FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT APR 9, 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- 14008 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 06 -000 19 -C V -R L V -4 D E M E T R I U S W A L L A C E , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s H . D W I G H T H A M R I C K , W a r d e n , J A M E S D O N A L D , C o m m is s io n e r , 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 is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( A p r i l9, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B A R K E T T an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:The de fenda nts in thi s casewere never ser ved as Wallac e’s c laim was dismissed 1 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) . There fore , the def endants did not file a brief. 2 D em etri us W al l ac e ( “ W al l ac e” ), a pro se l i t i gantpu rs ui ng a c om pl ai ntra i se d u n d er 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 , ap p eal s th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s sua spo nt e o r d e rd is m is s in g h is co m p l ai n tfo r fai l u re t o st at e a cl ai m . W al l ace fi l ed an am en d ed co m p l ai n tag ai n st W ar den H . D w i gh tH am ri ck of W al ker S t at e P ri son and C om m i ss i on erJa m es D on al d o f the G eorgi a D epartm entof C orre ct i on s, i n w hi ch he cl ai m ed thathe w as d e n ie d a d e q u a te g r ie v a n c e p r o c e d u r e s , d e p r iv e d o f d u e p r o c e s s w h e n p la c e d in adm i ni stra t i ve se gregat i on for tw enty- ei gh tdays before re ce i vi ng a di sc i pl i nary he a r i ng, a nd s ubj e c t e d t o c rue l a nd unus ua l puni s hm e ntbe c aus e of the c ondi t i ons o f h is c o n f in e m e n t. U p o n r e v ie w o f th e r e c o r d a n d W a lla c e ’s b r ie f , w e a f f irm in 1 partand revers e i n p artthe di stri ctcourt ’ s orderdi sm i ss i ng W al l ac e’ s a m ended c o m p la in t f

o rf a ilin g to s ta te ac la im .

ST AN DA RD OF RE VI EW We r e v i e w de nov o a d i stri ctco u rt ’ s sua spo nt e di s m i s s a l of ac om pl a i nt p u r s u a n t to § 1 9 1 5 A ( b ) ( 1 ) . L ea l v. G a . D ep ’t

o f C o rr. , 254 F . 3d 1276, 1278- 79 (200 1). A com pl ai ntm aybe di sm i ss ed for f ai l ure t o st at e acl ai m w hen i tappears beyond do ub tthatthe pl ai nt i ff can p rove no se tof fa ct s i n sup po rtof hi s c l ai m that w o u ld e n title h im to r e lie f . C one l y v . G i bs on , 355 U . S . 41, 45- 46, 78 S . C t . 99, 1 0 2 , 2 L . E d . 2 d 8 0 ( 1 9 5 7 ) . “P ro se pl ea di ng s are hel d t o a l es s s tri ng entst andardWe assume that this violation refer s to W allace ’s interferenc e with a prison head c ount. 2In his amended c omplaint, W allaceclaims that pursuant the G eorgia Depa rtment of 3 Cor re c tio nspo licy

a priso ner whois inv olu

nta ri ly a ssi gne d toadminis trativ ese gre g atio n mu st have a formal he aringwithin ninety-sixhours. 3 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. ” T an nenb au m v. U

ni ted Stat es , 14 8 F . 3d 12 62 , 12 63 (11th C i r. 19 98 ) ( per c uri am ).

