P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 09- 3753

E R IC M B E T T S ; S U S A N B E T T S , A p p e llan ts

v. NEW CA S TL E YOUTH DEVEL OPMENT CE NTE R; K E N N E T H W E N T , i n h i s i n d i v i d u a l a n d o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y; C H A R L E S M I T C H A M , i n hi s i ndi vi dual and off i ci al capa ci t y ; D A V I D T O M O C H E C K , i n hi s i ndi vi dual and offi ci al capa ci t y ; O M A R ST U A R T , i n hi s i ndi vi dual and offi ci al capa ci t y ; W I L L I E B L U E , i n hi s i ndi vi dual and offi ci al capa ci t y ; T A M M Y A O D E M , i n heri ndi vi dual and offi ci al capa ci t y ; J O H N D O E , i n hi s i ndi vi dual and off i ci al c a p a c ity

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D

. C

. N o. 07- cv- 00337) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e D avi d St ew artC er cone2 A r gued M ay18, 2010 B efor e: FU E N T E S, H A R D I M A N and N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJudges

. ( Fi l ed: Sept ember13, 2010) R obertR os s [A r gued] R o s s , F u l l e r& C a s e y 1 6 5 0 M a rk e t S tre e t O ne Li bert yPl ace , Sui t e 3450 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103 A tto rn e y s fo r Ap p e lla n ts J ohn G

. K nor r , I I I [A r gued] O ffi ce of A t t or neyG ener al of Penns y l vani a St r aw berr ySquar e H arr i s bur g, PA 17120- 0000 M aryL

. Fr i edl i ne M a ria h P a ss a re lli O ffi ce of A t t or neyG ener al of Penns y l vani a 564 Forbes A venue M anorC om pl ex Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15219- 0000 A t t or neys f

orAppel l ees

OPI NI ON O F THE COURTB e c a u se B e tts w a s a m in o r at th e tim e o f th e in ju ry , h is 1 m ot herbr oughts ui tas w el l , s eeki n g com pens at i on fort he m edical exp enses she i ncu rr ed o n b ehalf of he r s on . B ecause th ere i s com plet e ov erl ap bet w een the cl ai m s of B et t s and h is m other , for the sake of co nv enience w e referon l yt o B et t s. 3 H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudge

. O n S a tu rd a y , A p ril 2 9 , 2 0 0 6 , se v e n tee n -y e a r-o ld E ric B e tts su f f e re d a tra g ic s p in a l co rd in ju ryw h ile a ttem p tin g to m ake a t ackl e dur i ng a “pi ck- up” footbal l game atthe N ew C as t l e Y out h D eve lopmentC ent er( Y D C )

. Fol l ow i ng the injury , B ett s su ed Y D C an d s e v era l of it s staff

m em b ers pur s uantt o 42 U

. S. C

. § 1983, cl ai m i ng var i o us cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i ons . T he D i s t r i ctC our tent er ed s um m ary judgm entfor Y D C and i t s s t aff i n t hei r offi ci al capa ci t i es , fi ndi ng t hem im m u n e fro m su it u n d er th e E leve n th A m en d m e n t. S u m m ary j udgm en t also w as ent er ed on the mer i t s i n favorof the D e f e n d a n ts in th e ir in d iv id u a l c a p a c iti e s. B e tts f iled th is tim e ly a p p e a l. 1
I

. T he D i s t r i ctC our thad s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on pur s uant t o 28 U

. S. C

. § 1331. W e have appel l at e j u r i s di ct i on under28 U

. S. C

. § 1291.

“ O u r rev iew o f D e f

e n d a n ts’ en tit lem e n t to E le v e n th A m endmenti m m uni tyi s pl enary . ” H aybar gerv. Law r ence C o u n ty A d u lt P ro b . a n d P a ro le , 5 5 1 F

. 3 d 1 9 3 , 1 9 7 (3d C ir

.4 2008)

. W e revi ew t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s um m aryj udgm entde novo, vi ew i ng t he fa cts i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he n o n m o v in g p a rt y . See G r om an v. Tw p. of Manal apan , 47 F. 3d 6 2 8 , 6 3 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 5 ). S u m m a ryju d g m e n t is a p p ro p ria te w her e t h e r e a r e n o g e n u i n e i s s u e s o f ma t e r i a l f

a c ta n d the mo v i n g p a r t yi s e n t i t l e d t o j u d g me n t a s a ma t t e r o f l a w. F e d

. R. C i v . P. 5 6 ( c ) ( 2 )

. A g e n u i n e i s s u e o f ma t e r i a l f a c t e x i s t s w hen t he evi dence i s s uch thata re as onabl e j ury coul d r eturn a ver di ct f o r th e n o n m o v in g p a rt y . See A nders on v. Li ber t y Lobby, I

nc. , 477 U

. S. 242, 248 ( 1986)

. W hen the movi ng par t yhas carr i ed its b u rd e n , the n o n m o v in g p a rtym u st “ se t o u t sp e c if ic f a c ts sh o w in g a g en u ine issu e f o r tri al. ” F ed

. R

. C iv. P. 56 (e)(2). U n su p p o rt ed asse rt ion s, c o n clus o ryall eg ati o n s, o r m ere su sp ici o n s are insu ff

ici en t to o v erc o m e a m o ti o n fo r sum m ary ju d g m e n t. See W

i l l i am s v. B or ough of W es tC hes t er , 891 F. 2d 4 5 8 , 4 6 0 (3d C ir

. 1 9 8 9 ). II. T h e Y D C hous es y out hs w ho have be en adj udi cat ed d e lin q u e n t an d c o m m itt e d b yP e n n sy lv a n ia’ s J u v e n ile C o u rts to t he ca re an d cus t odyof the Penns y l vani a D epart m entof W el far e’ s B ur eau of

J uveni l e J us t i ce Servi ces . A t the t i m e of h is i n jury , B ett s h ad b ee n co m m itted to the Y D C ’s S ec u re T r eatm ent Pr ogr am— a m axi m um s ecur i t y pr ogr am for s er i ous off end ers

— and w as ass i gn ed to o ne of fi ve resi den t i al cott ages. C o u n selor s w orked in t he co t t ages an d w ere r equ i red to a c c o m p a n yth e re sid e n ts a t all tim e s. O n w e e k e n d s, re sid e n ts had “fr ee t i m e” dur i ng w hi ch t hey w er e perm i t t ed t o us e i ndoor and out door bas ketbal l cour t s , s ever al gym s and w ei ghtt r ai ni ng equi pm ent , a s w i m m i ng pool , and an out door ar ea a vai l abl e forB e tts tes tifie d th a t th e re sid e n ts a lw a y s p layed tac k le 2 footbal l , “phy s i cal , ful l cont actl i ke th e S t eel er s . ” A l t hough s o me YDC s t a f

f t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e g a me s we r e t o u c h f o o tb a l l , we a c c e p t th e tru th o f

