FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT NOVEMB ER 27, 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. 06- 12143 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 2 - 0 1 5 2 4 - CV- KO B- J EO O L I N G R I M S L E Y , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s D R . W I L L I A M H A M M A C K , D R . A N D Y M A D D U X , e t a l., 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 rth e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 27, 2007) B efo re C A RN E S , B A R K E T T an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

O l i n G r i m s l e y , apr i s one rpr oc e e di ng pr o s e , appe a l s the gr a ntof the d e f e n d a n ts ’ m o tio n s f

o rs u m m a ryju d g m e n t in h is 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 c iv il r ig h ts a c tio n . G r im s le y n a m e d D r . W illia m H a m m a c k , M e d ic a l D ir e c to ra t S t. C la ir C orre ct i on al F ac i l i ty ( “ S t . C l ai r” ); N aphC ar e, Inc. , contra ctprov i der of m edi ca l serv i ces; D r. A n d y M ad d u x , n ep h ro l o g i st ; Ji m H en so n , a n u rse; R al p h H o o k s, W a r de n a tS t . C l a i r ; a nd D ona l C a m pbe l l , A l aba m aD e pa rtm e ntof C orr e c t i ons Co mmi s s i o n e r , a s d e f

e n d a n t s . G r i ms l e ya r g u e s th a th e e s t ab l i s h e d ap r i ma f a c i e c a s e of

de l i be r a t e i ndi f

f e r e nc e t o hi s m e di c a l ne e ds a nd pr e s e nt e d age nui ne is s u e o f m a te r ia l f

a c t r e g a r d in g th e p la c e m e n t o f a n a rte r io v e n o u s ( “A V ” ) g r a f t in hi s a rm a nd the de f

e nda nt s ’ f

a i l ur e t o r e m ove i t . G r i m s l e ya l s o a r gue s tha tthe di stri ctcourterre d i n d enyi ng hi s m ot i on s t o app oi ntcoun se l because c ou nsel w as needed t o ass i sthi m i n the prosecut i on of hi s c as e. S ec on d, G ri m sl eyar gu es that th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n b yd e n y in g h is m o tio n to a m e n d h is c om pl a i nt . L a s t , G r i m s l e y a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on by denyi ng hi s m ot i on t o o bt ai n h i s m edi ca l re cords because tho se do cum ent s w er e re l evantand n ec es saryt o d evel op si gn i fi cantas pect s of hi s c as e. Fo rth e r e a s o n s s e tf

o rth mo r e f

u l l yb e l o w , w e a f

f i rm. I. W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s rul i ng on am ot i on f ors um m a ryj udgm e ntde n o v o . R o

ja s v . F lo r id a , 2 8 5 F .3 d 1 3 3 9 , 1 3 4 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . T h e m o v in g p a rty3

is e n title d to s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t “if th e p le a d in g s , d e p o s itio n s , a n s w e r s to i nt e rr oga t or i e s , a nd a dm i s s i ons on f i l e , t oge the rw i th the a f

f i da vi t s , i f

a ny , s how th a t th e r e is n o g e n u in e is s u e a s to a n ym a te r ia l f a c t a n d th a t th e m o v in g p a rtyis e nt i t l e d t o aj udgm e nta s am a tt e rof l a w . ” F e d. R . C i v. P . 56( c ) . “ W he n de c i di ng w hether s um m ary j ud gm enti s app ropri at e, al l evi dence and rea sonabl e f ac tual i nf e r e nc e s dr a w n the r e f

r om a r e r e vi e w e d i n al i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o the no n-m ov i ng party. ” R oj as , 28 5 F . 3d at13 41 -42 (ci t at i on and q uo t at i on om i tt ed). D e l i be r a t e i ndi f

f e r e nc e t o apr i s one r ’ s s e r i ous m e di c a l ne e ds vi ol a t e s the E ig h th A m e n d m e n t. F a rr o w v . W e s t, 3 2 0 F .3 d 1 2 3 5 , 1 2 4 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . D e lib e r a te in d if

f e r e n c e c o n ta in s b o th a n o b je c tiv e a n d s u b

je c tiv e c o m p o n e n t. I d . A p la in tif

f f ir s t m u s t d e m o n s tr a te a n “o b je c tiv e lys e r io u s m e d ic a l n e e d .” I d . A s e r i ous m e di c a l ne e d i s “ one tha tha s be e n di a gnos e d byaphy s i c i a n a s m a nda t i ng tre atm entor on e thati s s o o bv i ou s thateven a l aypers on w ou l d eas i l y r ec og ni ze th e n e c e s s ityf