B AC KG R OU ND In hi s a m ended com pl ai nt , W al l ac e a l l eges thatW al ker P ri son h as i na de qua t e gr i e va nc e pr oc e dur e s . H e a l s o a l l e ge s tha the w a s de pr i ve d of due p ro cess w h en h e w as co n fi n ed i n ad m i n i strat i v e seg reg at i o n fo r tw en ty-ei g h td ays, an d th en , aft erw ard s, fo u n d t o h av e co m m i tt ed d i sci p l i n ary v i o l at i o n s b y a c o m m itte e c o n s is tin g o f as o le in d iv id u a l. W a lla c e c la im s th a t h e w a s p la c e d in a dm i ni s tr a t i ve s e gr e ga t i on pe ndi ng adi s c i pl i na ry he a r i ng f orthe f ol l ow i ng v io la tio n s : ( 1 ) in te r f

e r e n c e w ith c o u n t, ( 2 ) in s u b o r d in a tio n , a n d ( 3 ) f a ilu r e to 2 f o llo w in s tru c tio n s . W a lla c e r e q u e s te d ah e a r in g a f te rh is c o n f

in e m e n t, in a c c o r d a n c e w ith p r is o n r e g u la tio n s , b u t w a s n o t a f f o r d e d ah e a r in g u n til a f

te rh is 3 re l ea se tw enty- ei gh tdays l at er . H e c l ai m s thathi s heari ng w as hel d the day a ft er hi s r e l e a s e a nd w a s be f

or e onl y one boa r d m e m be r , w ho f ound hi m gui l ty of

the vi ol a t i ons . H e c l a i m s tha tthe pr i s on f a i l e d t o m a i nt a i n a ny r e c or di ng of the hear i ng , and h e w as no tprov i ded w i th any w ri tt en basi s of the com m i tt ee m e m b e r ’s f

a c tu a l f in d in g s .We affir m the district court’s dismissal of Wallace’ s claim of inade quate grieva nce 4 proce dures. A prisoner is not entitled to grievanc e proc edure s under the Constitution. See W ild berger v. B ra ck

ne ll , 869 F.2d 1467, 1467- 68 (11th Cir. 1989). 4 A ddi t i ona l l y , W a l l a c e a l l e ge s tha tthe c ondi t i ons of hi s a dm i ni s tr a t i ve s e g r e g a tio n c o n s titu te d 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 h e w a s c o n f in e d in as m a l l c e l l , w i th “ no hotrunni ng w a t e r , no ve nt i l a t i on, no a c c e s s t o a ny di s i nf e c t a nta ta ny t i m e , a nd no opportuni ty f ore xe r c i s e , ” i n vi ol a t i on of pr i s on re gu l at i on s. W al l ac e a l so al l eges thathe i s achroni c c ar e pat i entand w as no tse en b y ac e rtif

ie d m e d ic a l p r o f

e s s io n a l f

o rh is f ir s t tw e n ty - tw o d a y s in c o n f in e m e n t. DI S C US S I ON A . V i o l at i o n o f D u e P ro cess 4 1 . L i b erty In t erest T he di stri ctcourtfoun d thatW al l ac e f ai l ed t o al l ege avi ol at i on of a const i tut i on al l y prot ec t ed l i berty i nt er es t ; there fore , he fa i l ed t o st at e acl ai m for a vi ol a t i on of

due pr oc e s s . T he D ue P r oc e s s C l aus e pr ot e c t s a ga i ns tde pr i va t i ons of “lif e , lib e rty , o rp r o p e rty w ith o u t d u e p r o c e s s o f la w .” U .S . C o n s t. a m e n d . X I V . W a lla c e d id n o t c la im to b e d e p r iv e d o rlif e o rp r o p e rty , s o h e w a s o n ly e n title d to due pr oc e s s i f

he w a s de pr i ve d of

al i be rty i nt e r e s tw i thi n the m e a ni ng of the F o u rt e e n th Am e n d m e n t . T h e S u p r e m e C o u rth a s s t a t e d th a tth e r e a r e two c i r c um s t a nc e s i n w hi c h apr i s one rc a n be de pr i ve d of al i be rty i nt e r e s tbe y ond the5

de pr i va t i on a s s oc i a t e d w i th the pr i s one r ’ s c onf i ne m e nt . See San di n v. C on ner , 515 U .S . 4 7 2 , 4 8 4 , 1 1 5 S . C t. 2 2 9 3 , 2 3 0 0 , 1 3 2 L . E d . 2 d 4 1 8 ( 1 9 9 5 ) . F ir s t, alib e rty i nt e r e s tm a y a r i s e f

