FIL ED U.S . C OURT O F A PPE ALS ELE VEN TH CIRCUI T AUGUST 14 , 2 007 THO MAS K. KA

HN CLE RK [ DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1186 1 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D
. C. D oc ke t N o. 03- 0033 7- CV -WD O -5 VALENCIA GARY , Plaintiff-Appellee , ANNIE PEARL REED, Plaintiff,
ve rs us JE RR Y MO D EN A , I ndi vid

ua lly and a s Sh eri ff o f Bi bb Co un ty, GA., et al ., D ef en dants , JA CK CL E V E L A

N D , I ndi vid

ua lly and i n hi s of

fi ci al cap aci ty as Dep ut y

Sh eri ff o f Bi bb Co un ty, GA., HA RRYLA W RENCE , I ndiv iduallyand in his o fficial cap aci ty as Dep ut y

Sh eri ff o f Bi bb Co un ty, GA., SA ND RA K. W HI TE , I ndiv iduallyand in her official ca pa ci ty a s a ge nt o r em

plo y ee of P ri son H ea lthS er

vic es , Inc. , and/o r Bibb County Sherif f’ s Of fice, ANTONIO DRISKELL, JERRY MINTON, D ef en dants -Appe llants .2 ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Middle District of G eorgia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A ug us t 14, 200 7) Be fo re T JO FL A T , H U L L and F A Y , Ci rc uit Jud ge s . PE R CU RIA M: This is an appeal fr om

the denial of a m otion for sum m ary j udgm ent based upon qualified im

m unity
. This appeal ar ises from our opini on in Gary

v. Modena, N o. 05- 1697 3 ( 11th C ir
. N ov. 21, 200 6) ( J. P ry or c onc ur ri ng i n part

and d iss en tin g in p ar t) , w he re in w e af

fi rm ed asum m ar y j udgm en t i n f

av or of m ult ipl e de fe ndants but r ev er se d th e sum

m ar y j udgm en t i n f

av or of the se appe llants and r em an de d f or tr ia l a s to the m . T he c ont en tio n be ing m ad e in this appe al is that the c ourt i n it s earl ie r ru lin g di d no t sp ec if ic al ly c onsi de r w he the r or

not the se appe llants ’ a ct ion s co uld be f ound to have vio late d c le ar ly

e sta bli she d lawand a

vio latio n of

the pl ai nt iff s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s. We fin d n o m eri t i n t hi s ar gu m en t. Cl earl y , the m aj or ity

opi nio n of

the c ourt a ddr es se s th e ev ide nc e that c oul d be th e b as is fora jury find in g o f de li be rat e in di ffer en ce t o aser io us m ed ic al ne ed
. Inthe D isc uss ionportio n of the opi nio n w e se t f

orth b oththe le ga l t es t and the cl earl y e sta bli she d law . W e state d inpart :

III. DIS CU SSION A
. D el ibe rate In dif

fe re nc e U

nde r 42 U

. S. C. § 19 833 T itl e 42 U
. S. C. § 19 83 ( 2006 ) pr ovi de s th at :

"E ve ry pe rs on who, und er

c olo r of any statut e, or din an ce , r eg ulatio n, c ust om or usa ge , of any S tate or T er ri tor y or the D istri ct of Co lum bia , sub j ec ts o r ca

use s to be subjecte d, any

citizen of the United St at es or oth er pe rs on w ith in the j ur isd ic tio n the re of to the de pr ivatio n of

any r igh t, pr ivi le ge s or

im m uni tie s se cure d by

the Co nst itutio n and l aw s, sha ll be li ab le to the party inj ur ed in ana ct iona t l aw , sui t i n equity or oth er pr ope r pr oc ee din g f

or red res s."
G ar y a lle ge s th at

the de fe ndants , w ho s er

ve d a s pu bli c officials of Bibb County , the B ibb Coun ty Sherif f's O ff ic e an d / or

P H S, vio late d Je rr

y Butts ' E igh th a

nd / or Fo urte en th Am en dm en t r igh ts b y de ny ing him

a cc es s to necessary m edications and b y

failing to com

plete a
m ed ic al sc re en ing of

him w he n he pr es en te d ob vio us sig ns o f a se ri ous m ed ic al c ondi tio n. S inc e Butts w as a pre-tria l detainee at the tim e of alleged violations, Gar y 's de lib er at e ind if

fe re nc e cl ai m s f

al l un de r the due pr oc es s clause of the Fourteenth A m endm ent and not th e cr uel
an d unusua l punis hm en t pr ohi bit ionof the E igh t4 Am en dm en t. In grah am v . W rig ht , 430 U
. S. 651 , 671 n.40, 97 S. Ct. 1401 , 1412, 51 L. Ed. 2d 71 1, 730 (1977); McD owell v. Brown , 392 F. 3d 12 83, 1290 n .8 (11th Cir. 20 04 ), Co tto ne v . J

en ne , 326 F. 3d 13 52, 1357 (11t h Cir. 20 03 ). N ev er the le ss, due pr oc es s r eq

