FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A ugus t 23, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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- 10711 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 5 4 3 - CV - O C- G RJ R O D E R I C K T . S I M P S O N , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s C A R L Y L E H O L D E R , W a r d e n , F C C C o le m a n - M e d iu m , G R E G O R Y L . P A R K S , F o rm e rW a r d e n , F C C C o le m a n - M e d iu m , L A W E R E N C E E . G R E E N , F o rm e rM .D ., F C C C o le m a n - M e d iu m , J A I M E C A C H O , M .L .P ., F C C C o le m a n - M e d iu m , J O H N D O E , # 1 , R e c r e a tio n S p e c ia lis t, F C C C o le m a n - M e d iu m , e t a l., D efen d an t s-A p p el l ees.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 23, 2006)Bivens v. SixUnknown Na med Ag ents of F ed. B urea u of Na rcotics, 403 U.S. 388 1 (1971). 2 B efo re D U B IN A , H U L L an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: R od er i ck S i m pson , a f

eder al pri soner procee di ng pro se, appeal s the di stri ct c ourt ’ s di s m i s s a l of

hi s B i ve ns a c t i on f

orf a i l ur e t o e xhaus ta dm i ni s tr a t i ve 1 r e m e di e s a nd f

a i l ur e t o s t a t e ac l a i m . H e a l s o appe a l s the de ni a l of hi s m ot i on f

or re co n sid er atio n . W e c o n clu d e th at th e d istrict co u rt p ro p er ly d ism isse d S im p so n ’s c l a i ms a n d d e n i e d h i s mo t i o n f o rr e c o n s i d e r a t i o n . Th e r e f o r e , w e a f

f i rm. I . Ba c k g r o und Si mp s o n f

i l e d ap r o s e Bi v e n s c o mp l a i n ta g a i n s tth e f o l l o w i n g FCC C ol em an (“ C ol em an”) st af f m em bers : W ar den C ar l yl e H ol der, form erW ar den G r e g P a rks , D r . L a w r e nc e G r e e n, J a i m e C a c ho, a nd one J ohn D oe r e c r e a t i on spec i al i st ; and the fol l ow i ng L ee sburg R egi on al M edi ca l C ent er(“ L R M C ”) st af f m e m be r s : D r s . R oge rS he rm a n, J . M a ndum e K e r i na , R a vi G upt a , a nd F e rna ndon S erra , and tw o Joh n D oes ( col l ec t i vel y “ the defendant s” ). T he com pl ai ntw as base d o n al l egat i on s of del i bera t e i nd i ff er ence t o m edi ca l care and n egl i gence re sul t i ng i n the am pu t at i on of S i m pson ’ s l eg because of an i nfec t i on thatoccurre d a f t e rS i m ps on ha d s ur ge ry a nd as ki n gr a f ta tL R M C f

ori nj ur i e s s us t a i ne d dur i ng aThis w a s th ese c ond c omp laint that Sim ps on fi le d b a se d o n th e sefac ts. Th efirs t 2 c omp laint wa s dismiss e d with out pre judic ein p art

be c a us eSimp so n f

aile d toe xha

us t adminis trativ ereme die s. 3 f l a g f ootba l l ga m e a tC ol e m a n. S i m ps on s ue d the de f e nda nt s i n the i rof

f i c i a l a nd 2 i n d i v i d u al cap aci t i es. S i m p so n al l eg ed th at(1 ) Jo h n D o e recreati o n al sp eci al i st w as del i bera t el y i nd i ff

er entand n egl i gentfor perm i tt i ng S i m pson t o p l ayfl ag f o o tb a ll w ith o u t am e d ic a l e x a m ; ( 2 ) J o h n D o e 2 a t L R M C w a s d e lib e r a te ly in d if f e r e n t to m e d ic a l c a r e a n d n e g lig e n t b yf a ilin g to c h e c kth e m e d ic a l c h a rt, w hi ch show ed thatS i m pson w as a di abet i c, and snapp i ng S i m pson ’ s knee back i nt o pl a c e a f

t e rthe i nj ury ; ( 3) J ohn D oe 3 a tL R M C w a s de l i be r a t e l yi ndi f f e r e nt and n egl i genti n the performance of surgery, w hi ch l ed t o the i nfec t i on that re qu i re d am pu t at i on ; (4) D r. S erraw as del i bera t el y i nd i ff er entand n egl i gentw hen he performed skin graf