r om the “ D ue P r oc e s s C l aus e of i t s ow n f

a c e , ” w hi c h e xt e nds procedural sa fe gu ar ds t o a pri soner w hen h i s l i berty i s r es tra i ned i n a w aythat e x c e e d s th e s e n te n c e im p o s e d b y th e c o u rt. I d. S e c o n d ly , s ta te s m a y c r e a te lib e rty i nt er es t s by c on fe rr i ng ce rt ai n b enef i t s t o p ri soners , the depri vat i on of w hi ch

“ i m pos e [ s ] a typi c a l a nd s i gni f i c a ntha r ds hi p on the i nm a t e i n r e l a t i on t o the ordi naryi nci dent s of pri son l i fe . ” Id . S in c e W a lla c e a lle g e s v io la tio n s o f lib e rty i nt e r e s t s c onne c t e d w i th hi s a dm i ni s tr a t i ve s e gr e ga t i on, the s e i nt e r e s t s a r i s e f r om the s e c ond s i tua t i on. T he r e f or e , “ the t ouc hs t one of

the i nqui ry i nt o the e xi s t e nc e of apr ot e c t e d, s t a t e - c r e a t e d l i be rty i nt e r e s ti n a voi di ng r e s tr i c t i ve c ondi t i ons of c onf i ne m e nti s notthe l a ngua ge of the r e gul a t i ons r e ga r di ng thos e c ondi t i ons but the na tur e of

thos e c ondi t i ons the m s e l ve s ‘ i n r e l a t i on t o the or di na ry i nc i de nt s of p riso n li fe .’ ” W

ilke rs o n v . A u s tin , 545 U . S . 209, 223, 125 S . C t . 2384, 2394, 162 L . E d. 2d 174 ( 2005) ( quot i ng Sa n d in , 5 1 5 U .S . a t 4 8 4 , 1 1 5 S . C t. a t 2 3 0 0 ) . C i t i ng t o Sa n d in , the di stri ctcourtfoun d thatW al l ac e’ s “ [tw enty- ei gh t ] -day a d m in is tr a tiv e c o n f

in e m e n t d id n o t im p o s e a n a typ ic a l a n d s ig n if ic a n t h a r d s h ip be y ond the or di na ry i nc i de nt s of pr i s on l i f

e . ” I n Sa n d in , the S upr e m e C ourtf ound thatthe pri soner’ s thi rty- day di sc i pl i naryse gregat i on di d n otpres entan atypi ca l6

a n d s ig n if

ic a n t d e p r iv a tio n b y th e s ta te . 5 1 5 U .S . a t 4 8 5 , 1 1 5 S . C t. a t 2 3 0 1 . H ow e ve r , i n Sa n d in , w hi c h w a s de c i de d on am ot i on f ors um m a ry j udgm e nt , the S upr e m e C ourtm a de thi s f i ndi ng onl y a f

t e ri tc om pa r e d the e vi de nc e of the tre atm entof i nm at es i n d i sc i pl i naryand adm i ni stra t i ve se gregat i on and fou nd that th e c o n d itio n s in th e o n e “m irr o r e d th o s e c o n d itio n s ” in th e o th e r . Id . a t486, 115 S . C t . at23 01 . T he S up re m e C ou rtal so m ade acom pari son b etw ee n i nm at es i nsi de and o ut si de di sc i pl i naryse gregat i on before fi nd i ng thatthe thi rty- day confi nem ent“ di d n otw ork a m aj or di srup t i on i n h i s e nv i ronm ent . ” Id . W a l l a c e a l l e ge s tha tthe pr i s on pl a c e d hi m i n a dm i ni s tr a t i ve s e gr e ga t i on f or twe n ty - e i g h td a y s wh i l e a wa i t i n g ah e a r i n g o n h i s d i s c i p l i n a ry v i o l a t i o n s . He a lle g e s th a t h e h a d n o h o t w a te r , n o v e n tila tio n , a n d n o o p p o rtu n ity f o re x e r c is e , a ll i n v i ol at i on of G eorgi a D epartm entof C orre ct i on s pol i cy . W al l ac e a l so al l eges tha the di d notr e c e i ve t i m e l y m e di c a l c a r e . I n B a s s v . P e r r in , 170 F . 3d 1312, 1318 (11th C i r. 19 99 ), w e s peci fi ca l l y f ou nd thatthe S t at e of F l ori da cr ea t ed a prot ec t ed l i berty i nt er es ti n tw o h ou rs per w ee k o f y ar d t i m e. T here fore , w e i nq ui re d w hether the pl ai nt i ff

