FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT April 9, 2008 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. 07- 14639 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 06 -011 44 -C V -T C B -1 E M E R S O N O . D A V I S , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , B U R E A U O F P R I S O N , M S . S H O M A N , H e a lth S e r v ic e A d m in is tr a to r , D R . R A F A E L R O M A N , M D C lin ic a l D ir e c to r , D R . H . L O P E Z , M D , 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 r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( A p r i l9, 2008)2

B efo re T JO F L A T , B L A C K an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: E m er son D avi s, a pro se fe dera l pri soner, appeal s the di stri ctcourt ’ s order grant i ng the defendant s’ m ot i on t o d i sm i ss , or i n the al t ernat i ve, for s um m ary ju d g m e n t, a s to D a v is ’s c o n s titu tio n a l c la im s f ile d p u r s u a n t to B iv e n s v . S ix U n k n o w n N a me d A g e n t s o f th e Fe d e r a l Bu r e a u o f

N a r c o t i c s , 4 0 3 U . S. 3 8 8 , 9 1 S. C t . 19 99 (197 1), and h i s m edi ca l m al prac t i ce and n egl i gence cl ai m s broug htun der th e Fe d e r a l To r tCl a i ms A c t( “ FTCA ” ) . A f t e rr e v i e w , w e a f

f i r m. A . E ig h t h A m e n d m e n t M e d ic a l T r e a t m e n t C la im D a v is c o n te n d s th a t th e m e d ic a l s ta f f a t th e U n ite d S ta te s P e n ite n tia ry in A t l ant a ( “ U S P A t l ant a” ) w as del i bera t el y i nd i ff er entw hen the st af

f m i sdi agno se d hi s s ki n con di t i on as a s t aph i nfec t i on w hen i tw as i n fac tsc abi es . T he di stri ct c o u r t c o n c lu d e d th a t D a v is f a ile d to e x h a u s t h is a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s w ith re g ar d to th is claim b ec au se th e B u re au o f P riso n s ( “B O P ”) h ad d en ied D av is’s ad m i n i strat i v e g ri ev an ce as u n t i m el y. U nde rthe P r i s on L i t i ga t i on R e f or m A c tof

1995 ( “ P L R A ” ) , P ub. L . N o. 1 0 4 - 1 3 4 , 1 1 0 S ta t. 1 3 2 1 ( 1 9 9 6 ) , a B iv e n s a c tio n c a n n o t b e b r o u g h t w ith r e s p e c t to pr i s on c ondi t i ons unt i l the pr i s one rha s e xha us t e d a va i l abl e a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e m e di e s . 42 U . S . C . § 1997e ( a ) ; A l e xa nde rv. H a w k, 159 F . 3d 1321, 1323- 24We re view deno vo a dis tric t c ourt ’sgra

nt o f summ ary

judgment, a

pp ly thesame 1 standard a s the district court and view all evidenc e in a light most favorableto the non-moving party . Skrtich v. Thornton, 280 F.3d 1295, 1299 ( 11th Cir. 2002). We also reviewde novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA. Alexander, 159 F .3d at 1323. At follow-up visits on March 22, 2006 a nd March 27, 2006, Davis’s skin condition had 2 resolved. 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) ( ap p ly in g th e P L R A ’s e x h a u s tio n r e q u ir e m e n t to B iv e n s c la im s ) . A n unt i m e l y gr i e va nc e “ i s nots uf f i c i e ntt o e xha us t. . . a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e m e di e s f or purpos e s of

the P L R A e xha us t i on r e qui r e m e nt . ” J ohns on v. M e a dow s , 418 F . 3d 1 1 5 2 , 1 1 5 9 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) ; s e e a l s o W o o d f o r d v . N g o , 5 4 8 U . S. 8 1 , __ , 1 2 6 S. C t . 23 78 , 23 87 -93 (20 06 ). 1 A cc ordi ng t o the B O P gri evance proce du re , a pri soner f i rs tse eks i nform al r e s ol ut i on. 28 C . F . R . § 542. 13( a ) . I f a n i nf or m a l r e s ol ut i on c a nnotbe r e a c he d, the pr i s one rm a y f

i l e a f or m a l R e que s tf

orA dm i ni s tr a t i ve R e m e dy on f or m B P - 9. I d. § 542. 14. T he i nf