B e tts’s v e rsio n o f

e v e n ts f o r p u rp o se s o f

th is a p p e a l. 5 footbal l orw al ki ng. D uri n g d ayt i m e ac t i vi t i es s uch as the footbal l game i nvol ved i n thi s cas e, a t l eas tone Y D C s t aff m em ber had t o b e presentfor everysi x resi den t s. O n the da y B ett s w as trag icall y injured , tw o c o u n s e lors acc om pani ed t en r es i dent s , i ncl udi ng B ett s , t o the out doorar ea t o pl ayfootbal l

. B ythei rpr evi ous agr eement , r es i dent s fr om Pi t t s bur gh chos e t o s quar e off agai ns tr es i dent s fr om P h ilad e lp h ia. A s w a s the ir h a b it, th e re sid e n ts pla y e d ta c k le footbal l w i t houtanyequi pm ent
. D ur i ng t he cour s e of the fa t eful game, a pl ay ers i m ul at ed a ki ckoff bythr ow i ng t he bal l i nt o the ai r . B ett s

— w ho had pr i or exper i ence pl ay i ng or gani zed a nd

“ p ick -u p ” tac k le a n d to u c h f o o tb a ll— ra n d o w n th e f ield “ f u ll f o rc e ” a n d h it th e b a ll ca rrie r w ith h is h e a d . B e tts tes tifie d a t h is depos i t i on t hathe “r eal l yt r i ed t o hur t ” the oppos i ng pl ay er b e c a u s e h is “ a d re n a lin e w a s ru s h in g .” U p o n im p a c t, B e tts f

e ll to th e g ro u n d a n d w a s u n a b le to getup. W hi l e B etts w as l y i ng on the gr ound, a couns el or advi s ed B ett s t o t el l peopl e he ha d been pl ay i ng t ouch, not t ackl e, footbal l

. A n ambul ance tr ans por t ed B ett s t o a l ocal 2 h o sp it al, w h ere h e w as e v ac u ated b yh eli co p ter t o S t. E l i zab eth’s H os pi t al i n Y oungs t ow n, O hi o. U nfor tun at el y , B ett s ’ s s pi nal cor d i nj ur yw as s o s ever e thati tr es ul t ed i n quadr i pl egi a.T he D i s t r i ct C our t al s o di s m i s s ed B ett s ’ s cl ai m s under 3 t he Fou rt h and Fi fth A m endment s t o t he U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on, butB et t s has notpr es erved thos e cl ai m s for a p p e a l. 6 Fol l ow i ng t h e acci dent , B ett s s ued Y D C and s ever al of i t s s t a f f me mb e r s i n t h e i ro f

f i c i a l a n d i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t i e s . As r el evantt o t hi s appea l , B ett s cl ai m ed hi s r i ght s w ere vi ol at ed undert he Ei ght h and Four t eenth A m en dm ent s t o t he U ni t ed S tat es C o n sti tuti o n . T h e D ef en d an ts fil ed a m o ti o n fo r sum m ary j udgm ent , as s er t i ng t hat Y D C and i t s s t aff i n thei roffi ci al c a p a c iti e s w e re im m u n e f ro m su it u n d e r th e E lev e n th A m endment

. T he D i s t r i ctC ourtagr eed, hol di ng thatthe Penns y l vani a D epart m entof Pu b li c W el far e ( D PW ) i s an admi ni s t r at i ve age ncyw i t houtexi s t enc e apartfr om t he C o m m o n w e a lth

. B et t

s v. N ew C ast l e Y

ou th D ev. C tr. , 2 0 0 9 WL 2 9 1 3 8 4 6 , a t * 3 ( W. D. P a . S e p t
. 8 , 2 0 0 9 )

. An d b e c a u s e t h e YDC i s a Pen n s y l vani a s t at e age ncy“r egul at ed, m oni t or ed and m a i n t a i n e d ” b y t h e D P W , i tw a s e n t i t l e d t o t h e s a m e i m m u n i t y. Id

. 3 A s forB ett s ’ s i ndi vi dual

- capa ci t ycl ai m s agai n stt he YDC s t a f

f me mb e r s , t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r tru l e d o n t h e me r i t s . On B ett s’s E igh th A m en d m en t cl aim , the D istri ct C o u rth eld th ere w as i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o r ai s e genui ne i s s ues of fac t as t o the exi sten ce of a s ubs t ant i al r i s k of s er i ous harm and the D e f e n d a n ts ’ d e lib e ra te in d i f f e re n c e to th a t r is k

. Id

. at*5- 6. R egar di ng B ett s ’ s cl ai m s underthe D ue P roce s s C l aus e of the F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t, th e D istric t C o u rt h e ld th a t h is c laim fordel i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence fai l ed forthe s ame r eas on i tfai l edT he Supr eme C our t h as expl ai ned— and w e have 4 r ecogni zed— that “‘the E leve n th A m en d m en t does notdefi ne the s cope of t he St at es ’ s over ei gn i m m uni t y ; i t i s butone part i cul ar exempl i fi cat i on of t hat i m m uni t y . ’ ” L o m b a rd o v . P e n n sy lva n ia D ep’to f P ub l i c W

el f are , 540 F. 3d 190, 195 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( quot i ng Fe d e r a lMa r . Comm ’ n v . S

. C. S ta t e Po r t s Au th. , 535 U .S . 7 4 3 , 7 5 3 (2 0 0 2 )). T h u s, th e S tate s’ s o v e re ig n im m u n ity

“ e x ten d s b e y o n d th e lit e ra l tex t o f th e E lev e n th A m e n d m e n t” to compri s e more t han j us ti m m uni t yfr om s ui ti n fede r al cour t , but al s o “i m m uni t yfr om l i abi l i t y . ” Id

. 7 u n d e r th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t an d th a t th e re w a s n o liab ili ty undert he st at e- cr eat ed danger doctr i ne becaus e the cha l l enged b e h a v io r d id n o t s h o c k th e c o n s c ie n c e . Id

. at*6- 8. III

. St at e governm ent s and t hei rs ubs i di aryuni t s ar e i m m une fr om s ui ti n fede r al cour tunderthe El eventh A m end ment , w hi ch pr ovi des : “The Judi ci al pow erof the U ni t ed St at es s hal l notbe cons t rued t o ext end t o any s ui t i n l aw orequi t y , comm ence d or pr os ecut ed again s tone of the U ni t ed St at es byC i t i zens of a n o th e r S ta te , o r b y C itiz e n s o r S u b je c ts o f a n yF o re ig n S ta te .” 4 U

. S. C ons t
. amend. X I

. “T he Supr eme C our text ended the E l eventh A m endment ’ s r eac h t o s ui t s byi n- s t at e pl ai nt i ffs , thus b a rr in g a ll s u its a g a in s t n o n -c o n s e n tin g S ta te s in f e d e ra l c o u rt .” L om ba rdo v. Pen nsyl van i a D ep’tof Pu bli c W el f are , 540 F. 3d 190, 194 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( ci t i ng H ans v. L o uis i ana , 1 3 4 U .S . 1 ( 1890) )

