D istri ct Ju d g e Je d S. R akoff o f th e U n it ed St ates D istri ct C o u rtfor t h e So u thern * D i s tr i ctof

N ew Y or k , s i t t i ng by des i g nat i on. 1 0
- 5 8 4
- pr H a s k i ns v. L u pl ow UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER RU L I N GS B Y S U MMA RY ORD E R D O N OT HAV E P RE C E D E N T I A L E F F E C T . C I T A T I ONT O A S U M M A RY O RD E R

F I L E D O NO R

A F T E R JAN UA RY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P E RM I T T E D AN D I S G O V E RN E D BY F ED ER A L RU LE OF A P P ELL A TE P R OCE D U RE 32 .1 AN D THI S C OURT’ S LOC A L RU LE 32 .1.1. WHEN C I TI N G A S U MM A RY ORD ER I NAD OCU MENT F I LED WI TH THI S C OURT, A P A R TY MUS T C I TE E I T HE R T HE F E D E R

A L A P P E N D IXOR

ANE L E C T R ONIC D A T A B A S E (WI T H T HE N OT A T I ON “SU M M AR

Y ORDER”). A P ARTY CI TIN G A SU M M AR Y ORDER MUST S ERVE A COPY OF I T ON ANY P A R TY NOT R

EP RES EN TED B Y C OUN S EL. A t a s tate d ter m o f th e U n ited State s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls fo r th e Se c o n d C irc u it, h e ld atthe D ani el Patr i ckM oyni han U ni t ed S t at es C our thous e, 500 Pear l S tr eet , i n the C i t y of N ew Y or k , on the 7 day of S ept ember , tw o thous and t en. th P R E S E N T : R E E N A R A G G I,

GE RA RD E
. L YNC H,

C i r cui tJudges , J ED S
. RAK O FF,

D is tr i ct Judge
. *

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- R I C H AR D F . M I LLS, C H R I ST O P H E R V E R T O N , T R A V I S B LU E , I n m a tes o f G e n e se e C o u n ty Ja il, Pla in tif

fs , D A V I D H A SK IN S, P lai nt i f f

-Appel lant v . N o. 10- 584- pr LU P LO W , O F F I C E R , H O Y , O F F I C E R , R . J. G R E E R , SU P E R IN T E N D E N T , M AN G E F R I D A, O F F I C E R , Z I P F E L, O F F I C E R , Z E H LE R , O F F I C E R , SAG E , AU AT IN , O F F I C E R , K E LLY K O Z AK , O LSE N , O F F I C E R , JO H N D O E , O F F I C E R , W O LF F , O F F I C E R , K LO M E T Z , O F F I C E R , G AR Y M AH A, SH E R I F F ,A s H a s ki ns appea l s f r om onl y the di s mi s s al of hi s ni nth and thi r t eenth caus es of 1 a c tio n a n d re fe re n c e s o n ly d e fe n d a n ts B ry a n , Sm ith , a n d G ro th , w e d e e m a ll argu m e n ts w ith 2 M AN LE Y , O F F I C E R , R I D D E R , O F F I C E R , K LE IN , OF F I CE R, M A T T I CE , OF F I CE R, CA P T A IN C O N W AY , O F F I C E R , ST AC K , O F F I C E R , I T I JE N , O F F I C E R , SM I T H , O F F I C E R , AG U ST A W E LSH , T E D M I LLE R , G E N E SE E C O U N T Y M E N T AL H E ALT H SE R V I C E S, G E N E SE E C O U N T Y JA I L, FRED RARI CK , CO UN TY O F GEN ES EE, J A NE DOE , J OHN DO E # 1 , J OHN DO E # 2 , J OHN DOE # 3 , J OHN DO E # 4 , J OHN DO E # 5 , J OHN D O E , T E R E SE B R Y AN , O F F I C E R AR AT AR I , OFF I CER RENZ , OFF I CER CRE EGA N, OFF I CER C AW K IN S, O F F I C E R LIN D SAY , D AV I D B
. BA RR Y, NI CO L E DE S M OND, R. P
. S INGH, DOC T OR G. S M I T H, P
. A
. GR E G GR OT H, D ef endant s -Appel l ees .