o rad o c to r ’s a tte n tio n .” I d . ( c ita tio n a n d q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . F urther, the m edi ca l need m ustbe on e thatpo se s asubst ant i al ri sk of se ri ou s harm if le f t u n a tte n d e d . I d . O nc e as e r i ous m e di c a l ne e d i s s how n, apl a i nt i f f m us ts a t i s f

ythe s ubj e c t i ve in q u iry , e s tab lis h in g th a t “th e p r is o n o f f ic ia l a c te d w ith d e lib e r a te in d if f e r e n c e to tha tne e d. ” B oz e m a n v. O rum , 422 F . 3d 1265, 1272 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( c i t a t i on a nd quot a t i on om i tt e d) . H ow e ve r , a“ s i m pl e di f f e r e nc e i n m e di c a l opi ni on” doe s not4

c o n s titu te d e lib e r a te in d if f e r e n c e . W a ld r o p v . E v a n s , 8 7 1 F .2 d 1 0 3 0 , 1 0 3 3 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 89 ). “ [T ] he qu es t i on of w hether gov ernm ent al ac t ors s ho ul d h ave e m pl oyed addi t i on al di agno st i c t ec hn i qu es or form s of tre atm ent‘ i s acl as si c e xam pl e of a m a tt e rf orm e di c a l j udgm e nt ’ a nd the r e f or e nota n appr opr i a t e ba s i s f orgr oundi ng liab ilityu n d e rth e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t.” A d a m s v . P o a g , 6 1 F .3 d 1 5 3 7 , 1 5 4 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . A s an i ni t i al m att er , the di stri ctcourtprop er l y grant ed sum m ary j ud gm entas t o D r. H am m ac k b ec ause G ri m sl eydi d n otpres entany e vi dence t o sho w thatD r. H a m m a c ke ith e rw a s a w a r e o f h is s e r io u s m e d ic a l n e e d , o rd ir e c tlyp a rtic ip a te d in hi s c a r e a nd tr e a tm e nt . A c c or di ngl y , G r i m s l e yf a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h age nui ne i s s ue o f m a t e r i a l f

a c ta s t o wh e th e rDr . Ha m m a c ka c t e d wi th d e l i b e r a t e i n d i f f e r e n c e . As t o the r e m a i ni ng de f

e nda nt s , the f

ol l ow i ng a na l y s i s c ons i de r s s e pa r a t e l y : ( 1) the pl a c e m e ntof

the A V gr a f

ton M a r c h 20, 2002; a nd ( 2) the f a i l ur e t o r e m ove the A V g r a f t. G r im s le y d o e s n o t r a is e a n ya r g u m e n ts w ith r e s p e c t to h is in itia l d ia ly s is on appe a l a nd, thus , ha s aba ndone d the i s s ue . S e e S e pul ve dav. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 401 F . 3d 12 26 , 12 28 n. 2 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). A . P l ac e m e n t of

t h e A V G r af

t on M ar c h 20, 2002 W i th res pectt o the pl ac em entof the A V graf t , i ti s und i sput ed thatG ri m sl ey had an o bj ec t i vel y s er i ou s m edi ca l need, ac ut e ki dn eyfa i l ure, atthe t i m e the graft w as i m pl ant ed. D r. S i m on , a s t af f physi ci an, di agno se d the ac ut e ki dn eyfa i l ure5