t s bef ore the w ou nd heal ed; and (5) H ol der and the m edi ca l st af f a tC ol em an w er e del i bera t el y i nd i ff er entand n egl i gentbecause they r ef used t o ha ve S i m ps on f

i tt e d f orapr os the s i s . S i m ps on r e que s t e d de c l a r a t orya nd in ju n c tiv e r e lie f

a n d $ 3 0 m illio n in d a m a g e s f r o m e a c h d e f

e n d a n t. A tt a c he d t o the c om pl a i ntw e r e c opi e s of gr i e va nc e s a nd r e que s t s f or adm i ni stra t i ve re m edi es , i n w hi ch S i m pson no t ed thathe w as i nj ured du ri ng a f l ag f o o tb a ll g a m e , h is le g b e c a m e in f e c te d a f te rs u r g e ryf

o rth e in ju ry , a n d u ltim a te ly the l e g w a s a m put a t e d. T he gr i e va nc e s s how e d tha tS i m ps on r e que s t e d tha tthe4

pr i s on of f i c i a l s f i thi m f orapr os the s i s pe rthe i ns truc t i ons of the doc t or s w ho a m put a t e d hi s l e g. T he pr i s on of f i c i a l s ’ r e s pons e s not e d tha tS i m ps on’ s w e i ght p r e c lu d e d th e u s e o f

ap r o s th e s is b u t in f

o rm e d S im p s o n th a t th e d o c to r s w o u ld f it hi m f orapr os the s i s i f

he f ul f i l l e d the i rr e que s tt o r e duc e hi s w e i ghtf r om ap p ro x i m at el y 2 9 0 p o u n d s t o 2 2 5 p o u n d s. T he di s tr i c tc ourtpe r f

orm e d the r e qui r e d s c r e e ni ng unde rthe P r i s on L i t i ga t i on R e f

orm A c t( “ P L R A ” ) , 28 U . S . C . § 1915A , a nd di s m i s s e d the c om pl a i nt f orf a i l ur e t o e xhaus ta dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e m e di e s a nd f a i l ur e t o s t a t e ac l a i m . F i r s t , the c o u rt n o te d th a t th e o n lye x h au s te d c la im w a s th e a lle g a tio n o f d e lib e r a te i ndi f f e r e nc e t o pr ovi de apr os the s i s . N e ve rthe l e s s , the c ourtc onc l ude d tha tthe prosthesi s c on t ent i on fa i l ed t o st at e acl ai m because S i m pson ’ s w ei gh tprevent ed do ct ors f rom fi tt i ng hi m for the prosthesi s, and thatthi s di agno si s w i th w hi ch S i m pson di sa gree d d i d n otam ou ntt o d el i bera t e i nd i ff er ence . S ec on d, the court c onc l ude d tha tthe othe rc l a i m s w e r e pr oc e dur a l l yde f aul t e d be c aus e the yw e r e not e xhaus t e d. T he c ourtnot e d tha t , a l though S i m ps on r e f e rr e d t o hi s othe ra l l e ga t i ons i n hi s gr i e va nc e s , he di d nots e e k a nyr e m e dy , a nd the r e s pons e s f r om the pr i s on of f i c i a l s di d nota ddr e s s the othe rc l a i m s , w hi c h w oul d now be t i m e - ba rr e d. T he courtdi sm i ss ed S i m pson ’ s c om pl ai ntw i th p re j ud i ce . S i m ps on m ove d f

orr e c ons i de r a t i on, a s s e rt i ng tha tthe c om pl a i nts houl d not5

be di s m i s s e d w i th pr e

j udi c e be c aus e of

hi s pr o s e s t a tus a nd tha the s houl d be pe rm i tt e d t o a m e nd hi s c om pl a i nt . S i m ps on’ s m ot i on t o r e c ons i de rdi d noti nc l ude a n y n e w a lle g a tio n s to s u p p o rt h is c la im s . H e f u rth e ra s s e rte d th a t th e a lle g e d ly une xhaus t e d c l a i m s s houl d be c ons i de r e d e xhaus t e d f or§ 1915A s c r e e ni ng pu rposes because, as the courtno t ed, S i m pson ’ s gri evances re fe rr ed t o the other cl ai m s. T h e co u rtd en i ed th e m o t i o n fo r reco n si d erat i o n . S i m p so n n o w ap p eal s. II . S tan d ard of R evi ew W e r evi ew de no vo a di stri ctcourt ’ s s ua spon t e di sm i ss al of a s ui tfor f ai l ure t o s t a t e ac l a i m f