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- A P P E A R IN G F O R A P P E L L A N T : B R I A N P
. F I T Z G E R A L D , B u ff a lo , N e w Y o rk. A PP EA RING FOR A PP EL L EES : SH AW N P. M A RTIN, H u rw it z & F ine, P .C ., B u ff a lo , N e w Y o rk. Ap p ea l f rom the U n it ed St ates D istri ct C o u rtfor the W estern D istri ct o f N ew Y o rk (R icha rd J. A rca ra, C hi ef Judge ; Jerem iah J . M cC arthy , M agis tr at e Judge ). UP ON DUE CO NS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, A DJ UDGE D, A ND D E C R E E D t hatthe di s tr i ctcourt ’ s Aug us t20, 2009 or der i s A F F I RMED
. P lain tiff D a vid H a skin s, w h o w a s in c a rc e ra ted a t th e G e n e se e C o u n ty Ja il, a p p e a ls f r om the entr y of s ummar y j udg mentf ordef endant s N ur s e Ter es e B ryan, D oct orG ary S mi th,

an d P h y sici an As sist an t G reg G roth o n h is E ig h th A m en d m en t cl aim that d efe n d an ts w ere del i ber at e l y i n d i f

f e r e n tt o h i s c h r o n i c s i n u s i t i s . S e e 4 2 U. S
. C. § 1 9 8 3
. W e r e v i e w t he 1re s p e c t to th e o th e r c la im s o r d e fe n d a n ts w a ive d
. Se e , e . g. , N a tio n w id e M u t. I n s . C o . v.

M o rt en sen , 6 0 6 F .3 d 2 2 , 2 9 (2d C ir . 2 0 1 0 ). 3 di s tr i ctcourt ’ s aw ar d of s ummar y j udg mentde nov o, and w e w i l l af f i r m onl y i f

the r ecor d,

v i ew ed i n the l i g htmostf av or abl e t o the nonmov i ng party, r eve a ls n o ge nui ne i s s ue of mat er i al f

act
. S ee Fed. R
. C i v . P. 56( c) ; Ander s on v . L i berty L obby, I n c . , 4 7 7 U
. S
. 242, 2 4 7 -4 8 (1 9 8 6 ); R e d d v. W righ t, 5 9 7 F .3 d 5 3 2 , 5 3 5 -3 6 (2 d C ir. 2 0 1 0 ). I n u n d e rta king th is

rev i ew , w e assume the part i es’ fami l i ari ty w ith the fact s and record of pri or proceeding s,
w hi c h we r e f

e r e nc e on l y a s ne c e s s a ry t o e xp l a i n o urde c i s i on t o a f f i r m. T h e E ig h th A m en d m en t’ s p roh ibit ion o f cru el an d u n u su al pu n ishm en t bars

“ d e lib e ra te in d iffe re n c e to se rio u s m e d ica l n e e d s o f p riso n e rs. ” E ste lle v. G a m b le, 4 2 9 U .S. 9 7 , 1 0 4 (1 9 7 6 ). T o p re vail o n su c h a c laim , H a skin s m u st a d d u c e e vide n c e sh o w in g b o th that( 1) the depr i v at i on of adequa t e medi cal car e w as obj ect i v el y s uf f i ci ent l y s er i ous , and ( 2) d e fe n d a n ts a c ted su b

jec tiv e ly w ith d e lib e ra te in d iffe re n c e . Se e F a rm e r v. B re n n a n , 5 1 1 U .S. 8 2 5 , 8 3 4 (1 9 9 4 ); Sa lah u d d in v. G o o rd , 4 6 7 F .3 d 2 6 3 , 2 7 9 -8 1 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). A s d e fe n d a n ts do no tchall eng e t he obj ect i v e ser i ou sness of H ask i ns’s si nu si t i s, w e focus on the d efendan t s’
s t at es of mi nd. I n doi ng s o, w e r ecog ni ze that “ a pr i s on of f i ci al cannotbe f

ound l i abl e under th e E ighth A m e n d m e n t
. . . u n les s th e o ffic ial kn o w s o f a n d d isre gard s a n e x c e ss ive risk to i nmat e heal th or s af

ety; the of

f i ci al must both be aw ar e of f act s f r om w hi ch the in fe r ence coul d be dr aw n thata s ubs t ant i al r i s kof s er i ous harm exi s t s , and he mus tal s o dr aw the i nf er ence . ” Farmerv . B r ennan, 511 U
. S
. at837.4