or m a l r e que s tm us tbe c om pl e t e d, a nd the f or m a l r e que s tf

i l e d, w i th i n “ 2 0 cal en d ar d ays fo l l o w i n g th e d at e o n w h i ch th e b asi s fo r th e R eq u est occurre d. ” I d. § 5 42 . 14 (a ). T he al l eged del i bera t e i nd i ff er ence t o D avi s’ s m edi ca l needs occurr ed be tw e e n D e c e m be r29, 2005 a nd M a r c h 16, 2006, w he n D a vi s w a s tr e a t e d f orthe 2
s k in c o n d itio n a t U S P A tla n ta . T w e n ty c a le n d a rd a y s f r o m M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 0 6 isWe rejec t Davis’s argument that the district court erre d in deny ing his motion for a 3 continuancepursuant to Fe deral Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f ) so that he c ould obtain a copy of the B P-8 informal re quest he filed on F ebrua ry 29, 2006. An examination of Davis’s Rule 56(f ) motion reve als that th eba sisof

thi s mo tio n w a s tog iveDa visan opp or

tunity to obtain inf or matio n a bo ut additi on al D oede fendantsand me dic al re c ords of

oth e r inmate s. Hi s Rule 56(f) motion is silent about obtaining c opies of administrative requests. F urthermore, on summary judgment the district court wa s require d to acc ept Davis’s a verment in his sworn pleading s that he filed his B P-8 informal re quest on Februar y 29, 2006. See F owler v. Southern B e ll T e l. &Te l. C o. , 3 43 F .2 d 1 50 , 1 54 (5 th C ir . 1 96 5) ; Sk rtic h, 28 0 F .3 d at 12 99 . There fo re , it wa s unn e c e ssa

ry to giveDa

visa dditi on al timeto obtain a c op y of hisinf or mal re qu e st. Da visargue s f

or thefirs t timein his reply brie f t hat hefi le d h is f

ir st B P- 9 f

or mal re qu e st 4 on March 2, 2006. Thereis no evidencein the rec ord to support this assertion. Davis’s a rguments that the twenty-day filing period was tolled until March 31, 2006 5 wh e n h etrans ferre d toUSP Col e man a nd that heha s sh own spe c ial c irc ums tanc e s ju sti fy inghis failureto p roperly

e xha us t hi s adminis trativ ereme die s a rewithout m e rit. 4 A pr i l 5, 2006. A l though D a vi s f i l e d hi s i nf

or m a l r e que s ton F e brua ry 29, 2006, he 3 di d n otfi l e hi s B P -9 form al re qu es tun t i l A pri l 12 , 20 06 , ou t si de the tw enty- day p e r io d . B e c a u s e § 5 4 2 .1 4 ( a ) r e q u ir e s b o th th e in f o r m a l a n d th e f

o r m a l r e q u e s t to 4 b e m ad e w i th i n tw en ty d ays o f th e al l eg ed d el i b erat e i n d i fferen ce, D av i s’ s req u est f o ra n a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d y w a s u n tim e ly . T h e r e f o r e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r ly 5 d is m is s e d D a v is ’s E ig h th A m e n d m e n t c la im f o rf a ilu r e to e x h a u s t. In any e vent , D avi s f

ai l ed t o p re se ntevi dence thatpri son m edi ca l st af f m is d ia g n o s e d h is s k in c o n d itio n , m u c h le s s p r o v id e d c o n s titu tio n a lly in a d e q u a te tr e a tm e nt . S e e , e . g. , F a rr ow v. W e s t , 320 F . 3d 1235, 1243 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ( e x p la in in g th a t m e r e n e g lig e n c e in m e d ic a l tr e a tm e n t d o e s n o t a m o u n t to del i bera t e i nd i ff

er ence un der the E i gh th A m endm ent ). T he re cord show s that5

m e d ic a l s ta f

f a t U S P A tla n tan e v e rd ia g n o s e d D a v is w ith a s tap h in f e c tio n . D a v is w a s in itia lly s u s p e c te d o f h a v in g a n d p r o p h y la c tic a lly tr e a te d f o ra p o s s ib le M ethi ci l l i n R es i st antS t aphyl ococcus A ureus ( “ M R S A ”) i nfec t i on . O nce lab o r a to ry r e s u lts ru le d o u t a n M R S A in f e c tio n , D a v is w a s d ia g n o s e d w ith a lle r g ic d e r m a titis a n d a f