w hi l e G ri m sl eyw as i n cust od y a tL i m es t on e C orre ct i on al F ac i l i ty ( “ L i m es t on e” ) o n F e b ru a ry 1 1 , 2 0 0 2 . G r im s le y w a s tr a n s f e rr e d to S t. C la ira n d w a s s u b s e q u e n tly se ntt o a no n-pri son h ospi t al for e xam i nat i on and t es t i ng . G ri m sl eyre ce i ved di a l y s i s tr e a tm e nta tS t . C l a i ra f t e rbl ood t e s t s , x- r a y s , a nd othe re xa m i na t i ons c o n f irm e d D r . S im o n ’s d ia g n o s is . O n M a r c h 2 0 , 2 0 0 2 , D r . M a d d u x , a n e p h r o l o g i s ta tSt . Cl a i r , d e c i d e d t o i mp l a n ta n A V g r a f ti n G r i ms l e y ’ s a rm, pr e s um abl y t o pr ovi de am or e s t abl e a c c e s s poi ntf orf utur e di a l y s i s . H ow e ve r , the gr a f tw a s ne ve rus e d be c aus e di a l y s i s tr e a tm e nt s w e r e di s c ont i nue d on M a r c h 25, 20 02 , af t erbl oo d and uri ne t es t s, and an M R I r evea l ed thatG ri m sl ey ’ s ki dn ey fu n ct i o n h ad retu rn ed t o n o rm al . T h e d efen d an t s assert ed th atG ri m sl ey’ s co u rse of tre atm entw as far m ore e xp ensi ve than m er el y m on i t ori ng hi s c on di t i on , w hi ch u ltim a te lyw o u ld h a v e b e e n e a s ie ra n d le s s e x p e n s iv e . A lth o u g h G r im s le y d is p u te s th e n e c e s s ityo f im p la n tin g th e A V g r a f t to addres s hi s s er i ou s m edi ca l need, he prov i des no evi dence thatre fut es D r. M addu x’ s m edi ca l j ud gm entthatthe A V graf tw as nece ss ary a tthe t i m e i tw as i m pl a nt e d. T o the c ontr a ry , the e vi de nc e s how s tha tthe de f e nda nt s pr ovi de d the ne c e s s a ry c a r e a nd tr e a tm e ntt o c orr e c tG r i m s l e y ’ s ki dne yf a i l ur e , butnotthe tre atm entG ri m sl eybel i eves he shou l d h ave r ec ei ved. M att er s of m edi ca l j u d g me n te x t e n dt o w h e th e rth e d e f e n d a n t s s h o u l d h a v e p r o v i d e d a d d i t i o n a l f o rms of tr e a tm e nt . S e e A da m s , 61 F . 3d a t1545; s e e a l s o H a rr i s v. T hi gpe n, 941 F . 2d6

14 95 , 15 05 (11th C i r. 19 91 ) ( st at i ng , “ [n] or do es a s i m pl e di ff er ence i n m edi ca l opi ni on be tw e e n the pr i s on’ 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 la tte r ’s . . . c o u r s e o f

tr e a tm e n t s u p p o rt ac la im o f c ru e l a n d u n u s u a l p u n is h m e n t” ) . B e c au s e G r im s le y o n lyh a s s h o w n ad if f e r e n c e o f m e d ic a l o p in io n in th e m a n n e rin w hi c h the de f

e nda nt s tr e a t e d hi s c ondi t i on, he ha s notr a i s e d age nui ne i s s ue of m a t e r i a l f

a c tr e ga r di ng de l i be r a t e i ndi f f e r e nc e . S e e A da m s , 61 F . 3d a t1545; H a rr is , 9 4 1 F .2 d a t 1 5 0 5 . B . F ai l u re to R em ov e t h e A V G raft H e r e , the e vi de nc e , vi e w e d i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o G r i m s l e y , di d not dem on stra t e thatthe defendant s w er e del i bera t el y i nd i ff er entt o a se ri ou s m edi ca l ne e d of G r i m s l e y ’ s . T he e vi de nc e s how e d tha tG r i m s l e ye xpe r i e nc e d pa i n, num bne s s , a nd s w e l l i ng i n hi s l e f ta rm , ne a rthe s i t e of

the A V gr a f

t , a nd re peat edl y c om pl ai ned t o the pri son m edi ca l st af f. H ow ever , G ri m sl eyprov i ded o n lyh is o w n u n s u p p o rte d a lle g a tio n s th a t th e A V g r a f t w a s th e c au s e o f

th is p a in and thatre m ov al of the graftconst i tut ed a s er i ou s m edi ca l need. N o p hysi ci an m a nda t e d tha tthe A V gr a f tbe r e m ove d, a nd G r i m s l e yf a i l e d t o s how tha tthe f a i l ur e t o r e m ove the gr a f tc aus e d s uc h obvi ous e f f e c t s tha te ve n al a ype r s on w ou l d h ave r ec og ni ze d the neces si ty f or i t s r em ov al . S ee F arrow , 32 0 F . 3d at 12 43 . T o the contrary , the m edi ca l evi dence i n the re cord dem on stra t ed that G r i m s l e y w a s e xa m i ne d on s e ve r a l oc c a s i ons , byboth the pr i s on m e di c a l s t a f f a nd7

i nde pe nde ntdoc t or s , w ho e a c h de t e rm i ne d tha tthe r e w a s no s i gn of i nf e c t i on or pr obl e m w i th the gr a f