T h e m a gistrate ju d ge, w h o se d e taile d re p o rt a n d re c o m m e n d a tio n w a s a d o p ted in its ent i r e ty b y the di s tr i ctcourt , s ee M i l l s v . L upl ow , N o. 04- C V
- 005, 2009 W L 2591762 ( W
. D
. N
. Y
. Aug
. 20, 2009) ; M i l l s v . L upl ow , N o. 04- C V
- 00005, 20 0 9 W L 2 5 7 9195 ( W
. D
. N
. Y
. M ar . 30, 2009) , concl uded that H as k i ns f ai l ed t o adduce s uf

f i ci entev i dence of del i ber at e i ndi f

f er ence beca us e hi s ar g ument s amount ed onl y t o a di s ag r eeme ntr eg ar di ng t he pr opercour s e of

medi cal tr eatment , s ee Est el l e v . G a m b le , 4 2 9 U
. S
. at107 ( “ A medi cal decis i on nott o or deran X
- r ay, orl i k e mea s ur es , does notr epr es entcruel and unus ual pu ni s hme nt
. ” ) ; Chan c e v . Arms tr on g , 14 3 F. 3d 69 8, 70 3 ( 2d Ci r . 19 98 ) ( “ I t is

w el l

- es t abl i s hed thatmer e di s ag r eeme ntov erthe pr opertre atmentdoes notcr eat e a
cons t i tut i onal cl ai m.” ) ; s ee a l s o S mi th v. C arpent er , 316 F.3d 178, 184 ( 2d C i r . 2003) (“ B ecause the E i g hth Am end men t i s not a v ehicl e forbri ng i ng med i cal malpract i ce cl ai ms, [ ] ora s ubs t i tut e f

ors t at e t or tl aw , notev ery l aps e i n pr i s on medi cal car e w i l l r i s e t o the l ev el

o f a c o n s t i tu t i o n a l v i o l a t i o n . ” )
. Has k i n s a s s e r t s th a tth i s c a s e d o e s n o ti n v o l v e a m ere medi cal di s ag r eeme ntbeca us e a not e G r oth w r ot e i ndi cat es thatdef endant s “ admi t t ed” that

r ef err al t o an or al s ur g eon w as t he onl y pr opercour s e of tr eatment
. Appel l ant ’ s B r . at44. T he r ecor d ev i dence H as k i ns ci t es does not s upport hi s as s ert i on. G r oth’ s Aug us t14, 2003 not e – w r i t t en mor e than se ve n mont hs bef or e the ev ent s pr i nci pal l y ati s s ue i n thi s cas e,
w hen H as k i ns w as not yet i ncar cer at ed and w as s een by G r oth as a pr i v at e pat i ent– s t at es that H aski n s “ [i ]s see ing n ew d en ti st & is referred to o ral surgeo n .” F it zgerald D ec l., E x . A at10. Athi s depos i t i on, G r oth expl ai ned that“ the new dent i s t that [ H as k i ns ] w as s eei ng atAcc or di ng t o S mi th, the s ympt oms H as k i ns pr es ent ed on Aug us t7, 2003, cal l ed f or 2 a r ef err al t o “ an or al s ur g eon, or at l eas t a dent i s t
. ” S mi th D ep. at20- 21. W hen H as k i ns w as i ncar cer at ed s ev en months l at er , thatr ef err al w as pr ov i ded and H as k i ns w as tr eat ed by a d en ti st ap p rox ima tel y fi v e w ee k s after h is f ir st co m p lai n t o f t o o th p ain. T he f ol l ow i ng day, H as k i ns w as r ef