u n g a l in f e c tio n a n d p r e s c r ib e d o r a l a n tib io tic s , a m ild s te r o id oi ntm e nta nd a nt i hi s t a m i ne i nj e c t i ons . W he n D a vi s w a s s e e n on M a r c h 22 a nd M a r c h 27, 2006, hi s s ki n c ondi t i on appe a r e d t o ha ve r e s ol ve d. O n M ar ch 30 , 20 06 , D avi s w as tra nsfe rr ed t o the U ni t ed S t at es P eni t ent i ary i n Co l e ma n , Fl o r i d a ( “ U SP Co l e ma n ” ) . Th e n e x td a y , D a v i s w a s s e e n b y U SP C ol em an m edi ca l st af

f a ft ercom pl ai ni ng of an i t chy r as h. U S P C ol em an’ s m edi ca l s t a f f w a s notc e r t a i n w he the rD a vi s ’ s s ki n c ondi t i on w a s de r m a t i t i s ors c abi e s , but p r o v id e d m e d ic a l tr e a tm e n t ( a n tib a c te r ia l c r e a m a n d o r a l a n tib io tic s ) a s if D a v is ha d s c abi e s . A l though D a vi s r e por t e d m e di c a l i m pr ove m e nta thi s f ol l ow - up on A pr i l 4, 2006, he ha s r e turne d pe r i odi c a l l y t o U S P C ol e m a n’ s m e di c a l s t a f f t o be tr e a te d f o rd e r m a titis a n d c e llu litis a n d h a s b e e n r e f e rr e d to a d e r m a to lo g is t. I n s h o r t, th e u n d is p u te d r e c o r d s h o w s th a t D a v is h a s n e v e rb e e n d ia g n o s e d w ith ei ther ast aph i nfec t i on or sc abi es , bu tthathi s s ki n con di t i on has bee n tre at ed th r o u g h o u th i s c o n f

i n e me n tb y me d i c a l s t a f f a tb o th U SP A t l a n t a a n d U SP C o le m a n .6

B . F T CA Cl a i ms T he di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed thati tl ac ked subj ec tm att erj uri sdi ct i on ov er D avi s’ s F T C A cl ai m s of negl i gence and m edi ca l m al prac t i ce because D avi s had fai l ed t o ex h au sth i s ad m i n i strat i v e rem ed i es. A fed eral co u rtl ack s su b j ectm att er j u ri sd i ct i o n o v er an F T C A cl ai m “ u n l ess the cl ai m antshal l have fi rs tpres ent ed the cl ai m t o the approp ri at e F eder al agency a nd hi s c l a i m s ha l l ha ve be e n f i na l l y de ni e d by the a ge nc y i n w r i t i ng a nd s e ntby c e r t i f i e d orr e gi s t e r e d m a i l . ” 28 U . S . C . § 2675( a ) ; M c N e i l v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 508 U . S . 10 6, 11 1-13 , 11 3 S . C t . 19 80 , 19 83 -84 (19 93 ); T urner ex re l . T urner v. U ni t ed S t at es , 51 4 F . 3d 11 94 , 12 00 (11th C i r. 20 08 ). O n A p r il 1 4 , 2 0 0 6 , D a v is f ile d h is a d m in is tr a tiv e F T C A c la im w ith th e B O P . O n M a y 5 , 2 0 0 6 , w h ile h is a d m in is tr a tiv e c la im w a s s till p e n d in g , D a v is f ile d th is a c t i o n a l l e g i n g F T C A c l a i m s . F i v e m o n th s l a t e r , o n Oc t o b e r1 0 , 2 0 0 6 , th e B OP de ni e d D a vi s ’ s a dm i ni s tr a t i ve c l a i m . B e c a us e the B O P ha d not“ f i na l l y de ni e d” D avi s’ s a dm i ni stra t i ve cl ai m i n w ri t i ng atthe t i m e D avi s f i l ed hi s s ui ti n federa l c our t , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n di s m i s s i ng the F T C A c l a i m s f orl a c k of s ubj e c tm a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on. F ur the r m or e , the di s m i s s a l w a s pr ope re ve n though D a v is ’s c la im s w e r e e x h a u s te d f iv e m o n th s a f

te rth is a c tio n w a s f

ile d . S e e M c N e il, 508 U . S . a t110- 13, 113 S . C t . a t1983- 84 ( a f f i r m i ng di s tr i c tc our t ’ s di s m i s s a l of7