. I ndi vi du al s tat e empl oy ees s ued i n thei roffi ci al c a p a c itya re a lso e n ti tled to E lev e n th A m e n d m e n t im m u n ityT h e C o m m o n w e a lth o f P e n n sy lv a n ia h a s n o t w a iv e d its 5 ri g h ts u n d e r t h e E le v e n th A m e n d m e n t in th is c a s e . See 42 P A
. C ON S
. S TAT
. § 8 5 2 1 (b ). 8 beca us e “off

i ci al

- capa ci t y s ui t s gener al l y r epr es ent onl yanother w a y o f p le a d in g a n a c tio n ” a g a in s t th e s ta te
. H a ferv . Me lo , 502 U

. S

. 2 1 , 2 5 (19 9 1 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). H ow ever, “[t ]he Su prem e C ou rthas l on g h el d th a t coun t i es, m uni ci pal i t i es , and pol i t ical subdi vi s i ons of a s t at e ar e not pr ot ect ed by t he El eventh A m endment

. ” Febr es v. C am den Bd. of E duc. , 4 4 5 F

. 3 d 2 2 7 , 2 2 9 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). T he part yas s ert i ng E l eventh A m endmenti m m uni t y“bea r s the bur den of pr ovi ng i t s appl i cabi l i t y . ” C h ris ty v . P e n n s y lv a n ia T p k. C o m m ’n , 5 4 F

. 3 d 1 1 4 0 , 1 1 4 4 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 5 ). 5 “[I ] n cert ain i ns t ance s s um m arydi s pos i t i on of the el even t h am end m ent i ssue i s p ossi ble, ” ho w ever, i n close cases , “ e v id e n c e b e y o n d th e m e re s ta tu to ry la n g u a g e is r e q u i re d .” B l ake v. Kl i ne , 612 F. 2d 718, 726 ( 3d C i r . 1979)

. W hen e v id e n c e b e y o n d m e re sta tu to rylan g u a g e is re q u ire d , w e a p p ly a n “ o f t-re iter a te d ” th r e e - p a r t t e s t t o d e te r m in e “ w h e th e ra n e n tity is a n ‘a lter e g o ’ o r ‘a rm ’ o f a s ta te f o r p u rp o se s o f

E lev e n th A m endmenti m m uni t y . ” C h ris ty , 54 F. 3d at1144 ( col le ct i ng cas es )

. I n t hi s cas e, t he D i s t r i ct C our tdi d notappl ythe C h ris ty t es t beca us e i t found di s pos i t i ve t he re l evants t atut oryl anguage a n d Be t t s ’ s c o n c e s s i o n s c o n c e r n i n g DPW’ s c on t r o l o f YDC. B ett s cl ai m s t he D i s t r i ctC ourterr ed byfai l i ng t o appl yt he C h ris ty t es t
. W e di s agr ee w i t h B ett s and, i n doi ng s o, endea vor t o cl ar i fyw hen the C hr is t y t es ts houl d and s houl d notbe appl i ed.9 T h e f u n d a m e n tal f

law in B e tts’s a rg u m e n t li e s in its f a lla c io u s p re m is e , viz. , thatthi s i s a ca s e w her e “e vi dence bey ond m er e st atut or y l anguage ” i s r equi r ed. A s w e s t at ed l ong befor e C h ris ty w as d ec ided : “i n ce rt a in instan ce s su m m ary d is p o s i t i o n o f

th e e le v e n th a m e n d m e n t is s u e is p o s s ib le . . . .” B l ake , 6 1 2 F .2 d a t 7 2 6 ; se e a lso C h ris ty , 5 4 F .3 d at 11 4 4 (“In g e n e ra l, a c laim o f E lev e n th A m e n d m e n t im m u n ityw ill occa s i on s er i ous di s put e onl yw her e a r el at i vel ycompl ex in stitu tio n a l ar rangem ent m akes i t u n c lea r w h e th e r a g iv e n e n tity o u g h t t o b e tre ated as a n arm o f th e state.” (cit ati o n o m itted)). W e a g re e w ith the D istri ct C o u rtthat this case is on e w h ere s um m arydi s pos i t i on i s notonl ypos s i bl e, butappr opr i at e. A s t he D i s t r i ctC our tdul ynot ed, Penns y l vani a and f e d e ra l law e sta b lish th a t th e D P W is e n tit led to E lev e n th A m endmenti m m uni t ybeca us e i ti s an ad m i ni s t r at i ve age ncy w ith o u t e x is te n c e a p a rt f ro m th e C o m m o n w e a lth

. See 71 P A
. C ONS
. S TAT
. § 6 1 ( “ e x e c u t i v e a n d a d mi n i s t r a t i v e wor k o f [ t he C om m onwea l th o f

Pe n n s y l v a n i a ] s h a l l b e per form ed by ” var i ous exec uti ves and admi ni s t r at i ve age nci es , i ncl udi ng t he

“ D e p a rtm e n t o f

P u b lic W e lf

a re ” ); P ennhurs tStat e Sch. & H os p. v. H alder m an , 465 U

. S. 89, 108 n. 16 ( 1984) ( hol di ng that d e f e n d a n ts in c lu d in g P e n n sy lv a n ia D P W , an d P e n n h u rst S tate S c h o o l an d H o sp ital— “ a sta te in stitu tio n ”

— w e re e n tit led to im m u n ity u n d er the E leve n th A m en d m en t) ; Lavi a v. P enns ylvani a D ep’ t of

C or r ect i ons , 2 2 4 F

. 3 d 1 9 0 , 1 9 5 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 0 ) (“B ec au se th e C o m m o n w ea lth o f P en n sy lvan ia’s D epart m ent of C or r ect i ons i s a partof the exe cut i ve depa r t m ent o f th e C o m m o n w e a lth , s ee Pa. St at
. A nn. , t i t
. 71, § 61, i ts har es in the C o m m o n w ea lth ’s E leve n th A m en d m en t i m m u n ity . ”); Lom bar do , 540 F. 3d at 1 9 3

. A s B ett s conce ded i n t he tr i al10 cour t , Y D C is a P enns y l vani a s t at e age ncy“r egul at ed, m oni t or ed and mai nt ai ned bythe [D PW ]

. ” B e tts , 2 0 0 9 WL 2 9 1 3 8 4 6 , at * 3 (c iti n g th e c o m p lain t); s ee al s o B eer s - C api t olv. W het z el , 2 5 6 F

. 3 d 1 2 0 , 1 2 4

- 2 5 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) ( n o t i n g t h a tYDC is “ a d e ten tio n f

a c ili tyf o r ju v e n iles r u n b yth e P e n n sy lv a n ia D epart m ent o f Publ i c W el far e”)

. A ccor di ngl y , t he D i s t r i ct C our t concl uded t hat Y D C w as ent i t l ed t o the s ame i m m uni t yas t h e D P W. T h e D is trict C o u rt’s h o ld in g is f irm lyg ro u n d e d in P enn sy l van i a st atutoryl aw , w hich provides:

