FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT JUNE 6, 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- 15167 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 3 - 0 0 4 5 3 - C V- F T M- 9 9 - DN F C L A R E N C E F I S C H E R , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s C A P T A I N E L L E G O O D , S E R G E A N T R E I S , O F F I C E R P O O S E R , O F F I C E R F N U H O L L A N D , O F F I C E R M A Y S , S G T . L A F A Y E T T E , 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 orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju n e 6, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , C A RN E S an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es.2

P E R C U R I A M: C l ar ence F i sc her, a F l ori da pri soner a nd pro se l i t i gant , appeal s the di stri ct c our t ’ s gr a ntof

s um m a ry j udgm e nta ga i ns thi m on a l l c l a i m s i n a n a c t i on he b r o u g h t u n d e r4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a g a in s t v a r io u s e m p lo y e e s o f th e L e e C o u n ty J a il, th e f a c ility a t w h ic h h e w a s h o u s e d d u r in g th e e v e n ts u n d e r ly in g th is la w s u it. I. F i sc her’ s s w orn com pl ai ntdesc ri bed the event s a nd cond i t i on s thatre sul t ed a f t e rJ a i l e m pl oy e e s , unde rthe di r e c t i on of S e r ge a ntR e i s , i m pl e m e nt e d a

“ l oc kdow n, ” w hi c h i nc l ude d the r a c i a l s e gr e ga t i on of pr i s one r s i n hi s c e l l bl oc k, on A pr i l 23, 2003. T he a f

f e c t e d i nm a t e s w e r e s pl i ta l ong r a c i a l l i ne s i nt o f our s e pa r a t e c e l l s , s om e w i th a s m a ny a s s e ve n i nm a t e s pe rc e l l , w he r e the y w e r e ke pt f ortw o w e e ks . O ne of

the c e l l s ha d br oke n pl um bi ng, the i nm a t e s w e r e not a l l ow e d t o s how e rorothe rw i s e m a i nt a i n pe r s ona l hy gi e ne , a nd F i s c he ra nd the o th e rin m a te s w e r e f

o r c e d to s le e p o n th e f

lo o ra n d o n o th e rin m a te s ’ b u n k s w ith s o ile d b e d lin e n s . A n o th e rill e f f e c t o f th e “h o s tile e n v ir o n m e n t” th a t “e ru p te d ” in F i s c he r ’ s c e l l w a s af

i ghttha tbr oke outi n w hi c h F i s c he rw a s i nj ur e d “ by be i ng s truc k. ” A l s o, F i s c he rw a s hi tw i th “ bodi l y f l ui ds ” be c a us e of

a l l the “ ur i ne thr ow i ng a nd . . . s pi tt i ng” tha tt ook pl a c e dur i ng the i nm a t e s ’ c l os e c onf i ne m e nt ( o n c e e v e n in f

r o n t o f O f f ic e rM a y s a n d a n o th e ro f f ic e r ) .3

T h r o u g h o u t th e lo c k d o w n , O f f ic e r s M a y s , H o lla n d , a n d P o o s e rr e p e a te d ly m i s l e d the i nm a t e s a s t o w he n the y w oul d be r e turne d t o the i rr e gul a rc e l l s a nd de ni e d F i s c he r ’ s r e que s t s t o s pe a k w i th the i rs upe r i or s aboutthe s i tua t i on. S o, on A pr i l 26, 2003, F i s c he rl odge d aw r i tt e n gr i e va nc e . B uti ns t e a d of e ndi ng the l ockd ow n and se gregat i on , S er geantL af ay ett e a nd 15 t o 2 0 o ther off i ce rs re t al i at ed. T hey c on du ct ed a “ shakedow n” du ri ng w hi ch F i sc her “ and o thers re ce i ved p epper s pray ” a ft erhear i ng S er geantL af ay ett e a ton e poi ntt el l the other offi ce rs t o “ m ake s ure [ the i nm at es ] getsom ethi ng i n thei r f ac e. ” S ever al other i nm a t e s w e r e be a t e n. T he nextday, af

t erbei ng re turned t o a l ocked d ow n and se gregat ed st at e, F isch erfiled an o th erw ritt en g riev an ce , th is ti m e to C ap tain E ll eg o o d , th e J ail’ s