s, w ho w er e deni ed thei r tw o h ou rs of yard t i m e, w er e a ff orded a d e q u a te d u e p r o c e s s . Id . T h e r e c o r d b e f o r e u s d o e s n o t c o n ta in a d e q u a te f a c ts w i th r e s pe c tt o the c ondi t i ons of W a l l a c e ’ s c onf

i ne m e nta s c om pa r e d w i th the co n d it io n s o f c o n fin em en t o f h is fe ll o w in m ates to d eter m in e w h eth erW allace ’s7

c onf i ne m e nti m pos e d a n a typi c a l a nd s i gni f i c a ntha r ds hi p “ i n r e l a t i on t o the ordi naryi nci dent s of pri son l i fe . ” Sa n d in , 5 1 5 U .S . a t 4 8 4 , 1 1 5 S . C t. a t 2 3 0 0 . A c c o r d in g ly , w e c o n c lu d e th a t W a lla c e h a s s e t f o rth s u f f ic ie n t f a c ts a t th is st age of the l i t i gat i on w hi ch m i gh tcr ea t e aprot ec t ed l i berty i nt er es t . T here fore , w e m ustnexti nq ui re w hether W al l ac e s etforth suffi ci entfa ct s thathe w as deni ed d u e p r o c e s s . 2 . D u e P ro cess T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notdi s c us s w he the rW a l l a c e w a s de pr i ve d of due p r o c e s s , b e c au s e th e c o u rt f o u n d th a t h e h a d n o t b e e n d e p r iv e d o f ac o n s titu tio n a lly pr ot e c t e d l i be rty i nt e r e s t . T he r e qui r e m e nt s of due pr oc e s s f

orpr i s one r s f

a c i ng di sc i pl i naryac t i on s are : “ (1) a dv ance w ri tt en no t i ce of the cl ai m ed vi ol at i on ; (2) a w r i tt e n s t a t e m e ntof

the f a c tf i nde r s a s t o the e vi de nc e r e l i e d upon a nd the r e a s ons f orthe di s c i pl i na ry a c t i on t a ke n; a nd ( 3) a n opportuni ty t o c a l l w i tne s s e s a nd p r e s e n t d o c u m e n ta ry e v id e n c e in d e f e n s e , w h e n to d o s o w o u ld n o t b e u n d u ly haza rdou s t o i nst i tut i on al sa fe ty or c orre ct i on al go al s. ” Y ou ngv. Jones , 37 F . 3d 1 4 5 7 , 1 4 5 9 - 6 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) . W al l ac e c l ai m s thatG eorgi a D epartm entof C orre ct i on s pol i cyre qu i re s that onc e a n i nm a t e i s i nvol unt a r i l y a s s i gne d t o a dm i ni s tr a t i ve s e gr e ga t i on tha tthe in m a te is a f

f o r d e d ah e a r in g w ith in n in e ty - s ix h o u r s a f te rth e c o n f