“ S t at e i nst i tuti on s” m eans and i ncludes a ll hos pi t al s for t he m ent al l y i l l or anyo the r in stitu tio n s fo r m e n tally re tar d e d o r e p ilep tic person s , orforj uveni l e del i nquent s and d e p e n d e n ts, a n d ch ari t able i nstitutio n s, w ith in th is C om m onw eal th, m ai nta i ned i n w hol e bythe C o m m o n w ea lth , an d w h o se b o ard s o f trustee s are depart m ent al admi ni s t r at i ve boar ds w i t hi n the d e p a rtm e n t. 62 P A
. C ON S
. S TAT
. § 3 0 1

. T h e D P W h a s “s u p e rv isio n o v e r a ll St at e i ns t i tut i ons , ” id

. at § 3 0 2 , an d P en n sy lvan ia’s st atuto ry s cheme forD PW admi ni s t r at i on o f the s e i ns t i tut i ons fur t her evi dence s t hatY D C does nothave i ndepende nts t atus apartfr om th e C o m m o n w e a lth

. See Id

. at§§ 304 ( paym ent of cos t s ) , 305 ( D PW contr ol overco n t r act s forr epai r s , al t er at i ons or e q u ip m e n t), 3 0 7 (D P W c o n tro l o v e r c o n tr a c ts f o r u til ity s ervi ces ) ; 308 ( D PW author i t y t o l eas e l and ats t at e i ns t i tut i ons t o muni c i pa l i t i e s fo r pu rpo s e s of ga rba ge di s po s a l ) ; 34 2 ( D PWT hat Y D C di d nothave a B oar d of Trus t ees i n pl ace for 6 atl eas tt w o y ear s pr i ort o t he t i m e of B ett s ’ s acc i dentdoes not negat e thati ti s a “s t at e i ns t i tut i on” under§ 301. B yla w , t he B oar d of Trus t ees i s a “de par tm ent al advi s ory boar d” w i t hi n t he D PW , 62 P A
. C ON S
. S TAT
. § 301, w hos e pr i m aryr es pons i bi l i t i es in c lu d e m a k in g re c o m m e n d a tio n s re g a rd in g th e m a n a g e m e n t, o p e ra tio n s , a n d p o lic yo f th e in s titu tio n , s ee id at § 3 1 7

. L i ke th e D istric t C o u rt, w e a re n o t aw a re o f a n yp re c e d e n t o r f

a c ts s uppor t i ng B ett s ’ s decl ar at i on t hatt he abs ence of a B o ar d of T rus t ees tur ned the Y D C into a “r ogue i ns t i tut i on oper at i ng out s i de the s upervi s i on of the C om m onw eal t h. ” B ett s B r . at13. 11 p o w e r to a p p o in t su p e rin ten d e n ts o f sta te in stitu tio n s). T h is s t atut or ys cheme— w hi ch expl i ci t l yincl udes i ns t i tut i ons for ju v e n il e d e li n q u e n ts w it h in th e d e f in it io n o f

“ sta te i ns t i tu ti o n s”— i s t he begi nni ng and the end of the mat t erfor pu rposes of E l even t h A m end m ent i m m un i t y . T his i s not a case in v o lv in g c o m p lex in stitu tio n a l ar ra n g e m e n ts w ith n o n -sta te act ors. 6
In su m , b e c a u se P e n n sy lv a n ia la w p ro v id e s, a n d B e tts con cedes, t hat i nst i tuti on s for j uv enil e deli nq uen t s ar e state in sti tuti o n s ex ist ing w ith in the D ep artm en t of P u b li c W elfa re and Y D C w as , i n fac t , m anaged byD PW , w e hol d thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d noterri n gr ant i ng E l eventh A m en d m ent i m m uni t yt o Y D C and i t s s t aff i n t hei r offi ci al capa ci t i es . T he D i s t r i ct C our tw as notr equi r ed t o r efl exi vel yappl yt he C h ris ty t es tbeca us e Y D C i s cl ear l yan arm of the C om m onw eal t h under s t a t e l a w.Speci fi cal l y , B ett s s ued K enneth W ent , D i r ect orof 7 O per at i ons for a l l y outh devel opm entfac i l i t i es ; C har l es M i t c h a m, Di r e c t o ro f

t h e S e c u r e Tr e a t me n tP r o g r a m a tYDC; D avi d T om ochek, a Y outh D evel opm entC ouns el orSuper vi s or atY D C ; O m ar Stuart , a C ouns el oratY D C ; and W i l l i e B l ue and Ta mmyA. Od e m, Yo u t h De v e l o p me n tAi d e s a tYDC. 12 I V. F o llo w in g its in iti a l r u li n g w ith re sp e c t to th e E lev e n th A m endment , t he D i s t r i ctC our tpr ocee d ed to adj udi cat e the m e rits of B e tts’s c laim s ag a in st th e Y D C sta f f in th e ir 7 i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t i e s , a s r e q u i r e d b y H a ferv . Me lo , 502 U

. S. 21, 3 1 ( 1 9 9 1 )

. W e tu r n f

i r s tt o Be t t s ’ s Ei g h t h Ame n d me n tc l a i m. B ett s con tends the D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n ent er i ng s um m aryj udgm enton hi s E i ghth A m endmentcl ai m beca us e he r ai sed genui ne i s s ues of m at er i al fac tas t o the exi s t ence of a su b sta n tial risk o f

se rio u s h a rm a n d th e D e f e n d a n ts’ d e lib e ra te i ndi ffe r ence t o t hatr i s k. T he Ei ght h A m endment ’ s p r ohi bi t i on on “cruel and u n u sual pu nis hm ent” r estrai ns pri son o ffi ci al s fr om cert a in act i ons ( e. g. , t he us e of exce s s i ve for ce a gai ns tpr i s oner s ) , and i m po ses on t hem a dut yt o pr ovi de “humane condi t i ons of confi nement
. ” Far m erv. B r ennan , 5 1 1 U

. S

. 8 2 5 , 8 3 2 (19 9 4 ). T hati s , “pr i s on offi ci al s m us tens ur e that i nm at es r ece i ve adeq uate food , cl othi ng , s h el t er, and m edical care, and m ust
‘ t ake r eas onabl e meas ur es t o guar ant ee the s afe t yof the i nm at es . ’ ” Id

. ( quot i ng H uds on v. P alm er , 468 U

. S. 517, 526- 27A n a l l e g a t i o n o f a n E i g h t h A m e n d m e n tv i o l a t i o n b y a 8 j u v e n i l e d e t e n t i o n f

a c i l i t yo f f i c i a l i s a n a l y z e d u n d e rth e s a me ru b ri c a s a n a lle g a tio n a g a in s t a p ri s o n o f f ic ia l. B eer

s - C api t ol , 256 F. 3d at125. 13 ( 1984) ). Foran al l eged de pr i vat i on t o r i s e t o t he l evel of an

8 E i ght h A m endment vi ol at i on, i t m us t “r es ul t i n t he deni al of ‘ t he m i ni m al ci vi l i zed meas ur e of l ife’s n ece s s i t i es . ’ ” I d. at835 ( quot i ng R hodes , 4 5 2 U .S