“ fa ci l i ty c om m ander. ” T hi s, t oo , w as i gn ored and i n fac tre m ai ned u nadd re ss ed as of N ov em ber 200 3, w hen F i sc her f i l ed hi s “ se cond am ended com pl ai nt . ” A s are sul tof w hathe ca l l s “ thi s w ho l e ordeal , ” F i sc her s ay s thathe endu re d “f e a r , s tr e s s , a n d s u f

f e r in g .” A n d a lth o u g h h e h a s ab a n d o n e d th e is s u e o n ap p e a l, F i sc her a l so cl ai m ed i n h i s s w orn com pl ai ntthat , i n ret al i at i on for hi s w ri tt en gr i e va nc e s a nd f

orbr i ngi ng thi s l a w s ui t , J a i l e m pl oy e e s de pr i ve d hi m of m e d ic a tio n f

o rh is m e n ta l a n d p h y s ic a l c o n d itio n s , in c lu d in g h is “B i- P o la r , M a n ic D e p r e s s iv e s ta te .” T h e r e s u ltin g m o o d s w in g s la n d e d F is c h e rin “a lte r c a tio n s ” in4

w h ic h h e s u f

f e r e d a“b r o k e n n o s e a n d o th e r[ u n s p e c if ie d ] in ju r ie s .” O n th e b a s is o f

th e s e a lle g a tio n s , F is c h e rs u e d th e d e f e n d a n ts , in b o th th e ir of f i c i a l a nd i ndi vi dua l c apa c i t i e s , c l a i m i ng “ r a c i a l di s c r i m i na t i on, s e gr e ga t i on, h a r a s s m e n t , a n d c ru e l a n d u n u s u a l p u n i s h m e n tu n d e rth e 8 th Am e n d m e n t . ” He al so cl ai m ed vi ol at i on s of hi s r i gh t s und erthe F i rs tA m endm ent , and “ any other vi ol at i on s or l aw s thatI have m i ss ed. ” A ft erthe defendant s f

i l ed answ er s, F i sc her f

i l ed a m ot i on for app oi nt ed c ouns e l , w hi c h the di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d, a nd the de f e nda nt s ul t i m a t e l y m ove d f or s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t g r a n te d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in f a v o ro f a ll de f e nda nt s , a s t o a l l c l a i m s . F i s c he rt i m e l y appe a l e d. II. S um m a ry j udgm e nti s appr opr i a t e i f the r e c or d r e ve a l s no ge nui ne i s s ue of a ny m a t e r i a l f

a c ta nd tha tthe m ovi ng pa r ty i s e nt i t l e d t o j udgm e nta s am a tt e rof la w . F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 . A d is tr ic t c o u r t’s o r d e rg r a n tin g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t is r e v ie w e d d e n o v o , “v ie w in g a ll e v id e n c e , a n dd r a w in g a ll r e a s o n ab le in f e r e n c e s , in f a vorof the non- m ovi ng pa r ty . ” V e s s e l s v. A t l a nt aI nde p. S c h. S y s . , 408 F . 3d 763, 7 6 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . W e r e vi e w the de ni a l of am ot i on f

orappoi nt e d c ouns e l f

orabus e of di sc re t i on . B as s v. P erri n, 17 0 F . 3d 13 12 , 13 19 (11th C i r. 19 99 ).In additi on to t hefiveissue s w ea dd

re ss in this opinion , F ischer alsorepe ate dly 1 sug g e ststhat th edis tric t c ourt vio late d his Seventh

Am endment right to trial by jur y wh en it gra nte d s umm ary

judgment in f

avo r o f t hede fendants . Wehavere je c te d this l ineof

re a so ningin the past and theref

ore se e no re ason to discuss the argument ag ain here. See G arviev. City of For t Walton Beach, Fla., 366 F .3d 1186, 1190 (11th Cir. 2004). 5 III. O n ap p eal , F i sch er rai ses fi v e i ssu es w arran t i n g d i scu ssi o n . W e ad d ress 1 e a c h of the s e i s s ue s , though i n a n or de rs om e w ha tdi f f e r e ntf r om the or de rhe pres ent s them i n h i s bri ef . A. F irst, w e c o n sid erF isch er ’s o n ly ar g u m en t b ea rin g o n th e d istrict co u rt’s grantof sum m ary j ud gm entt o the Ja i l em pl oyee s i n thei r off i ci al capaci t i es . In r e a c h in g its r e s u lt, th e d is tr ic t c o u r t r e a s o n e d th a t F is c h e r ’s e v id e n c e f a ile d to i de nt i f y apr a c t i c e , pol i c y , orc us t om of the L e e C ounty J a i l tha tw a s a“ m ovi ng fo rce o f i n