orr e l i e f unde r§ 1915A ( b) ( 1) . L e a l v. G a . D e p’ tof C orr . , 254 F . 3d 12 76 , 12 79 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). W e r evi ew de no vo a di stri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ss al of as ui tf orf a i l ur e t o e xhaus ta dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e m e di e s . A l e xa nde rv. H a w k, 159 F . 3d 1321, 1323 ( 11th C i r . 1998) . W e “ r e vi e w the de ni a l of [ a ] m ot i on f

or r e c o n s id e r a tio n f

o ra n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n .” C lif

f v . P a y c o G e n . A m . C r e d its , I n c ., 3 6 3 F .3 d 1 1 1 3 , 1 1 2 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . I I I . D i s c u s s i on S i m pson ’ s app ea l pres ent s three qu es t i on s: (1) w hether the di stri ctcourt erre d i n d i sm i ss i ng hi s c l ai m for del i bera t e i nd i ff er ence for the fa i l ure t o p rovi de a pr os the s i s ; ( 2) w he the rthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d i n c onc l udi ng tha the ha d not e x h au s te d h is o th e rc la im s ; a n d ( 3 ) w h e th e rth e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d in d e n y in g h is6

m ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on. F i r s t , S i m ps on a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d i n di s m i s s i ng hi s c l a i m f or del i bera t e i nd i ff

er ence for f

ai l i ng t o p rovi de a prosthesi s bec ause (1) the court m is ta k e n lyv ie w e d f

r iv o litya n d f

a ilu r e to s ta te ac la im a s s y n o n y m o u s a n d s h o u ld ha ve appl i e d the f

r i vol i ty s t a nda r d; a nd ( 2) S i m ps on r a i s e d a n a r guabl e c l a i m f or d e lib e r a te in d if

f e r e n c e . U n d er § 1 9 1 5 A , th e d i stri ctco u rtm u st re vi ew , before do cket i ng , . . . or, i n any event , as soon as pr a c t i c abl e a f

t e rdoc ke t i ng, ac om pl a i nti n ac i vi l a c t i on i n w hi ch a pri soner s ee ks re dres s f rom a gov ernm ent al e n t i ty o ro f

f i c e r. . . i n o r d e rt o i d e n t i f yc o g n i z ab l e c l a i ms ordi s m i s s the c om pl a i nt , ora nyport i on of the c om pl a i nt i f i t. . . fa i l s t o st at e acl ai m up on w hi ch re l i ef m a ybe gr a nt e d. 28 U . S . C . § 1915A ( a ) , ( b) ( 1) ; L e a l , 254 F . 3d a t1278- 79. T he E i ghth A m e ndm e ntgove rns “ the tr e a tm e ntapr i s one rr e c e i ve s i n pr i s on a nd the c ondi t i ons unde rw hi c h he i s c onf i ne d. ” H e l l i ng v. M c K i nl e y , 509 U . S . 25, 3 1 ( 1 9 9 3 ) . T h e S u p r e m e C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t ap r is o n o f f ic ia l’s “d e lib e r a te i ndi f f e r e nc e t o [ the ] s e r i ous m e di c a l ne e ds of [ a ] pr i s one r [ ] c ons t i tut e s the u n n e c e s s a ry a n d w a n to n in f lic tio n o f p a in . . . p r o s c r ib e d b yth e E ig h th A m e ndm e nt . ” E s t e l l e v. G a m bl e , 429 U . S . 97, 104 ( 1976) ( quot a t i on m a rks a nd c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . A s w e h a v e e x p la in e d , “[ t]o s h o w ap r is o n o f f ic ia l a c te d w ithL aw a pplicable to § 1983 also a pplies to Bivens c laims. Kelly v. Serna, 87 F .3d 1235, 3 1239 (11th Cir. 1996). 7 del i bera t e i nd i ff

er ence t o ser i ou s m edi ca l needs, a pl ai nt i ff m ustsa t i sf

y an obj ec t i ve and a subj ec t i ve i nq ui ry . F i rs t , a pl ai nt i ff m ustse tforth evi dence of an obj e c t i ve l y s e r i ous m e di c a l ne e d. S e c ond, apl a i nt i f f m us tpr ove tha tthe pr i s on of f i c i a l a c t e d w i th a n a tt i tude of de l i be r a t e i ndi f