. a t 3 4 7 ). T o p ro v e a n E ig h th A m e n d m e n t v io latio n b a se d o n a f a ilu re to e n su re h is re a so n a b le sa f e ty , B e tts m u st sh o w th a t th e D e f e n d a n ts w e re “ d e lib e ra tely i ndi ffe r en[t ] t o a s ubs t ant i al r i s k o f seri ous harm . ” I d. at828. T he ques t i on of Y D C ’ s del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence is a s ubj ect i ve in q u ir y , w h ile ri s k o f

h a rm is e v a lu a te d o b je c t i v e l y. See A tki ns on v. Tayl or , 3 1 6 F

. 3 d 2 5 7 , 2 6 2 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 3 ). I n Hel l i ng v. McK i nney , 5 0 9 U .S

. 2 5 (1 9 9 3 ) , a n in m a te fi l ed s ui tagai ns tpr i s on offi ci al s al l egi ng E i ght h A m endment vi ol at i ons bas ed on h is i nvol unt aryexpos ur e t o envi r onm ent al t ob acco sm ok e (ET S ) em anati ng from his cel l m at e’s ci garet t es. 509 U

. S. at27 ( al l egi ng cel l m at e sm oked fi ve pac ks a day )

. T he pr i s on obt ai ned a di r ect ed ver di ctfr om the di s t r i ctcourtbutthe co u rto f a p p ea ls rev erse d in p art, co n clud ing that the lo w er c o u rt err ed by deny i ng H el l i ng t he oppor tuni t y t o pr ove hi s al l egat i ons o f u n re a s o n a b le e x p o s u re to a f u tu re h a rm . I

d. at29. T he S up rem e C ou rtaffirm ed the cou rtof ap peals , h o l d i n g t h a tHe l l i n g h a d a l l e g e d a s u f f i c i e n t l ys e r i o u s h a r m: i nvol unt aryexpos ur e t o l evel s of s econd- hand s m oke that c re a te d a n u n re a s o n a b le ri s k o f h a rm to f u tu re h e a lth

. Id

. at35.14 W i t h r es pectt o pr ovi ng the obj ect i ve el ementof a ha r m r i s i ng t o t he l evel of a cons t i tut i onal l y s er i ous depr i vat i on on r emand, t he Su p r e me Cou r ts t a t e d Hel l i n g wou l d h a v e t o p r o v e th a the w as expos ed t o “unr eas onabl yhi gh l evel s of ET S. ” Id

. Such a sh o w ing req u ir es “m o re than a scien ti fic an d stat ist ical i n q u iry i nt o t he s er i ous nes s of t he pot ent i al harm and the l i kel i hood t hat su c h in ju ryto h e a lth w ill a c tu a ll y b e c a u se d b ye x p o su re to E T S. ” Id

. at36. O bj ect i vel ys er i ous harm al s o r equi r es an as s es s m entof s oci ety ’ s vi ew of t he ri s k; i

. e. , w hether“i tvi ol at es cont empora r ys t andar ds of dec encyt o expos e anyone unw i l l i ngl yt o s uch a r i s k. ” Id

. at 3 6

. T h u s , u n d er Hel l i ng , for B et t s to sati sfy t he obj ect i ve co m po nen tof h i s cl ai m he m ust es t abl i s h ( 1) th e s er i ous nes s of the i nj ury , ( 2) a s uffi ci ent lik e lih o o d th a t s e rio u s in ju ryw ill re su lt fro m p layi n g tac k le footbal l w i t houtpr ot ect i ve equi pm ent , an d ( 3) the r i s ks as s oci at ed w i t h perm i t t i ng y outh t o pl ay t ackl e footbal l w i t hout e q u ip m e n t v io late c o n tem p o ra rysta n d a rd s o f d e c e n c y . B e tts eas i l ym eet s t he fi r s tfac t or , butfai l s the othertw o. I tgoes w i t houts ay i ng t hatquadr i pl egi a i s an exce pt i o n a l l ys er i ous harm . B utB ett s has pr es ent ed no evi dence t hat play i ng t ackle footbal l w i t ho ut equi pm ent poses a “s ubs t ant i al r i s k” of s er i o u s h arm. I ns t ead, B ett s ar gues t hat

“ th e risk o f

se rio u s h a rm a ss o c ia te d w ith a llo w in g re sid e n ts to p lay ta c k le f

o o tb a ll w ith o u t p ro tec tiv e e q u ip m e n t is su f f icie n tly obvi ous t hatanyr eas onabl e adul t w oul d r eal i ze i t
. ” B ett s B r . at 1 9

. W e disag ree w ith B ett s’s asse rt ion that the e x ce ssive n ature of the ri sk of seri ou s i njuryfrom foo tball i s obv i ou s. In su p p o rto f h is c lai m that the risk o f se ri o u s h arm i nh erenti n p l ay i ng t ackle footbal l w i tho ute qui pm ent i s obv i ou s,D es pi t e t he pot ent i al fors er i ous i nj ury , i tappea r s s uch 9 i nj ur i es occurr ar el y . A compre hens i ve r epor t fr om t he N at i onal C ent erforC at as t r ophi c Inj ury R es ear ch— coauthor ed byone of B ett s ’ s expert s

— s t at es thatther e ar e appr oxi m at el y 1. 5 m i l l i on h ig h sc h o o l an d m id d le sc h o o l f o o tb a ll p layers p a rticip a tin g in t he s por teac h y ear . Fr eder i ck O

. M uel ler& R ober tC

. C antu, C atas tr ophi c Spor t

s I nj ur y Rese ar ch T

w ent y- Seve nth A nnual R epo rt , Fal l1982 - Spr i ng 2009 (he reina f ter “ R epo rt ”), avail a b l e at ht t p: / / w w w . unc. edu/ dep ts/ n cc si/ 2 0 0 9 A L L S P O R T

. pdf (l ast 15 B e tts c ites so m e o f

th e D e f

e n d a n ts’ a d m iss io n s a t th e ir d e p o s i t i o n s t h a tp l a yi n g f o o tb a l l m a y r e s u l ti n s e r i o u s i n j u r y. Speci fi cal l y , B ett s not es t hat C ouns el or Stuar t admi t t ed he w as aw ar e thatN ew E ngl and Patr i ot s w i de r ece i verD arr y l St i ngl ey w as par al y zed a ft erhe w as s pear ed byJ ack Tatu m of the O akl and R ai der s dur i ng an N FL pr es eas on game i n 1978. B ut t he fa ctt hatfootbal l pl ay er s have s uffe r ed gri ev o us i nj ur i es w hi l e pl ay i ng t he game s heds no l i gh t o n the fr equenc yor li k eli h o o d o f su ch injuries. T h e m ere p o ssibil ity that an injury m ayresu lt f

rom an acti vitydo es not m ean thatthere i s a
“ s u b s ta n tia l ris k ” o f th a t in ju ry o c c u rr in g . See B az e v. R ees , 553 U