t , a nd w ho e xpl a i ne d tha tr e m ova l of the gr a f tw a s not m ed i cal l y n ecessary an d , i n fact , co u l d cau se an i n crease in p ai n an d n u m b n ess nearthe graftsi t e post -s urgery . G ri m sl ey , there fore , di d n otprov i de any e vi dence thatthe re m ov al of the A V graf trose t o the l evel of a s er i ou s m edi ca l need, as r e q u ir e d to g r a n t r e lie f

u n d e rth e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t. S e e A d a m s , 6 1 F .3 d a t 1 5 4 3 . T he r e f or e , be c aus e G r i m s l e yha s ne i the rpr ovi de d e vi de nc e tha tthe defe nd ant s’ pl ac em entof the A V graf ti n res po nse t o h i s s er i ou s m edi ca l need w as del i bera t el y i nd i ff

er ent , no r s ho w n thatthe fa i l ure t o rem ov e the graftw as i t se l f a se ri ou s m edi ca l need, he has notshow n thathi s E i gh th A m endm entri gh t s w er e vi ol a t e d. S e e A da m s , 61 F . 3d a t1543. B e c aus e G r i m s l e y , i n oppos i ng the d e f e n d a n ts ’ m o tio n s f

o rs u m m a ryju d g m e n t, d id n o t s e t f o rth s p e c if

ic f a c ts s h o w in g th a t th e r e w a s ag e n u in e is s u e f o rtr ia l, th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t e rrin g r a n tin g th e d e f

e n d a n ts ’ s u m m a ryju d g m e n t m o tio n s a s to h is d e lib e r a te i n d i f f e r e n c e c l a i m. F in a lly , to th e e x te n t th a t G r im s le ya r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d in d en yi n g h i s m o t i o n s t o ap p o i n tco u n sel , th e o rd ers ati ssu e w ere en t ered b y a m a g is tr a te . A d is tr ic t c o u rt m a y r e f e rm o s t n o n - d is p o s itiv e m o tio n s , w ith c e rta in exce pt i on s, t o a m agi stra t e f or di sposi t i on . S ee 28 U . S . C . § 6 36 (b). “ [W ] here a pa rty f a i l s t o t i m e l y c ha l l e nge am a gi s tr a t e ’ s non- di s pos i t i ve or de rbe f or e the8

di stri ctcourt , the party w ai ved h i s r i gh tt o app ea l tho se orders i n thi s C ou rt . ” S m i th v. S c h. B d. of

O r a nge C ounty , 487 F . 3d 1361, 1365 ( 11th C i r . 2007) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) ; s e e F e d. R . C i v. P . 72( a ) ( s t a t i ng tha tapa rtym us tf i l e obj e c t i ons to am a g is tr a te ’s o r d e rw ith in 1 0 d a y s a f te rb e in g s e rv e d w ith ac o p yo f th e o r d e r ) . H ere, G ri m sl ey d i d n o tfi l e an y o b j ect i o n s t o th e m ag i strat e’ s o rd ers. T h u s, be c aus e he f

a i l e d t o c ha l l e nge the m a gi s tr a t e ’ s or de r s be f or e the di s tr i c tc ourt , he w a i v e d h i s r i g h tt o ap p e a l th e m h e r e . Se e Smi th , 4 8 7 F. 3 d a t1 3 6 5 ; Fe d . R. Ci v . P. 72 (a ). F or al l of these re as on s, w e a ff i rm as t o thi s i ss ue. II . W e r e vi e w the de ni a l of am ot i on t o a m e nd ac om pl a i ntunde ra n abus e of di s c r e t i on s t a nda r d. G r e e n L e a f N ur s e ryv. E . I . D uP ontD e N e m our s & C o. , 341 F .3 d 1 2 9 2 , 1 3 0 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . U n d e rF e d .R .C iv .P . 1 5 ( a ) , le a v e to a m e n d “s h a ll b e f r e e lyg iv e n w h e n ju s tic e s o r e q u ir e s .” H e r e , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt w ith d r e w , in p a rt, the m a gi s tr a t e ’ s or de rde ny i ng G r i m s l e y ’ s m ot i on t o a m e nd hi s or i gi na l c om pl a i nt to in c lu d e a n a d d itio n a l c la im a g a in s t th e d e f e n d a n ts a lle g in g th a t th e yf a ile d to re m ov e the A V graf

tbecause he r ef

used t o si gn a c on se ntform thati ncl ud ed an absol ut e w ai ver of l i abi l i ty. A cc ordi ng l y, t o the ext entthe di stri ctcourtgrant ed th is p o rtio n o f

G r im s le y ’s m o tio n to a m e n d , h is a r g u m e n t o n ap p e a l is m o o t. A s to the de ni a l of

