FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT JAN 24, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 16748 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -017 90 -C V -R L V -1 J O H N N Y W O O D S , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s S H E R I F F P H I L D . M I L L E R , N A N C Y H A R R I N G T O N , M .D . S A U R A B H D . D E S A I , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 24, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , C A RN E S an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Woo dsalsoalle g e d th at de fendantsDr . D e sai and Nurs eHa

rrington retaliate d ag ains t 1 him for his grieva

nces by repe atedly

placinghim in segreg ation. The district cour t dismi ssed this claim, and Woods offere d no argument reg ardingthe retaliation claim in his ini tial brief. We t here fo rec on sider t

heissuea ba ndon e d o n a

pp e al. S e eAc c e ss N ow , Inc . v . Southwe st Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004). The de fenda

nts in thi s casewere never ser ved as Woods’s claim wa s dismis sed 2 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) . The de fenda nts thus did notfile an a

ppellate brief. 2 Jo h n n y W o o d s, a G eo rg ia state p riso n er , ap p ea ls p ro se th e d istrict co u rt’s di s m i s s a l f

orf a i l i ng t o s t a t e ac l a i m on hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c t i on a l l e gi ng de l i be r a t e i ndi f

f e r e nc e t o hi s know n m e di c a l ne e ds . O n appe a l he a r gue s tha tthe 1 f a c t s a s a l l e ge d i n hi s a m e nde d c om pl a i ntpr ovi de d a n a r guabl e ba s i s f orac l a i m of de l i be r a t e i ndi f

f e r e nc e t o hi s s e r i ous m e di c a l c ondi t i on. W oods a l l e ge d tha the s u f f e r e d ab a c kin

ju ry a n d w a s d e n ie d n e c e s s a ry m e d ic a l c a r e b y th e d e f e n d a n ts , a ll of w hi c h r e s ul t e d i n s e ve r e a nd pr ol onge d pa i n. U pon r e vi e w of the r e c or d a nd W o o d s ’s b r ie f

, w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d b y d is m is s in g th e c la im 2 a n d v a c a te a n d r e m a n d . W e r e vi e w de novo adi s tr i c tc our t ’ s s uas pont e di s m i s s a l of ac om pl a i nt pur s ua ntt o § 1915A ( b) ( 1) . L e a l v. G a . D e p’ tof C orr s . , 254 F . 3d 1276, 1278- 79 ( 2001) ( appl y i ng the s a m e s t a nda r d of r e vi e w appl i e d t o F e d. R . C i v. P . 12( b) ( 6) di s m i s s a l f

orf a i l ur e t o s t a t e ac l a i m ) . I n r e vi e w i ng w he the rapl a i nt i f f ha s s t a t e d a c la im , w e a c c e p t “th e a lle g a tio n s in th e c o m p la in t a s tru e a n d c o n s tru [ e ] th e m in the l i ghtm os tf

a vor abl e t o the pl a i nt i f

f . ” B e hr e ns v. R e gi e r , 422 F . 3d 1255, 12593

( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( r e v ie w in g aR u le 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) d is m is s a l) . “P r o s e p le a d in g s a r e h e ld t o a l es s s tri ng entst andard than p l ea di ng s dra ft ed by att orneys and w i l l , there fore , be l i bera l l y c on strued. ” B ox erX v. H arri s, 43 7 F . 3d 11 07 , 11 10 (11th C i r. 20 06 ). In order t o st at e acl ai m for r el i ef un der § 19 83 , “ a pl ai nt i ff m ustshow that h e o rs h e w a s d e p r iv e d o f af e d e r a l r ig h t b y ap e r s o n a c tin g u n d e rc o lo ro f s ta te l aw . ” G ri ff

i n v . C i ty of O pa-L ocka, 26 1 F . 3d 12 95 , 13 03 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). E ac h o f th e d e f e n d a n ts ap p e a r s to h a v e w o rk e d f o rth e s ta te . A s s u m in g th a t, th e o n ly que s t i on i s w he the ri ti s c l e a rbe y ond doubttha tW oods f a i l e d t o s t a t e ac l a i m of d e lib e r a te in d if

f e r e n c e to as e r io u s m e d ic a l c o n d itio n u n d e rth e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t. T he E i gh th A m endm entproh i bi t s onl y the i nfl i ct i on of “ cruel and u nu sual puni s hm e nt s . ” U . S . C ons t . a m e nd. V I I I . A s ar e s ul t , t o s t a t e ac l a i m unde rthe c lau s e , ap r is o n e rm u s t a lle g e , f ir s t, ac o n d itio n th a t c o n s titu te d a n o b je c tiv e ly

“ c rue l a nd unus ua l de pr i va t i on, ” a nd s e c ond, tha tthe of f i c i a l s r e s pons i bl e f

orthe c ondi t i on ha d as ubj e c t i ve i nt e ntt o puni s h. T a y l orv. A da m s , 221 F . 3d 1254, 1257 (11th C i r. 20 00 ). O ne w a y f

orapr i s one rt o s how a n E i ghth A m e ndm e ntvi ol a t i on i s by pr ovi ng tha tpr i s on m e di c a l of f i c i a l s w e r e de l i be r a t e l y i ndi f f e r e ntt o hi s s e r i ous m edi ca l needs. E st el l e v. G am bl e, 42 9 U . S . 97 , 10 4, 97 S . C t . 28 5, 29 1 (19 76 ).4