prem aturel y f

i l ed F T C A com pl ai nteven tho ug h adm i ni stra t i ve deni al occurre d short l y a ft erthe com pl ai ntw as fi l ed and b ef ore s ub st ant i al prog re ss had t aken pl ac e i n the l i t i gat i on ). C. Re t a l i a t i o n Cl a i ms D a vi s ’ s c om pl a i nta l l e ge d tha the w a s r e t a l i a t e d a ga i ns t , i n vi ol a t i on of the F i r s ta nd F i f

th A m e ndm e nt s , f

orr e f us i ng t o s ha r e a c e l l w i th a n i nm a t e w hom he bel i eved had a conta gi ou s di se as e. T o s ta te a c o n s titu tio n a l r e ta lia tio n c la im , a p la in tif f m u s t s h o w th a t: ( 1 ) h is spee ch or actw as const i tut i on al l y prot ec t ed; (2) the defendant ’ s r et al i at ory c on du ct a dve r s e l y a f

f e c t e d the pr ot e c t e d s pe e c h; a nd ( 3) the r e w a s a c a us a l c onne c t i on be tw e e n the r e t a l i a t ory a c t i ons a nd the a dve r s e e f f e c ton the s pe e c h. B e nne ttv. H endri x, 42 3 F . 3d 12 47 , 12 50 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). T he di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed that D avi s had fa i l ed t o st at e are t al i at i on cl ai m because hi s c om pl ai ntdi d n otpl ea d f a c t s e s t abl i s hi ng the thi r d pr ong of c a us a t i on. D a vi s ’ s ve r i f

i e d c om pl a i nta nd s um m a ry j udgm e ntr e s pons e r e c ountthe i nc i de ntgi vi ng r i s e t o hi s r e t a l i a t i on c l a i m s . O n ke y poi nt s , D a vi s ’ s a ve r m e nt s do n o t d if f e rs ig n if ic a n tly f r o m th o s e o f

th e p r is o n o f

f ic ia ls w h o w e r e p r e s e n t. O n Fe b ru a ry 2 4 , 2 0 0 6 , D a v i s a n d J a me s St e w a r t , a u n i tma n a g e ra tU SP A t l ant a, had a di sc ussi on abou tD avi s’ s c el l re as si gn m ent . S t ew artt ol d D avi s that8

he w a s be i ng m ove d t o a c e l l w i th i nm a t e J a m e s W a r d. D a vi s r e f us e d t o m ove because he bel i eved W ar d h ad an i nfec t i ou s s ki n d i se as e w i th o pen, bl oo dy sore s on hi s bod y a nd because both h e a nd W ar d h ad bo tt om bu nk pass es . D avi s a vers th atS t ew art“ cu ss[ed ] at[D av i s] t el l i n g [D av i s] h e d i d n o tg i v e a sh i tan d [D av i s] ne e d[ e d] t o s l e e p w i th a nothe rm a n. ” D a vi s a dm i t s tha t , i n r e s pons e , he “ c us s [ e d] [ S te w a r t] b a c k .” A cc ordi ng t o S t ew art , D avi s bec am e “ bel l i gere ntand threa t eni ng . ” J uel H aw ki ns, a pri son cou nsel or w ho w as pres entatthe m ee t i ng w i th S t ew art , averre d th atD av i s b ecam e “ ag i t at ed an d st art ed cu rsi n g ” atS t ew art . S t ew artg av e D av i s a di re ctorder t o l ea ve the ar ea , bu tD avi s r ef used. H aw ki ns then i ss ued a di re ct order t o D avi s t o l ea ve the offi ce and reportt o the L i eut enant ’ s off i ce . D avi s l ef

t th e o f f ic e , b u t h e r e tu rn e d to h is c e ll r a th e rth a n r e p o r t to th e L ie u te n a n t’s o f f ic e . H a w k in s a n d S te w a r t th e n e s c o r te d D a v is to th e L ie u te n a n t’s o f f ic e . S te w a r t w r o te an i n ci d en trep o rtch arg i n g D av i s w i th refu si n g an o rd er an d m ak i n g th reat s. A c c or di ng t o D a vi s , hi s c onduc ts houl d ha ve r e s ul t e d i n “ a pe tty i nc i de nt re po rtw hi ch w ou l d n otst ay on [hi s] re cord for t oo l on g” and l ostcom m i ss ary pr i vi l e ge s . H ow e ve r , S t e w a r ta nd H a w ki ns f a l s i f i e d the i nc i de ntr e por tt o c ha r ge D avi s w i th the m ore s er i ou s off ense of threa t eni ng another w i th h arm . A ft era di s c i pl i na ry he a r i ng on the i nc i de ntr e por t , D a vi s w a s pl a c e d i n the s pe c i a l hous i ngThe district cour t concluded that Davis’s complaint failed to state a c laim of retaliation 6 be c a us eit did n ot alle g efac ts s uppo rtingc a us atio n. Ho wever, Da

