nc h , 63 7 F .3d12 07 , 12 12 (11 thCir . 20 11 ) (i nt ern al 5qu ot at io ns om itte d) . To pr ev ai l o n aret al ia ti on cla im , th e in m at e m us t es tabl is h th at : (1 ) hi s s pe ech was c on st itut io na ll y pro te ct ed ; (2 ) th e in m at e su ffer edadve rs e act io n s uc h tha t the off

ic ia l’s al le ge dl y

ret al ia to ry

co nduc t wo ul d l ik el y

de te r a pe rs on of o rd in ary firm

ne ss fro m en ga gi ng insu chsp eech ; an d (3 ) th ere i s a cau sa l re lati on sh ip be twee n the ret al ia to ry act io n andth e p ro te ct edsp eech . Id . A. Dis ci pl in ary Acti on Bu m pu s ar gu es th athe was wro ng ly dis ci pl in edinret al ia ti on for co m pl ai ni ng ab ou t the pri so n’s ch eck -in po li cy forin m at es on lan ds cap in g d et ai l, whi chrequi redin m at es to ch eck -in foracco un tabi li ty at 8: 00 am . The rec or d refl ect s, h owe ve r, th atBu m pu s’s g rie va nc e was m ad e in res po ns e to a co rrec ti on of fic er i nf ormin g h im

th athe was l at e rep orti ng for ch eck -in . Thu s, ev enif the of fic er i m pe rm is si bl y

to okin to acco un t Bu m

pu s’s g rie va nc e whe n d is ci pl in in g hi m , th e rec or d re fle ct s tha t Bu m pu s wo ul d h av e b eendi sc ip li ne d wi th ou t s uc h co m m en ts , as the he ari ng pa ne l co nc lu de d tha t h e co m m it te d the ch arg ed in frac ti on of b ei ng lat e. Acco rd in gl y , Bum pu s ca nn otest ab li sh a ret al ia ti on cla im un de r th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t b as edon th e d is ci pl in ary act io n a ga in sthi m , andwe affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l o f th is po rti on of B um pu s’s re ta li at io n c la im . Id. at 1 21 7 (f

in di ng th atth e cau sa l co nn ect io n e le m en t o f a ret al ia ti on cla im can no t b e es tabl is he d “ if t he off ic ia l can s ho w th athe wou ldhave tak enth e

6di sc ip li na ry

act io n i n the ab se nc e o f th e p ris on er’s p ro te ct edco nduc t” ). II. App eal of t he Dis ci pl in ary Deci si on The di stric t co urt d iderr, h owe ve r, indi sm is si ng th e p orti on of B um pu s’s ret al ia ti on cla im

th atwas b as edup on hi s ap pe al of t he di sc ip li na ry de ci si on , whi ch res ul te d i n h is rem ov al fro m th e la nd sc ap in g d et ai l, p la cem en t i n “ th e h ol e,” an d co nf is cat io n o f hi s l eg al m at eri al s. Indi sm is si ng th is cla im , th e d is tri ctco urt erro ne ou sl y

rel ie d upo n a ss um

pt io ns no t s etforth inth e co m pl ai nt , nam el y

th at Bu m pu s was rem ov edfro m

lan ds cap in g d et ai l b ecau se he was l at e o n s ev eral oc cas io ns , andth atth e in ve st ig at ory sea rch th atledto hi s p la cem en t i n “ th e h ol e” an d the co nf

is cat io n o f hi s l eg al m at eri al s was no t p ret ex tu al . Se e Gro ss man v. Na ti on sb an k, N.A. , 22 5 F .3d12 28 , 12 31 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) (s ta ti ng th atwhen co ns id eri ng a m ot io n t o d is m is s the co urt l im it s i ts co ns id erat io n t o the pl ead in gs an d e xh ib it s at ta ch edth eret o) . The fou r co rn ers of B um

pu s’s co m

pl ai ntdo no t co nt ai n a ny all eg at io ns supp orti ng th e d is tri ctco urt’s as su m pt io ns . Add it io na ll y , Bum pu s’s co m

pl ai nt was pl au si bl e o n i ts face be cau se th ere wer e n o re as on s p ro vi de d fo r th os e act io ns al le ge d i n the co m

pl ai nt , whi chwou ldall co ns ti tu te ret al ia to ry co nduc t l ik el y

to de te r a rea so nabl e p ers on fro m en ga gi ng inpro te ct edsp eech . O’Bry an t , 63 7 F .3d at12 12 . Bum

pu s al so all eg edtem

po ral pro xi m ity

gi ve n the sh ort am ou ntof t im e 7be twee n h is ap pe al of the di sc ip li na ry de ci si on an d the all eg edret al iato ry act io ns . Id . There fo re, the di st ric t co urt erredby prem atur el y di sm is si ng th is po rti on of Bu m pu s’s Fi rs t Am en dm en t re ta li at io n c la im . Accor di ng ly, we va cat e an d re m an d as to th is is su e. AFFIRMED I N PART, REMANDED IN PART.

8