S u c h ac la im h a s tw o e le m e n ts . “F ir s t, th e p la in tif f m u s t p r o v e a n o b

je c tiv e ly se ri ou s m edi ca l need. S ec on d, the pl ai nt i ff m ustprov e thatthe pri son o ff i ci al 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 tha tne e d. ” B r ow n v. J ohns on, 387 F . 3d 1344, 13 51 (11th C i r. 20 04 ). “ A se ri ou s m edi ca l need i s c on si dere d o ne thathas bee n di agno se d b y aph ys i ci an as m andat i ng tre atm entor on e thati s s o o bv i ou s that e v e n ala y p e r s o n w o u ld e a s ily r e c o g n iz e th e n e c e s s ity f o rad o c to r 's a tte n tio n .” I d .

“ T o est abl i sh the se cond el em ent , del i bera t e i nd i ff er ence t o the se ri ou s m edi ca l ne e d, the pr i s one rm us tpr ove thr e e f a c t s : ( 1) s ubj e c t i ve know l e dge of ar i s k of se ri ou s harm ; (2) di sr egar d o f thatri sk; and (3) by cond uctthati s m ore than m er e ne gl i ge nc e . ” I d. Iti s notcl ear bey on d d ou btthatW oo ds has f ai l ed t o al l ege ase ri ou s m edi ca l ne e d. H e a l l e ge s tha the s uf f e r e d aba c k i nj ury ; tha tD e s a i a nd H arr i ngt on on se vera l occa si on s f

ai l ed t o res po nd t o h i s r equest s f or m edi ca l att ent i on ; thatw hen th e y d id r e s p o n d , th e irp r e s c r ip tio n s w e r e in e f f e c tiv e f o rtr e a tin g th e d a m a g e to h is l um ba rr e gi on a nd s c i a t i c ne rve ; tha ts ur ge ry w a s the onl y e f f e c t i ve w a y t o tr e a tthe pr obl e m ; a nd f

i na l l y , tha thi s m e di c a t i on w a s e nt i r e l y di s c ont i nue d a f t e rthe d e f e n d a n ts in c o rr e c tly d e te rm in e d th a t h e w a s am e d ic a l ab u s e r . A s ar e s u lt o f a ll of thi s , W oods c l a i m s tha the s uf f e r e d s e ve r e a nd pr ol onge d pa i n. T he f a c t s m i ght e ve ntua l l y s how tha tW oods a nd the doc t or s m e r e l y ha d adi f f e r e nc e of opi ni on on5

th e p r o p e rc o u r s e o f

tr e a tm e n t, w h ic h w o u ld n o t b e s u f f ic ie n t to s h o w a n E ig h th A m endm entvi ol at i on . S ee H arri s v. T hi gp en, 94 1 F . 2d 14 95 , 15 05 (11th C i r. 1 9 9 1 ) ( “N o r d o es a s im p le d iffe re n ce in m ed ical o p in io n b etw ee n th e p riso n ’s m e di c a l s t a f

f a nd the i nm a t e a s t o the l a tt e r ’ s di a gnos i s orc our s e of tr e a tm e nt su p p o rt a c laim o f c ru el an d u n u su al p u n ish m en t”). B u t i f p ro v en , W o o d s’s a l l e ga t i ons w oul d a r guabl y s how a n obj e c t i ve l y s e r i ous m e di c a l ne e d. S e e H i l l v. D e ka l b R g’ l Y outh D e t . C tr . , 40 F . 3d 1176, 1187 n. 21 ( 11th C i r . 1994) ( c i t i ng ca se s w hi ch m aybe com parabl e t o W oo ds’ s w here se ri ou s m edi ca l need w as s h o w n , in c lu d in g s ix - h o u rd e la y in tr e a tin g s e r io u s a n d p a in f u l b r o k e n f

o o t, th r e e - d a y d e la y in tr e a tin g s h o u ld e rin ju ry , a n d tw o - a n d - a - h a lf h o u rd e la y in tre at i ng cutov erey e) . W o o d s h a s a ls o a lle g e d f a c ts th a t, if

p r o v e n , m ig h t s h o w d e lib e r a te in d if f e r e n c e o n th e p a rt o f