uir es that pr iso n of fi ci al s pr ovi de a ll pe rs ons in s tate c ust ody suc h ba sic hum anne ed s a s m ed ic al c ar e, r eg ar dle ss o f w he the r the pe rs ons have be eninc ar ce rate d or are be ing he ld i n de te nt io n. See H

am m v . D eK

alb Co unt y , 774 F
. 2d 1 567, 1574 ( 11th C ir
. 198 5) ( hol din g th at "i n r eg ar d to providi ng pretrial detainees w ith such b asic necessities
as . . . m ed ic al c ar e[ , ] the m ini m um standard a llo w ed by the due pr oc es s c lause is the sam e as that a llo w ed by the ei ghth am en dm en t f

or c onvi ct ed

pe rs ons) ; se e als o Co tto ne , 326 F
. 3d 1 352, 135 7, c iti ng M ars h , 268 F. 3d at 1024 n. 5. A cc or din gly , w e loo k to the E igh th Am endm ent's deliberate indiffe rence standards when
an al y zi ng Gary 's 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 cla im
. M cD ow el l , 392 F.3 d a t 1 29 0 n .8.5 Apr iso n of

fi ci al m ay be he ld l ia

ble und er the E igh th A m en dm en t f

or de ny ing an in m at e hum an e co ndi tio ns o f confinem ent "onlyif he knows that inm ates fac e a subs tanti al r isk

of se ri ous harm

and d isr eg ar ds tha t r isk by fail in g t o t ak e rea so nabl e m eas ur es to ab at e it ." F arm er v . B re nnan , 511 U
. S. 825 , 847 , 114 S. Ct
. 197 0, 1984 , 128 L. Ed. 2d 81 1, 832 (1994). T o dem onstrate that a prison official acte d with deliberate indiffer ence to an inm ate's m edical needs, a plaintiff m ust prov ide evidence that the inm ate presented an obj ectively serious m edical
ne edan d t ha t t he off

ic ia l i gn or edit
. F

arr owv . W

es t , 320 F.3 d 1 23 5, 1 24 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3)
. W e have de fi ne d ase ri ous m ed ic al ne ed a s on e that i s "s o ob vio us tha t e ve n alay pe rs on w oul d e as ily recognize the nece ssityfor a doctor's attention." Id . at 1243 ( quot ing H

ill v . D eK alb R eg ' l Yout h D et . Ct r. , 40 F.3 d 1 17 6, 1 18 7 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 4) ). Add it io na ll y , a pla int if f w ho a lle ge s ade lib er at e ind if fe re nc e cl ai m against a prison o fficial m ust sh ow that the officia l's6 al le ge d u nc on st itut io na l ac ts cau se d h is in jury. M ars h , 26 8 F .3dat 1 02 8. To ar gue that the court failed to decide whether or not appellants’ c ondu ct
co uld be f ound to have vio late d c le ar ly

e sta bli she d lawand whe the r ap pe llants
w er e on n oti ce that the ir

c ondu ct c oul d be f

ound to have vio late d M r. Butts ’ r igh ts unde r the E igh th and F ourte en th A m en dm en ts i s to sim ply ign or e the langua ge of the opin ion. T he m aj ority concluded that th ere we re genuine issues of m aterial facts that prec luded su m

m ary j udgm ent as to these appellants because the record inc lud es e vid en ce that w oul d su ppor t a f ind ing of de lib er at e ind if

fe re nc e to a serious m edical need. T he Suprem e Court has m ade clear that such conduct can be f ound to be avio latio n of

one ’ s c onst itutio na l r igh ts. I n E ste lle v. G am ble , 429 U. S. 97, 97 S. Ct. 285, 50 L. Ed. 2d 25 1 (1976), the Suprem e Court re cognized that the E igh th Am en dm en t' s pr ohi bit iona ga ins t c ru el and unusu al pun ish m en t, m ad e applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Am endm ent's D ue Proce ss Clause, req ui res th e St at e to pro vi de ad equa te m ed ic al care to in carc erat edpri so ne rs . Jus tic e Mars ha ll w ro te : " de lib er at e ind if fe re nc e to s er iou s m ed ic al ne ed s of prisoners const itutes the unn ecessar y and wanton infliction o f pain .. . proscr ibed by the E igh th Am en dm en t. " T his inc lud es "i ndi ff er en ce . . . m an if

es te d by pr iso n doc tor s inthe ir

r es pons e to the pr iso ne r' s ne ed s or by pr iso n gu ar ds i n int en tio na lly

de ny ing or

de lay ing a cc es s to m ed ic al c ar e or int en tio na lly7

int er fe ri ng w iththe tr eatm en t on ce pr es cr ibe d. " E ste lle v. G am ble , 429 U
. S. 97, 104- 105, 97 S
. Ct
. 285 , 50 L
. E d. 2d 2 51 ( 1976 ) (f ootnot es and i nte rn al quo tatio n
m ar ks o m itt ed ). T his lawha s be enc le ar ly e sta bli she d f or m any y ears . As to these appellants, the m atter w as rem anded for trial. Aj ury m ay co nc lud e that on e or

m or e or a ll of the se appe llants did

or did not vio late the
co nst itutio na l r igh ts o f Mr
. Butts . The rul in g o f th e d is tri ctco ur t i s AFF IRM ED.