. S. 3 5 , 5 0 ( 2008) ( pl ur al i t y ) ( “an i s ol at ed mi s hap al one does n o t v io late th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t . . . b e c a u se su c h a n e v e n t, w hi l e reg rett ab le , does nots ugges t
. . . a ‘ s ubs t ant i al r i s k’ of se rio u s h a rm .”). W h ile B e tts su b m itt e d e x p e rt re p o rts concl udi ng t hathi s i nj uryw as caus ed byhis tack le and that cervi cal spi ne inj uri es h a v e o c curr ed in ot her foo tball gam es, t hes e r epor t s offe rno i ns i ght i nt o t he fr equenc y orl i kel i hood of such inj uri es. S e e Ris h v . J o h ns on , 1 3 1 F .3 d 1 0 9 2 , 1 0 9 9 (4 th 9vi s i t ed A ugus t17, 2010)

. T he R epor t fi nds , bas ed on s t at i s t i cs co ll ec ted o v er a 2 7 -y ea r pe ri o d , that the ra te of seriou s injury ( i ncl udi ng death and par al y s i s ) fr om foo tball i s “l es s t han one per 100, 000 part i ci pant s . ” I d. a t 8 ; s ee al

s o a c c o m p a n y in g d a ta t a b l e s a t 5 , avail abl e at ht tp : //ww w. u n c . e d u / d e p t s /n c c s i / 2 0 0 9 ALLSPORT T A B L E S. pdf (l ast v isi ted A u g u st 17 , 2 0 1 0 ). 16 C i r . 1997) ( aff

i davi tfrom i nfec t i ous di s eas e expe r tr egar di ng C D C -r ecom m end ed p recaut i on s for p re v e n tin g sp re a d of d i sease w as i ns uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h t hat risk of di s eas e w i t hout p rotec ti v e e q u ipm en t w as o b v iou s). L if e is f r a u g h t w ith risk o f

se rio u s h a rm a n d th e sp o rts w or l d i s no exce pt i on. B utan Ei ght h A m endmentvi ol at i on m ay notbe pr edi cat ed on expos ur e t o any r i s k of s er i ous harm ; t he r i s k m us tbe “s ubs t ant i al

. ” See H el l i ng , 5 0 9 U .S . at 3 3 (E ig h th A m endment cl ai m m ay be bas ed on a c ondi t i on of conf i nement “t hat i s sur e or veryl i kelyt o cau se seri ou s il l ness and need l ess s uffe r i ng. ”)

. B ec au se the r ecor d i n t hi s cas e i s devoi d of evi dence fr om w hi ch a r eas onabl e j urycoul d concl ude that se rio u s in

ju r yis a c o m m o n o r lik e lyo c c u rre n c e in tac k le footb all games, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d noterri n gr ant i ng D efe ndant s s um m aryj udg m enton B ett s ’ s E i ght h A m endment c l a i m. M oreove r, B e t t s has fai l ed to show t hat the ri sk c o m p la in e d o f

is o n e th a t s o c ie ty w o u l d re f u s e to to le ra te . A c a se f ro m th e C o u rt o f

A p p e a ls f

o r th e S e v e n th C irc u it i s in s tru c tiv e in th is re g a rd

. See C hrist op her v. B uss , 384 F. 3d 87917 ( 7t h C i r . 2004)

. I n C h ris t opher , t he Seventh C i r cui taff i r m ed t he di s m i s s al of an i nm at e’s c la i m thatpr i s on author i t i es had v io la te d h is E ig h th A m e n d m e n t rig h ts by f a ili n g to c o rre c t a
“ p ro tru siv e lip ” o n th e p riso n so f tb a ll fie ld th a t p e rm a n e n tly in ju re d h is e y e a f

te r th e b a ll b o u n c e d o f

f th e lip

. Id

. at 880. T he Sev e n t h Ci r c u i t h e l d t h a t , e v e n i f p r i s o n o f f i c i a l s k n e w of and p u rpo sef u ll yign o red th e d ef

ec t on the f

iel d , the in m ate’s c o m p lain t w o u ld f

a il b e c a u se “ th e risk o f b e in g h it b y a so f tb a ll as a resu lto f a h az ard o u s field co n d it ion is n o t o n e tha t ‘ tod ay ’s s oci etychoos es nott o t ol er at e. ’ ” I d. at 8 8 2

. “R ather , i ti s the typ e o f risk m a n ye n c o u n ter v o lu n tar ilyw h e n th e yp lay sp o rts in l e s s - t h a n - p e r f

e c t p l a y i n g c o n d i t i o ns . ” I d. ( “To saythat ‘e x p o su re ’ to [ a su b s ta n d a rd f ield ] c o u ld v io late th e E ig h th A m endmentw oul d be t o i m pl ythatpr i s on offi ci al s vi ol at e the E i gh t h A m end m ent by l et t i ng i nm at es pl aysport s atal l , becau se th e r is k o f

in ju ry , ev e n se rio u s in

ju ry , is in h e re n t.”); see al so A us t i n v. Johns on , 328 F. 3d 2 0 4 , 209 ( 5th C i r . 2003) ( “R equ ir i ng y outhful offe nder s t o per form m i l i t ary - s t y l ed exerci ses for one da yi s neith e r c ruel no r unusua l ; i ti s a de l i be r a t e po l i c y c ho i c e t o i ns t i l l much

- ne e de d di s c i pl i ne . ” )

. So t oo her e. T he r i s ks of injury pos ed byt ackl e footbal l w i t hout e q u ip m e n t d o n o t v io la te c o n te m p o ra ry st a n d a rd s o f d e c e n c y. T o t he contr ary , t h o se ri s ks ar e as s um ed dai l ybyt he i ncar cer at ed and the fr ee a l i ke. D r aw i ng al l i nfer ence s i n favorof B ett s , w e hol d thatno re a so n a b le ju ry c o u ld f in d th a t a llo w in g h im to p la y ta c k le footbal l w ithoutpr ot ect i ve equi pm entr i s es t o the l evel of an obj ect i vel y s er i ous depr i vat i on of “the m i ni m al ci vi l i zed m eas ur e of l i fe’ s nece s s i t i es . ” T hus , B ett s has fai l ed t o pr es ent18 a genui ne di s put e of fac t r egar di ng t he exi s t ence of the obj ect i ve componentof an Ei ght h A m endmentvi ol at i on. T he D i stri ctC ou rtal so held t hat B et t s fai l ed to est abli sh t h e s u b j e c t i v e e l e me n to f

h i s Ei g h t h Am e n d me n tc l a i m: th at D efe ndant s w er e del i ber at el yi ndi ffe r entt o a subs t ant i al r i s k of harm beca us e ther e w as no evi dence of a r ecor d of i nj ur i es dur i ng footbal l games a tY D C

. B ett s ar gues thathe has pr es ent ed ade quat e evi dence of del i ber at e i ndi ffe rence i n the form of: ( 1) D efe ndant s ’ depos i t i on t es t i m onyacknow l edgi ng the dange r s as s oci at ed w i t h pl ay i ng footbal l and the i ncr eas ed ri sk of h arm from play i ng w i t ho ut equi pm ent; (2) D efen dan t s’ admi t t ed fa i l ur e t o t r ai n the res i dent s of Y D C aboutpr oper t ackl i ng t echni ques ; and ( 3) expertr epor t s opi ni ng t hatthe D efe ndant s expos ed B ett s t o an unr eas onabl e r i sk and s how ed a c o n s c i o u s d i s r e g a r d f

o rh i s s a f e t y. A s e x p lain e d b yth e S u p re m e C o u rt: N oteverygovernm ent al act i on affect i ng t he in ter e st s o r w e ll-b e in g o f a p riso n e r is s u b

jec t to E i ght h A m endments crut i ny , how ever . “A ft er i ncar cer at i on, onl yt he ‘ u n n ece s s aryand w ant on i nfl i ct i on of p ai n’