err ed t o an or al s ur g eon. A lth o u gh H a skin s’s o p e n in g b rie f a r g u e s t h a t d e fe n d a n ts a c ted w ith d e lib e ra te 3 i nd i f f e r e nc e be c a us e “ D r . S mi th a nd G [ r ] oth tr e a t e d H a s k i ns a ye a rpr i ort o thi s f orthe s a me condi t i on and det ermi ned .
. . the pr opertr eatmentt o be a r ef err al t o an or al s ur g eon, notan ea r, no se, a n d thro at sp ec ial ist ,” A p p ell an t’ s B r. at 4 8 (em p h asis ad d ed ) (cit ati o n s o m itted), H as k i ns ’ s r epl y br i ef compl ai ns that “ he neede d t o be s een [ both] by an EN T and by an or al su rg eo n ,” A p p ell an t’ s R ep ly B r. at 8-9 , an d that h e s h o u ld h ave b ee n referred b ac kto D r. D anos os w hen hi s condi t i on f ai l ed t o i mpr ov e. B eca us e H as k i ns r ai s es thes e ar g ument s f or the f i r s tt i me i n hi s r epl y br i ef , w e do notcons i derthem. S ee Castr o v . H ol der , 597 F.3d 93, 95- 96 n. 2 ( 2d C i r . 2010) ( “ W e w ill n o tcons i deran ar g umentr ai s ed f orthe f i r s tt i me i n a 5 the t i me r ef

err ed the pat i enton t o an or al s ur g eon. ” G r oth D ep. at67. T h i s i s har dl y an

“ a d m iss io n ” th a t o ra l su rger y w a s th e o n ly p ro p e r c o u rse o f tre a tm e n t. 2 T o the contr ary, H as k i ns ’ s couns el has acknow l edg ed thatw hen, on N ov ember3, 2 0 0 4 , H a s kin s d id s e e a n o ra l s u rge o n , th a t s u rge o n c o n c lu d e d th a t “H a s kin s d id n o t h a ve
an or al antr al communi cat i on ( f i s tul a) and thathi s s i nus pr obl ems w er e notr el at ed t o the t ooth pai n and r ef

err ed hi m t o D r . B el l as orany o th e r e a r, n os e and thr oatdoct orf or
ev al uat i on. ” Fi t zg er al d D ecl
. ¶ 191. Fur ther , on J une 3, 2004, j us ttw o days af t erH as k i ns
co m p lai n ed to N u rse B rya n ab o u t rec u rri n g sinu s p ain, h e w as se en b y D r. D an o so s, an ea r,
nos e, and thr oats peci al i s t
. Acc or di ng l y, w hil e the r ecor d cont ai ns ampl e ev i dence that d efe n d an ts w ere aw are o f H aski n s’s ch ron ic si n u sit is, i t w o u ld n o t perm ita re aso n ab le j u ry t o i nf ermedi cal err or , l etal one del iber at e i ndi f f er ence , f r om def endant s ’ f

ai l ur e t o r ef

er H as k i ns mor e pr ompt l y t o an or al s ur g eon. 3re p ly b ri e f. ” (i n te r n a l q u o ta tio n m a rks o m itte d )) ; s e e a ls o C o o s e m a n s Sp e c ia ltie s , I n c . v.

G ar g i ul o, 485 F.3d 701, 708 ( 2d C i r . 2007) ( “ [ A] party’ s f ai l ur e t o obj ectt o any purpor t ed erro r or o m issi o n in a m agi str ate jud g e’s rep o rt w aiv es furthe r j u d ici al rev iew o f th e p o int.” (i n terna l qu o tat ion m arks om itted)). 6 H a skin s a ttribu tes d e fe n d a n ts’ c o n d u c t to a n in fo rm a l jail p o licy d e sign e d to c u t co sts b y li m it ing pri so n ers’ ac ce ss to b o th N u rse B rya n an d o u tsi d e sp ec ial ist s. E v en if the re co rd di s cl os ed s uf