G r i m s l e y ’ s m ot i on t o a m e nd hi s or i gi na l c om pl a i ntt o i nc l ude a d d itio n a l d e f

e n d a n ts , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g th is9

port i on of

hi s m ot i on, w hi c h w oul d ha ve c aus e d undue de l a y , a nd w oul d ha ve re sul t ed i n u nfai r pre

j ud i ce t o the addi t i on al defe nd ant s. S ee C am pb el l v. E m ory C l i n i c, 1 6 6 F . 3 d 1 1 5 7 , 1 1 6 2 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 9 9 ) (h o l d i n g d i stri ctco u rtd i d n o tab u se its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g m o tio n to a m e n d w h e n a m e n d m e n t w o u ld h a v e r e s u lte d in u n d u e d e la y a n d e x p e n s e , a n d r e s u lte d in u n f a irp r e ju d ic e to th e d e f

e n d a n ts ) . II I. W e r e v ie w ad is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e c is io n to g r a n t s u m m a ryju d g m e n t p r io rto c o n d u c tin g d is c o v e ry f

o ra n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . S e e W a lla c e v . B r o w n e ll P o n ti ac -G M C C o ., 7 0 3 F .2 d 5 2 5 , 5 2 7 -2 8 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 8 3 ). R u le 5 6 (b ) s tates, “A party a gai nstw ho m a c l ai m . . . i s a ss ert ed . . . m ay , atany t i m e, m ov e . . . for a sum m ary j ud gm ent . ” F ed. R . C i v. P . 56 (b). R ul e 56(f) st at es , “ S ho ul d i tappear f r om the a f

f i da vi t s of apa rty oppos i ng the [ m ot i on f ors um m a ryj udgm e nt ] tha tthe pa rty c a nnotf

orr e a s ons s t a t e d pr e s e ntby a f f i da vi tf a c t s e s s e nt i a l t o j us t i f

ythe party’ s opp osi t i on , the courtm ayre fuse the appl i ca t i on for j ud gm entor m ayorder ac ont i nua nc e t o pe rm i t. . . di s c ove ryt o be ha d. ” F e d. R . C i v. P . 56( f ) . “ [ T ] he n o n m o v a n t m a y n o t s im p lyr e lyo n v a g u e a s s e rtio n s th a t a d d itio n a l d is c o v e ryw ill p r o d u c e n e e d e d , b u t u n s p e c if ie d , f a c ts , b u t r a th e rh e m u s t s p e c if ic a llyd e m o n s tr a te ho w po stpo nem entof a rul i ng on the m ot i on w i l l enabl e hi m , by di sc ov ery or other m eans, t o rebutthe m ov ant ’ s s ho w i ng of the abse nce of a genui ne i ss ue of fa ct . ” W a lla c e , 7 0 3 F .2 da t 5 2 7 ( c ita tio n s a n d q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) .10

H e r e , G r i m s l e y f

a i l e d t o f i l e am ot i on pur s ua ntt o R ul e 56( f ) a nd, i ns t e a d, f ile d a“n o tic e ” a d v is in g th e d is tr ic t c o u rt th a t h e w a s u n ab le to o b ta in ac o p yo f h is m edi ca l re cords. T he di stri ctcourtconstrued thi s not i ce as a m ot i on t o con du ct addi t i on al di sc ov ery. E ven i f G ri m sl eyhad fi l ed a proper m ot i on un der R ul e 56(f) , he w oul d s t i l l notpr e va i l be c aus e he di d not , a nd doe s not , de m ons tr a t e how a ddi t i ona l di s c ove ry “ w i l l e nabl e hi m . . . t o r e butthe m ova nt ’ s s how i ng of the abs e nc e of

age nui ne i s s ue of

f a c t . ” W a l l a c e , 703 F . 2d a t527. M or e ove r , t o the ext entG ri m sl eyas se rt s thatthe defendant s had an un fa i r a dv ant age because they had acce ss t o h i s m edi ca l re cords, the re cord dem on strat es thatG ri m sl eyw as prop er l y s erved w i th cop i es of the defendant s’ re spon se s c on t ai ni ng the re qu es t ed doc um e nt s , a nd G r i m s l e y di d notc ha l l e nge s e rvi c e be l ow . A c c or di ngl y , the di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on by de ny i ng hi s m ot i on. In l i gh tof the foregoi ng , the grant i ng of defe nd ant s’ m ot i on s f or sum m ary j u d g m en t s i s AF F I RME D.