viswa s g iven n oti c eof

his obligations to respond to the summary judgment motion and submi tted documentar y evidenc e and dec larations in support of his claims, including a verified summary judgment response a

nd statement of material facts. Indeed, D avis’s amended complaint wa s verifie d by Davis. Ac c ording ly, w ea ff

ir m th edis tric t c ourt ’se ntr y of summa ry judgment in f

avo r o f t hede fendants on Davis’s retaliation claims, but do so on the ground that Davis failed to present evidence demonstratinga ca

usal conne ction between protec ted spee ch and thedisciplinary action. See Fitzpatrick v. City

of Atlanta, 2 F .3d 1112, 1117 (11th Cir. 1993) (“ When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, the court of a

ppeals may

aff irm if thereexis ts any

adequate ground for doing so, reg ardle ss of whether it is the one on which the district c ourt relied.” ). 9 u n i t(“ S H U ”) fo r sev eral w eek s. T he prob l em for D avi s i s thathe pres ent ed no evi dence thathi s di sc i pl i nary c onf i ne m e nti n S H U w a s c a us a l l y r e l a t e d t o c ons t i tut i ona l l y pr ot e c t e d s pe e c h or c onduc t . E ve n D a vi s a dm i t s tha the c ur s e d a tthe of f i c e ra nd doe s notde ny tha the 6
re fuse d t o reportt o the L i eut enant ’ s off i ce . W e not e thatthi s i s nota c as e i n w hi ch D avi s f i l ed a gri evance r el at i ng t o h i s c el l as si gn m entand as are sul tw as subj ec t ed t o di s c i pl i ne . C f

. W i l dbe r ge rv. B r a c kne l l , 869 F . 2d 1467, 1468 ( 11th C i r . 1989) ( i nvol vi ng i nm a t e w ho c l a i m e d he w a s di s c i pl i ne d f orf i l i ng pr i s on gr i e va nc e s a nd encouragi ng other i nm at es t o si gn a pet i t i on of prot es t ). N or i s thi s aca se i n w hi ch D a v is w a s d is c ip lin e d a f te rd is p a s s io n a te ly c o m p la in in g in p e r s o n . I n s te a d , it is undi s put e d tha tD a vi s ’ s ve rba l c om pl a i ntw a s gi ve n be l l i ge r e nt l y , w hi l e us i ng c u r s e w o r d s , a n d c o n tin u e d e v e n a f te rD a v is w a s o r d e r e d to le a v e . E v e n a s s u m in g a r g u e n d o th a t a n in m a te e n g a g e s in c o n s titu tio n a lly p r o te c te d s p e e c h w h e n h e lo d g e s a v e rb a l c o m p la in t ab o u t h is c e ll a s s ig n m e n t,10

D avi s s t i l l has pre se nt ed no evi dence t o sup po rta f i nd i ng thathe w as di sc i pl i ned f o rc o m p l a i n i n g ab o u th i s c e l l a s s i g n m e n t . R a th e rth e u n d i s p u t e d r e c o r d s h o ws th atS t ew artp rep ared th e i n ci d en trep o rtth atresu l t ed i n D av i s’ s d i sci p l i n e b ecau se D a v is w a s b e in g b e llig e r e n t, c u r s in g a n d r e f u s in g to le a v e w h e n o r d e r e d to d o s o . T he r e f or e , de f e nda nt s w e r e e nt i t l e d t o s um m a ry j udgm e nton D a vi s ’ s r e t a l i a t i on cl ai m s. F ora l l the f

or goi ng r e a s ons , w e a f

f i r m the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de rgr a nt i ng d e f e n d a n ts ’ m o tio n to d is m is s o r , in th e a lte rn a tiv e , f o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. AF F I RME D.