D e s a i a n d H a rr in g to n A n in m a te m a y s h o w d e lib e r a te i ndi f f e r e nc e i n anum be rof

w a y s : ( 1) a c tua l know l e dge of as e r i ous ne e d f

or m edi ca l care , pl us a f

ai l ure t o tre at ; (2) del ayi n tre atm ent , po t ent i al l y “ even for a pe r i od of hour s ” ; ( 3) “ gr os s l y i na de qua t e c ar e ” ; ( 4) “ ade c i s i on t o t a ke a n e a s i e rbut le s s e f f ic a c io u s c o u r s e o f

tr e a tm e n t” ; o r( 5 ) “m e d ic a l c a r e w h ic h is s o c u r s o ry a s to a m o u n t to n o tr e a tm e n t a t a ll.” M c E llig o tt v . F o le y , 1 8 2 F .3 d 1 2 4 8 , 1 2 5 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . W o o d s a lle g e s th a t D e s a i a n d H a rr in g to n a c tu a lly k n e w ab o u t h is6

s e r i ous ba c k c ondi t i on ( a tthe l a t e s ta f t e rthe y r e c e i ve d the X - r a y s f r om the h o s p ita l) , a n d r e f

u s e d h im tr e a tm e n t n o t f o ra n y m e d ic a l r e a s o n b u t r a th e rs o le ly to avoi d t ortl i abi l i ty and ho spi t al bi l l s. H e has al so al l eged grossl y i nadequ at e c ar e, cl ai m i ng thatthe pres cr i pt i on s w er e w ho l l y i neff ec t i ve i n tre at i ng hi s pai n, and that s ur ge ry w a s the onl y pos s i bl e tr e a tm e nt . S e e i d. a t1257 ( pr i s on of f i c i a l m a y not “c au s e ap r is o n e rto n e e d le s s ly s u f f e rth e p a in r e s u ltin g f

r o m h is o rh e rilln e s s ” ) . T hese fa ct s, i f proven, m ayal l ow a j ury t o i nferthatthe m edi ca l offi ci al s had penal in te n t, a n d w e r e n o t m e r e ly n e g lig e n t o rm a k in g aju d g m e n t c a ll in r e f u s in g to a llo w W o o d s to h a v e th e s u r g e ry . S e e id . a t 1 2 5 7 ( “A ju ry c o u ld in f e rd e lib e r a te i ndi f f e r e nc e f r om the f a c ttha tD r . F ol e y kne w the e xt e ntof [ the i nm a t e ' s ] pa i n, kne w tha tthe c our s e of

tr e a tm e ntw a s l a r ge l y i ne f f e c t i ve , a nd de c l i ne d t o do anythi ng m ore t o att em ptt o i m prov e [ the i nm at e' s] cond i t i on ”) . W e there fore c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d b y d is m is s in g s u as p o n te th e E ig h th A m e ndm e ntc l a i m s a ga i ns tD e s a i a nd H a rr i ngt on. W oo ds further a l l eged thatS heri ff M i l l erw as l i abl e und era r es po nd ea t s u p e r io rth e o ry f

o rh is a c q u ie s c e n c e in H a rr in g to n a n d D e s a i’s a c ts o f d e lib e r a te i nd i ff er ence , and for hi s “ fa i l ure t o corre ct ” tho se ac t s. G ener al l y, “ supervi sory o f f ic ia ls a r e n o t liab le u n d e r§ 1 9 8 3 f o rth e u n c o n s titu tio n a l a c ts o f th e ir s ubor di na t e s on the ba s i s of r e s ponde a ts upe r i ororvi c a r i ous l i abi l i ty . ” M i l l e rv.7

K i ng , 38 4 F . 3d 12 48 , 12 61 (11th C i r. 20 04 ). R ather, a s up ervi sor i s l i abl e und er§ 19 83 on l y w hen (1) the supervi sor per sonal l y part i ci pat es i n the al l eged unc ons t i tut i ona l c onduc t , or( 2) the r e i s ac aus a l c onne c t i on be tw e e n the a c t i ons of as u p e rv is in g o f

f ic ia l a n d th e a lle g e d c o n s titu tio n a l d e p r iv a tio n .” I d . O n e w a y to s how ac aus a l c onne c t i on i s by pr ovi ng f a c t s tha ts uppor ta n i nf

e r e nc e tha tthe supervi sor di re ct ed the subo rdi nat es t o actun l aw ful l y or thatthe supervi sor knew th a t th e s u b o r d in a te s w o u ld a c t u n la w f u lly a n d f

a ile d to s to p th e m f

r o m d o in g s o . I d. W hi l e W oods ha s nota l l e ge d tha tM i l l e rpe r s ona l l y pa r t i c i pa t e d i n the fai l u re t o treat , o r th atM i l l er d i rect ed H arri n g t o n an d D esai t o actu n l aw fu l l y, W o o d s h as alleg ed th at h e s en t a lett erto M il ler d etaili n g H ar rin g to n an d D es ai’s a c t s , tha tM i l l e rkne w of thos e a c t s , a nd tha tM i l l e rdi d nothi ng t o pr e ve ntthe c o n tin u a tio n o f

th o s e a c ts . W o o d s h a s th u s a lle g e d f a c ts th a t, if

p r o v e n , m a y s ta te ac l a i m a ga i ns tM i l l e runde r§ 1983, a nd the di s tr i c tc our te rr e d by di s m i s s i ng the c l a i m a g a i n s th i m. T aki ng the al l egat i on s a s true, the defendant s s ho ul d b e s erved and gi ven an o p p o r tu n i ty t o r e s p o n d t o W o o d s ’ s c l a i m.

V AC AT E D A ND RE MAND E D.