. . . cons t i tut es cruel and u n u su a l p u n ish m e n t f o rb id d e n b yth e E ig h th A m endment

. ” T o be cruel and u n us ual puni s hm ent , conductthatdoes notpurpor tt o be p u n ishm en t atall m u st i n v o lve m o re than ord inary l ack of due ca r e fort he pr i s oner ’ s i nt er es t s or s afe t y . . . . I ti s obdur acyand w an ton nes s , not inadvert ence orerr ori n good fai t h, t hat19 char act er i ze the con d uctpr ohi bi t ed byt he C ruel and U nus ual Puni s hm ent s C l au s e, w hetherthat conductoccur s i n connec t i on w i t h es t abl i s hi ng condi t i ons of conf

i nement , s uppl y i ng m edi cal n ee d s, o r restoring o ff ici al co n tr o l ov er a tum ul tuous cel l bl ock. W hit l ey v. A l bers , 475 U

. S. 312, 319 ( 1986) ( i nt ernal ci t at ions o m itted). H er e, t o s how the r equi s i t e cul pabi l i t y o f Y D C s t aff m em b ers, B ett s m u st d em o n str ate that D ef en d an ts w ere “a w are o f f a c ts f ro m w h ich th e in f

e re n c e c o u ld b e d ra w n th a t a s ubs t anti al risk of ha r m exi s t s , ” and thatthey“al s o dr [e] w the i nfer ence . ” Far m er , 511 U

. S. at837. T o over come a mot i on for su m m a ry ju d g m e n t, a p lain tiff “ ‘m u st co m e f o rw a rd w ith e v id e n c e f

ro m w h ich it ca n b e in f e rre d th a t th e d e f

e n d a n toffi ci al s w er e . . . know i ngl y and unre as onabl ydi s r egar di ng an obj ect i vel y i nt ol er abl e r i s k of harm . ’ ” B eer s - C api t ol , 256 F. 3d at132 ( quot i ng Far m er511 U

. S. at 846)

. A pl ai nt i ff may demonstr at e del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence by s how i ng t hat t he r i s k of harm w as “l ongs t andi ng, pervas i ve, w el l

- document ed, or expr es s l ynot ed bypr i s on offi ci al s i n t he pas t ” su ch t hatt he d e f e n d a n ts “ m u s t h a v e k n o w n ” a b o u t t h e ri s k

. Far m er , 511 U

. S

. a t 8 4 2

- 4 3 ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n s o m i t t e d )

. B et t s h a sf a i l ed t o ma k e t h e r e q u i s i t e s h o wi n g o f d e l i b e r a t e i n d i f

f e r e n c e . As pr evi ous l yexpl ai ned, i t i s not obvi ous t hat t he r i s ks as s oci at ed w ith p lay in g ta c k le f o o tb a ll w ith o u t equ ipm en t are u n re a so n a b le. A lth o u g h B e tts c o rre c tly n o tes th a t D e f e n d a n ts acknow l edged thatplay ing footbal l coul d r es ul ti n gr i evous i nj ur y , and thatt he risk of i nj urycoul d i ncr eas e w i t hout20 pr ot ect i ve equi pm ent , t hi s does nots at i s fythe l egal s t andar d of del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence t o a subst an t i al r isk o f s e r i o u s h a r m. M or eover , t her e i s no evi dence of pr i or s er i ous i nj ur i es r es ul t i ng f ro m re sid e n t f

o o tb a ll g a m e s a t Y D C . T h u s, th e e v id e n c e is i ns uffi ci entt o r ai s e a genui ne di s put e of m at er i al fac tr egar di ng del i berat e i ndi ffe r ence i n t hi s cas e. A ccor di ngl y , the D i s t r i ct Co u r t d i d n o t e r ri n r e

j e c t i n g Be t t s ’ s Ei g h t h Ame n d me n tc l a i m. V

. F in a lly , w e tu rn to B e tts’s F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t cla im t h a t h e w a s d e p r i v e d o f s u b s t a n t i v e d u e p r o c e s s . S p e c i f i c a l l y, B e tts c o n te n d s D e f

e n d a n ts w e re d e lib e ra telyin d if f e re n t to h is l i bert yi nt er es ti n bodi l y i nt egr i t y and t hatal l ow i ng hi m t o pl ay t ackl e footbal l w i t houtequi pm entcons t i tut ed a s t at e- cr eat ed danger

. T he D i s t r i ct C our t r ej ect ed both cl ai m s , r eas oni ng: ( 1) beca us e the del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence nece s s aryfor a vi ol at i on of du e p r o c e s s i s t h e s a me a s th a tf o rEi g h t h Am e n d me nt vi ol at i ons , B ett s ’ s fai l ur e t o s how del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence i n the E i gh t h A m end m ent cont ext do om ed his subst anti ve du e process cl ai m ; and ( 2) B ett s fail ed t o es t abl i s h a s t at e- cr eat ed dange r beca us e the al l eged be havi or d id n o ts hock the cons ci ence . B e tts , 2009 W L 2913846, at*6- 7. T o su p p o rt h is su b sta n tiv e d u e p ro c e ss c laim s, B e tts p o in ts to th e sa m e e v id e n c e h e c it e d in su p p o rt o f h is E ig h th A m en d m e n t claim

. D ef en d an ts argu e tha t th ese claim s are b arred b ythe “ m o re -s p ec ifi c-p rov isi o n rule” b ec au se B ett s’s co m p lai n ts c o n ce rnin g the c o n d it ion s o f h is co n fin em en t are p rop erl ycogni zabl e underthe Ei ghth A m endment

. I n t he21 a ltern a tiv e , D e f

e n d a n ts c o n ten d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rly f o u n d e v id e n c e o f

d e lib e ra te in d if

f e re n c e to b e la c k in g . N ot i ng i t s “r el uct an[c e] t o expand the conc ept of s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s , ” t he S upr eme C our t has es t abl i s hed the

“ m or e- s peci fi c- pr ovi s i on rul e. ” C o u n ty o f S a c r a m e n to v . L e w is , 523 U

. S. 833, 843- 44 ( 1998)

. U ndert hi s rul e, “i f a cons t i tut i onal cl ai m i s cover ed bya s p ec i fi c cons t i tut i onal p ro v isio n , su c h a s th e F o u rth o r E ig h th A m e n d m e n t, th e c laim m u st b e a n a ly z e d u n d e r th e sta n d a rd a p p ro p ria te to th a t sp e c if ic p ro v i s i o n , n o t u n d e r t h e ru b ri c o f s u b s ta n tiv e d u e p ro c e s s .” U ni t ed Stat es v. Lani er , 520 U