in e m e n t.8

W al l ac e a l l eges thathe w as i n segre gat i on for tw enty- ei gh tdays and then rel ea se d i nt o the general po pu l at i on w i tho uthavi ng appeare d b ef ore the di sc i pl i nary com m i tt ee . H e a l l eges thatthe day a ft erhe w as re l ea se d i nt o the general po pu l at i on , the pri son con du ct ed hi s di sc i pl i naryhear i ng before on l y one m em ber, w ho f ound hi m gui l ty of

c om m i tt i ng the vi ol a t i ons . W a l l a c e c l a i m s tha tno re cordi ng s of the heari ng w er e m ai nt ai ned, and h e w as no tprov i ded w i th a w ri tt en factu al b asi s fo r th e co m m i tt ee’ s fi n d i n g s. A tthi s s t age of the l i t i gat i on , i ti s notcl ear bey on d a do ub tthatW al l ac e has fa i l ed t o al l ege adu e proces s vi ol at i on . W e have no record t o i nd i ca t e w hen W a l l a c e r e c e i ve d not i c e of the a l l e ge d vi ol a t i ons , orw he the rhe ha d s uf f i c i e nt o p p o rtu n i ty t o p r e s e n te v i d e n c e o rc a l l wi tn e s s e s o n h i s b e h a l f . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we fi n d th atth e d i stri ctco u rtp rem atu rel y d i sm i ssed W al l ace’s cl ai m fo r a d u e p ro cess vi ol a t i on. B . C rue l a nd U nus ua l P uni s hm e nt 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 . T he r e f or e , t o s t a t e ac l a i m f

oravi ol a t i on of the E i gh th A m endm ent , a pri soner m ustfi rs tal l ege acond i t i on thati s an o b je c tiv e ly “c ru e l an d u n u s u a l d e p r iv a tio n ,” a n d s e c o n d , th a t th e o f f ic ia ls r e s p o n s ib le f

o rth e c o n d itio n h a d th e s u b je c tiv e in te n t to p u n is h . T a y lo rv . A da ms ,9

221 F . 3d 1254, 1257 ( 11th C i r . 2000) . W e ha ve r e c ogni z e d “ tha ta dm i ni s tr a t i ve se gregat i on and sol i t ary c on fi nem entdo no t , i n and of them se l ves, const i tut e c ruel and u nu sual pu ni shm ent . ” Sh eleyv. D ug ger , 83 3 F . 2d 14 20 , 14 28 -29 (11 th C i r. 1 9 8 7 ) .A pr i s one rc a n s how a n E i ghth A m e ndm e ntvi ol a t i on by pr ovi ng tha tthe p r is o n m e d ic a l o f

f ic ia ls w e r e d e lib e r a te lyin d if f e r e n t to h is s e r io u s m e d ic a l n e e d s . Es te lle v . G a m b le , 4 2 9 U .S . 9 7 , 1 0 4 , 9 7 S . C t. 2 8 5 , 2 9 1 , 5 0 L . E d . 2 d 2 5 1 ( 1 9 7 6 ) . F or a c l ai m of del i bera t e i nd i ff er ence , a pri soner m ustfi rs tprov e ase ri ou s m edi ca l n e e d , a n d s e c o n d , 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 h is n e e d . B r ow n v . J

ohns on , 3 8 7 F .3 d 1 3 4 4 , 1 3 5 1 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). W h il e W allace ’s am ended com pl ai nti s i nart ful l y dra ft ed, i ti s notcl ear bey on d a do ub tthathe has fa i l ed t o al l ege ase ri ou s m edi ca l need, and thatthe pri son o ff i ci al s w er e del i bera t el y i nd i ff

er entt o h i s nee d. W al l ac e a l l eges thathe “ i s achroni c c ar e p a tie n t a n d w a s n o t s e e n b y ac e rtif ie d m e d ic a l p r o f

e s s io n a l u n til ap p r o x im a te ly tw e n ty - tw o ( 2 2 ) d a y s la te rs u b s e q u e n t to f ilin g n u m e r o u s g r o u n d s c o n tr a ry to G e or gi aD e pa rtm e ntof