f i ci entev i dence of

s uch a pol i cy, the r ecor d bel i es H as k i ns ’ s as s ert i on thatthe p o lic y re s u lte d in d e lib e ra te in d if fe re n c e in h is c a s e . Se e ge n e ra lly C h a n c e v. A rm s tr o n g, 1 4 3 F .3 d a t 7 0 3 (“[A] p h y sic ian m a y b e d e lib e ra tely in d iffe re n t if h e o r s h e c o n sc io u sly choos es ‘ an eas i er and l es s ef f i cac i ous ’ tr eatment pl an. ” ( quot i ng W i l l i ams v . V i ncent , 508 F .2 d 5 4 1 , 5 4 4 (2d C ir . 1 9 7 4 ) (r eversing dismissal o f E ig h th A m en d m en t com p lai n t w h ere pr i s oneral l eg ed hos pi t al of f i ci al s deni ed r eques t t o s utur e s ev er ed ea rbackon, butal l ow i ng fo r p o ss ib ili ty th a t d e fe n d a n ts c o u ld sh o w “ m e d ica l c o n sid e ra tio n s” gu id e d d e c isio n sim p ly t o cl os e w ound) ) )
. B etw een M ar ch 19, 2004, and N ov ember 4, 2004, H as k i ns w as s een by the j ai l ’ s medi cal s t af

f on tw enty- f

i v e occ as i ons . Addi t i onal l y, betw een J une 3, 2004, and D ec emb er 21, 200 4, H ask i ns w as r eferred ei g ht t i mes t o at l eastfour di ff erentspeci al i st s. M o reo v e r , thr ou g ho ut hi s i nc a r c e r a t i on , H a s k i ns w a s g i v e n a nt i bi ot i c s a nd pa i n k i l l e r s to tr ea t his sym p tom s. Fur ther , H as k i ns ’ s tr eatment w as al s o s i mi l art o the ca r e G r oth and S mi th pr ov i ded pr i or t o h i s i n c a r c e r a t i o n . Ha s k i n s , i n j u s t i f y i n g h i s f

a i l u r e t o s e e a n o r a l s u r g e o n i n t he

seven m o n ths b etw ee n h is init ial referral an d h is inca rce rati o n , rep o rt s tha t “ G roth an d D r.7

Sm ith to ld [h im h e ] sh o u ld giv e th e a n tib io tics a n d p a in m e d ica tio n tim e , to se e if th a t w o u ld al l ev i at e the pr obl em. ” H as k i ns D ep. at 16. T hi s cour s e of tr eatment , det ermi ned months bef or e the exi s t ence of

any pos s i bl e mot i v e t o r educe j ai l expendi tur es , w as s i mi l art o t hat

e m p lo y e d b y G ro th a n d Sm ith a t th e G e n e s e e C o u n ty J a il. F o r a tim e , th e s e le s s in va s ive

meas ur es w e re e ffe ct i v e. E v entual l y, how ev er , they pr ov ed i nadequa t e, and H as k i ns w as
re fe rre d to a n o ra l su rgeo n . O n th is re c o rd , n o re a so n a b le ju ry c o u ld fin d th a t d e fe n d a n ts

w e re d e lib e ra tely in d iffe re n t to H a skin s’s m e d ica l n e e d s. Se e E ste lle v. G a m b le, 4 2 9 U .S. at107 ( hol di ng that pr i s oner f ai l ed t o s t at e del i ber at e i ndi f f er ence cl ai m w hen he “ w as s een b y m ed ical pe rson n el on 1 7 o cc asio n s sp an n ing a 3-m o n th p eriod ”). W e hav e cons i der ed H as k i ns ’ s other ar g ument s on appea l and conc l ude thatthey l ack

m e rit. A c c o rd in gly, w e A F F I R M th e ju d gm e n t o f th e d istric t co u rt. FOR TH E CO UR T: C AT H E R IN E O ’H AG AN W O LF E , C lerko f C o u rt