f e r e nc e t o tha tne e d. ” F a rr ow v. W e s t , 320 F . 3d 1235, 1243 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ( quot a t i on m a rks and c i t a t i ons om i tt ed). T he fa ct s a l l eged m ustdo m ore than con t end m edi ca l m alprac t i ce , mi s d i a g n o s i s , a c c i d e n t s , a n d p o o re x e r c i s e o f me d i c a l j u d g me n t . Es t e l l e , 4 2 9 U . S. a t 1 0 4 - 0 7 . A n a lle g a tio n o f n e g lig e n c e is in s u f

f ic ie n t to s ta te ad u e p r o c e s s c la im . D a n ie ls v . W illia m s , 4 7 4 U .S . 3 2 7 , 3 3 0 - 3 3 ( 1 9 8 6 ) ( d is c u s s in g d e lib e r a te i nd i ff er ence and n egl i gence und er42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3). 3

“ W hen the need for tre atm enti s obv i ou s, m edi ca l care thati s s o cursoryas t o a m ountt o no tr e a tm e nta ta l l m a ya m ountt o de l i be r a t e i ndi f f e r e nc e . ” B r ow n v. J o h n s o n , 3 8 7 F .3 d 1 3 4 4 , 1 3 5 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . H o w e v e 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” i s notde l i be r a t e i ndi f f e r e nc e . W a l dr op v. E v a n s , 8 7 1 F .2 d 1 0 3 0 , 1 0 3 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ) . H er e, the di stri ctcourtprop er l y c on cl ud ed thatS i m pson fa i l ed t o st at e a c l a i m f orde l i be r a t e i ndi f

f e r e nc e . T he r e c or d s how s tha tthe pr i s on of f i c i a l s a nd8

do ct ors c on cl ud ed thatS i m pson ’ s w ei gh tprec l ud ed do ct ors f rom fi tt i ng hi m for a pr os the s i s . S i m ps on’ s opi ni on tha tthe pr os the s i s c oul d be f i tt e d de s pi t e hi s w e i ght i s am e r e di f

f e r e nc e of opi ni on w i th the pr i s on of f i c i a l s and doc t or s a nd doe s not e s t abl i s h de l i be r a t e i ndi f f e r e nc e . I d. F urthe rm or e , S i m ps on’ s a r gum e nttha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtc onf

us e d the s t a nda r ds f

orf r i vol i tya nd f

a i l ur e t o s t a t e ac l a i m a nd s houl d ha ve appl i e d the f r i vol i ty s t a nda r d i s w i thoutm e r i t . U nde r§ 1915A , the c ourti s r e qui r e d t o di s m i s s on e i the rgr ound a nd doe s note rri n appl y i ng the f a ilu r e to s ta te ac la im s ta n d a r d . S i m pson nextar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourterre d b y c on cl ud i ng thathi s other c la im s w e r e tim e - b a rr e d b e c au s e th e P L R A d o e s n o t c o n ta in ap r o c e d u r a l d e f au lt p r o v is io n a n d b e c au s e th e p r is o n h a s th e d is c r e tio n to a c c e p t a n u n tim e ly gr i e va nc e . N e ve rthe l e s s , he c ont e nds tha the e xhaus t e d hi s a dm i ni s tr a t i ve rem ed i es. Th e PLRA re qu i re s pri soners t o exh austadm i ni stra t i ve re m edi es before f ilin g s u it w ith r e s p e c t to p r is o n c o n d itio n s , a n d th e r e q u ir e m e n t ap p lie s to s u its in w hi ch the pri soner s ee ks m on et ary or i nj un ct i ve re l i ef . 42 U . S . C . § 1 99 7e(a ); A l exander, 15 9 F . 3d at13 28 . T he P L R A do es no tcont ai n fut i l i ty or i nadequ ac y e xc e pt i ons t o the e xhaus t i on r e qui r e m e nt . W e r e c e nt l yhe l d, how e ve r , tha tthe P L R A e xhaus t i on r e qui r e m e ntc ont a i ns apr oc e dur a l de f aul tpr ovi s i on. J ohns on v.9