C orr e c t i ons pol i c y I I B 02- 0001 V I . ” L i be r a l l y c ons true d, w e c a n in f

e rth a t th e n e e d s o f

ac h r o n ic c a r e p a tie n t a r e s e r io u s . F u rth e rm o r e , it is r e a s o n ab le to in f

e rth a t p r is o n o f

f ic ia ls w o u ld b e a w a r e th a t ac h r o n ic c a r e in m a te w ou l d n ee d fre qu entm edi ca l att ent i on . W al l ac e’ s a m ended com pl ai ntal so appears10

t o al l ege thathe w as no tse en by a m edi ca l profes si on al for tw enty- tw o d ay s e ven tho ug h h e r equest ed such car e. W hi l e W al l ac e has no tal l eged thatthe i nd i vi du al defe nd ant s per sonal l y part i ci pat ed i n the fa i l ure t o tre athi m , hi s a l l egat i on s, i f true, m a y u ltim a te ly s h o w th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts d idn o th in g to p r e v e n t th e v io la tio n o f h is E ig h th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t a g a in s t c ru e l a n d u n u s u a l p u n is h m e n t. F urthe rm or e , w e ha ve s pe c i f i c a l l y r e c ogni z e d tha t“ the E i ghth A m e ndm e nt appl i es t o p ri soner c l ai m s of i nadequ at e c oo l i ng and v ent i l at i on . ” Cha nd lerv. Cr os by , 37 9 F . 3d 12 78 , 12 94 (11th C i r. 20 04 ). T he di stri ctcourtst at ed that W a lla c e d id n o t a lle g e th a t a n y o f th e in a d e q u a te c o n d itio n s in h is c e ll c au s e d h im a ny pe r s ona l i nj ury ora ny unr e a s onabl e r i s k t o hi s f utur e he a l th. T he r e f

or e , he fa i l ed t o st at e acl ai m . H ow ever , W al l ac e a l l eged thatthe ce l l he w as pl ac ed i n h ad

“ no ve nt i l a t i on. ” T o s t a t e ac l a i m f orc rue l a nd unus ua l puni s hm e nt , the c ha l l e nge d c ondi t i on m us tbe e xtr e m e a nd “ pos e a n unr e a s onabl e r i s k of s e r i ous d a m a g e to h is f

u tu r e h e a lth ” o rs a f

e ty . H el l i ngv. McKi nn ey , 509 U . S . 25, 35, 113 S . C t. 2 4 7 5 , 2 4 8 1 , 1 2 5 L . E d . 2 d 2 2 ( 1 9 9 3 ) . A n in m a te “n e e d n o t a w a it atr a g ic e v e n t” b e f

o r e s e e k in g r e lie f

. Id . at33 , 11 3 S . C t . at24 81 . T here fore , W al l ac e nee d notpl e a d as pe c i f

i c phy s i c a l i nj ury i f

the c ondi t i ons he c om pl a i ns of pos e d a s e r i ous r i s k t o hi s he a l th. L i be r a l l y c ons trui ng W a l l a c e ’ s c om pl a i nt , i ti s not b e y o n d ad o u b t th a t W a lla c e w ill b e ab le to p r o v e n o s e t o f f a c ts th a t w o u ld e n title11

hi m t o r e l i e f

. T he r e f or e , w e f i nd tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d i n di s m i s s i ng W a lla c e ’s c la im f

o rav io la tio n o f

th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t. A cc ordi ng l y, w e c on cl ud e thatthe di stri ctcourtprop er l y di sm i ss ed W al l ac e’ s c l ai m for i nadequ at e gri evance proce du re s. H ow ever , the di stri ctcourt e rr e d by pr e m a tur e l y di s m i s s i ng W a l l a c e ’ s c l a i m s f orvi ol a t i ons of

due pr oc e s s a nd th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t. A FFI R M ED I N PA R T; R EVER SED A N D R EM A N D ED I N PA R T.