. S. 259, 272 n. 7 ( 1997) ( cl ar i fy i ng pr i or hol i ng i n G r aham v. C onnor , 490 U

. S. 386 ( 1989) )

. T he Supr em e C our texpl ai ned the r at i onal e behi nd the rul e for E ight h A m endmentcl ai m s i n W hit l ey v. A l bers , w her e a p riso n e r sh o t in th e leg d u rin g a p riso n rio t f iled b o th E ig h th A m endmentand Four t eenth A m endments ubs t ant i ve due process cl ai m s agai nstpri son o ffi ci al s: [ T ]h e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t, w h ich is s p e c if ica lly conce r ned w i th t he unnece s s ary and w ant on i nfl i ct i on of pai n i n penal i ns t i tuti ons , s erves as th e p rim a ryso u rc e o f

su b s ta n tiv e p ro tec tio n to convi ct ed pr i s oner s i n cas es s uch as t hi s o n e, w her e the del i ber at e us e of for ce i s chal l enged a s exce s s i ve and unj u st i fi ed. I tw oul d i ndeed be s urpr i s i ng i f, i n t he cont extof force fu l pr i s on s ecur i t ym eas ur es , “conduc tthats hocks the consc ience ” or“af

for d[s ] brut al i t yt he cl oak of law ,” a n d so v io late s th e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t, w e re n o t als o p u n ish m e n t “ in c o n sis ten t w ith22 cont empora r y s t a n d a r d s o f d e cenc y ” and

“ ‘re p u g n a n t to th e c o n sc ien c e o f m a n k in d ,’” in viol at i on of the E i gh t h.

. . . [I] n these ci r cumst ance s the D ue Pr oces s C l aus e af for ds r es pondentno gr eat erpr ot ect i on than does t he C ruel and U nus ual Puni s hm ent s C l aus e. 4 7 5 U .S . a t 3 2 7 (i n te rn a l c ita tio n s o m i t t e d ). C o m p a re w ith C o u n ty o f Sa c ra m e n to , 523 U

. S. at 843 ( r ej ect i ng appl i cat i on of m o re -sp e c if

ic- p ro v isio n ru le to su b sta n tiv e d u e p ro c e ss c laim ar i s i ng fro m h i gh s peed pol i ce c has e bec aus e fa ct s w er e not w ith in “s ea rch an d seizu re” p rotec ti o n s o f F o u rth A m en d m en t)

. A l t hough w e have notpr evi ous l yappl i ed the more

s peci fi c- pr ovi s i on rul e i n a pr ece dent i al opi ni on, atl eas tfourof o u r s is te r c ir c u it c o u r t s o f a p p e a ls h a v e d o n e s o . See U ni t ed Stat es v. H

er nandez , 333 F. 3d 1168, 1174 ( 10t h C i r . 2003) ( anal y zi ng Pl ai nt i ff’ s al l egat i ons of governm ent al i nvas i on of hi s at t or ney - cl i entr el at i on shi p onl yunderSi xth A m endment ri gh t t o co un sel and no tun der Fifth A m end m ent D ue P rocess C l aus e bec aus e “[ w ] her e a l i t i gantchal l enges governm ent al act i on undert he D ue Pr oces s C l aus e and unde ranother , m ore s peci fi c cons t i tut i onal pr ovi s i on, w e ana l y ze t he cl ai m undert he latte r, m o re sp e c if

ic p ro v isio n ” ); A u stin , 328 F. 3d 204, 210 n. 10 ( 5t h C i r . 2003) ( cons t ru i ng bootcamp det ai nee’ s compl ai ntas r ai s i ng cl ai m s underonl yE i ght h A m endment : “[b] eca us e the E i ght h A m endment , as ‘a n expl i ci tt extual s our ce of cons t i tut i onal pr otect i on, ’ defi nes the l i m i t s of governm ent act i on, i tcontr ol s over‘ t he more general i zed not i on of s ubs t ant i ve due p r o c e s s . ’ ” ( q u o t i ng G r aham v. C onnor , 49 0 U. S. a t 3 9 5 (1 9 8 9 )); G albr ai th v . Count y of Sa nt a C l ara , 307 F. 3dI n l i ght of our adopt i on of the more

- s peci fi c- pr ovi s i on 10 rul e, w e need not addr es s B ett s ’ s ar gum ent s under the F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t re g a rd in g d e lib e ra te in d if f e re n c e to h is r i ghtt o bodi l yi nt egr i t yorthe s t at e- cr eat ed dange rdoctr i ne. 23 11 19, 1127 ( 9t h C i r . 2002) ( di s m i s s i ng arr es t ee’ s s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s cl ai m agai ns tcountycor oner al l egi ng fal s i fi cat i on o f a u to p syre p o rt b e c a u s e c laim f e ll w ith in m o re sp e c if ic p ro v isio n o f

th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t); Tes ch v. C ount y of G r een Lake , 157 F. 3d 465, 471- 72 ( 7th C i r . 1998) ( holding t hat w heel chai r - bound arr es t ee c oul d notpur s ue s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s cl ai m al l egi ng unnece s sary expos ur e t o dangerdur i ng arr es tbeca us e al l egat i ons fel l w i t hi n m or e spec i fi c pr ovi s i ons of a Four t h A m endmentcl ai m forexce s s i ve for ce a nd u n rea so n ab le seizu re). B ett s does not ci t e any cas e l aw for t he pr opos i t i on that h e m a yb rin g b o th su b sta n tiv e d u e p r o c e ss a n d E ig h th A m en d m e n t claim s ch all en g ing the s am e c o n d u ct. M o reo v er, B ett s ’ s cl ai m s conce rn hi s condi t i ons of conf i nementand an al l eged fai l ure byD efen dan t s t o en sure hi s saf et y . B ecause thes e a ll eg ati o n s fit squ are lyw ith in the E igh th A m e n d m e n t’ s pr ohi bi t i on on cruel and unus ual puni s hm ent , w e hol d t hatthe m or e- s peci fi c- pr ovi s i on rul e for ecl os es B ett s ’ s s ubs t ant i ve due process cl ai m s. 10
V I. In su m , w e w il l aff

irm the D istri ct C o u rt’s su m m ary j udgm enti n favorof Y D C and i ts st aff i n thei roffi ci al24 c a p a c iti e s b e c a u se Y D C is an a rm o f th e sta te e n tit le d to E l eventh A m endmenti m m uni t y . W e w i l l al s o aff i r m t he D i str ictC our t ’ s s um m aryj udgm entforthe i ndi vi dual D e f e n d a n ts o n th e m e rits o f B e tts’s E ig h th A m e n d m e n t cla im b ec au se B ett s fa il ed to sho w a sub stan ti al ri sk o f ser io u s h arm th a t v io late s c o n tem p o ra rysta n d a r d s o f d e c e n c ya n d f

a iled to s how del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence . Fi nal l y , ouradopt i on of the more

sp ec ifi c-p rov isi o n rule o b v iat es th e n e e d to ad d ress B ett s’s F ou rt eenth A m end m ent s ub st anti ve d ue p rocess cl ai m s.