M ea do w s, 41 8 F . 3d 11 52 , 11 58 -59 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). H e r e , th e c o u rt f

o u n d th a t S im p s o n ’s c la im s , e x c e p t f o rth e d e lib e r a te i ndi f f e r e nc e c l a i m f

orf a i l i ng t o pr ovi de apr os the s i s , ha d notbe e n e xhaus t e d a nd w oul d now be t i m e - ba rr e d. T he di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s rul i ng w a s pr ope r . A l though S im p so n ’s g riev an ce s tan g en ti ally re fe rr ed to h is o th erclaim s, S im p so n ’s gr i e va nc e s ne i the rr e que s t e d ar e m e dynordi d the pr i s on of f i c i a l s ’ r e s pons e s s how tha tthe y c ons i de r e d thos e c om pl a i nt s . T hus , thi s i s notas i tua t i on i n w hi c h the p r is o n e rp r o p e r lyr a is e d h is c la im s b u t th e p r is o n o f f ic ia ls s im p lyig n o r e d th e m . T he r e f or e , S i m ps on w a s r e qui r e d t o e xhaus tthos e c l a i m s thr ough the a d m in is tr a tiv e p r o c e d u r e s b u t h e f a ile d to d o s o . F u rth e rm o r e , a lth o u g h p r is o n o f f ic ia ls m a yp e rm it a n u n tim e lyg r ie v a n c e if g o o d c au s e i s s h o w n f

o rth e d e l a y , Si mp s o n n e v e ra tt e mp t e d t o f i l e a n o u t - o n - t i me g r ie v a n c e . H a rp e rv . J e n k in , 1 7 9 F .3 d 1 3 1 1 , 1 3 1 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ; 2 8 C .F .R . § 542. 14 ( not i ng tha tgr i e va nc e s s houl d be s ubm i tt e d w i thi n tw e ntyda y s of the in c id e n t b u t a llo w in g f

o rad e la y in f

ilin g if th e p r is o n e rs h o w s g o o d c au s e ) . B e c au s e S im p s o n n e v e rf ile d atim e lyo ru n tim e lyg r ie v a n c e a n d p r is o n o f f ic ia ls have no taddres se d the go od cause e xcept i on , the di stri ctcourtprop er l y det erm i ned tha the ha s note xhaus t e d hi s a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e m e di e s . J ohns on, 418 F . 3d a t1157- 59. T he r e f

or e , S i m ps on’ s r e m a i ni ng c l a i m s w e r e pr oc e dur a l l yde f aul t e d a nd10

u n e x h au s te d . F in a lly , w e c o n s id e rw h e th e rth e d is tr ic t c o u rt ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n in de ny i ng S i m ps on’ s m ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on. I n hi s m ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on a n d o n ap p e a l, S im p s o n a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt s h o u ld h a v e a llo w e d h im to am en d h i s co m p l ai n tb efo re d i sm i ssi n g h i s co m p l ai n tw i th p rej u d i ce. T h i s case d if f e r s f r o m B r o w n v . J o h n s o n , in w h ic h w e h e ld th a t w h e n a n in f o rm ap au p e r is pl a i nt i f f m ove s t o a m e nd f

ol l ow i ng the m a gi s tr a t e j udge ’ s r e porta nd r e c om m e nda t i on butbe f or e the di s tr i c tc ourtha s e nt e r e d j udgm e nta nd be f or e the op po si ng party has fi l ed a r es po nsi ve pl ea di ng , F eder al R ul e of C i vi l P roce du re 15( a ) m a nda t e s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtgr a ntthe m ot i on t o a m e nd. B r ow n v. J o h n s o n , 3 8 7 F .3 d 1 3 4 4 , 1 3 4 8 - 4 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ; F e d . R . C iv . P . 1 5 ( a ) ( “A p a rty m ayam end the party’ s pl ea di ng on ce as a m att erof course atany t i m e bef ore a r e s pons i ve pl e a di ng i s s e rve d. ” ) . H e r e , a l though the de f e nda nt s ha d notf

i l e d a re spon si ve pl ea di ng – i n fac t , they had no teven rec ei ved p roce ss – the di stri ct c ourtha d a l r e a dy di s m i s s e d S i m ps on’ s s ui tw he n S i m ps on f i l e d am ot i on f

or r e c ons i de r a t i on i n w hi c h he a s ke d t o a m e nd hi s c om pl a i nt . T he r e f or e , J ohns on d o es n o t co n tro l, an d w h eth erto allo w am en d m en t w as w ith in th e d istrict co u rt’s di sc re t i on . W e c on cl ud e thatbecause S i m pson fa i l ed t o setforth any addi t i on al f a c ts th a t w o u ld s u p p o rt h is c la im s , 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 in11

de ny i ng S i m ps on’ s m ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on. I n c o n c lu s io n , w e A F F I R M th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt. A F F I R M E D .