j u ry” t o h i m . F i sch er arg u es si m p l y th ath e “ d i d l i stal l o f th e cu st o m s, p o lic ie s , p r o c e d u r e s , a n d ru le s a n d r e g u la tio n s v io la te d [ b y ] th e d e f e n d a n ts a c tio n s ” b y a tta c h in g to h is c o m p la in t h is f o rm a l g r ie v a n c e to C ap ta in E lle g o o d . G i ve n ourobl i ga t i on t o vi e w pr o s e pl e a di ngs l i be r a l l y , E s t e l l e v. G a m bl e , 429 U . S . 97, 106, 97 S . C t . 285, 292 ( 1976) , he a r gue s tha tthe r e i s age nui ne i s s ue of m a te r ia l f

a c t o n th is p o in t. A n o ff i ci al -c apac i ty s ui ti s, “ i n al l re spec t s other than n am e, t o b e tre at ed as6

as ui ta ga i ns tthe e nt i ty [ of w hi c h the de f

e nda nti s a n a ge nt ] . ” K e ntuc ky v. G ra ham , 47 3 U . S . 15 9, 16 6, 10 5 S . C t . 30 99 , 31 05 (198 5). T o p re vai l un der § 1983 a ga i ns ttha te nt i ty , apl a i nt i f f m us ts how tha tthe e nt i ty i t s e l f w a s the “ m ovi ng f or c e ” be hi nd hi s c ons t i tut i ona l de pr i va t i on, a nd the onl y w a y t o do tha ti s by i de nt i f y i ng a“ ‘ pol i c y orc us t om ’ [ of the e nt i ty tha t ] pl a y e d apa r ti n the vi ol a t i on o f f e d e r a l la w .” I d . In l i gh tof these pri nci pl es , the di stri ctcourtcorr ec t l y gra nt ed sum m ary j udgm e nton the of

f i c i a l - c apa c i ty c l a i m s . F i s c he rdi d i n f a c ti de nt i f

y apol i c y of the L e e C ounty J a i l i n the f orm a l gr i e va nc e he s ubm i tt e d t o C apt a i n E l l e good. T he g ri ev an ce ci t ed th e “ In m at e R u l es an d R eg u l at i o n s” as p ro v i d i n g tw o sh o w ers a w ee k for tho se i nm at es i n d i sc i pl i naryconfi nem entand d ai l y s ho w er s f or al l other i nm a t e s . B utthe c l a i m F i s c he rm a de i n hi s f orm a l gr i e va nc e a nd i n hi s § 1983 com pl ai nt(a nd thathe m akes agai n b ef ore us) i s notthatthi s pol i cyw as const i tut i on al l y def

i ci ent , bu tthati nd i vi du al agent s of the L ee C ou nty J ai l vi ol at ed i t . W e w i l l t a ke up thi s pa r t i c ul a ra l l e ge d pol i c y vi ol a t i on w he n w e e xa m i ne the re l evantE i gh th A m endm entcl ai m agai nstthe defendant s i n thei r i nd i vi du al c ap a c itie s , b u t f

o rp r e s e n t p u rp o s e s th e r e is n o q u e s tio n th a t F is c h e rh a s f a ile d to pr e s e nte vi de nc e of

a ny L e e C ounty pol i c y orc us t om tha t“ pl a y e d apa r t ” i n the d e p r iv a tio n o f

h is r ig h ts . I n o th e rw o r d s , h e h a s s h o w n n o e v id e n c e th a t th e c o u n ty7

i t sel f (as o p p o sed t o i n d i v i d u al o ffi cers) v i o l at ed h i s ri g h t s. B. Se c o n d , w e a d d r e s s Fi s c h e r ’ s Ei g h th A me n d me n te x c e s s i v e - f o r c e c l a i m, w hi c h i s ba s e d on the pe ppe rs pr a y i nc i de nt . I n gr a nt i ng s um m a ry j udgm e nton thi s c l ai m , the di stri ctcourtci t ed the abse nce of evi dence “ thatthe . . . spra y w as us e d f ora ny othe rpurpos e . . . tha n t o r e s t or e or de r , ” ortha tF i s c he ri nc urr e d a ny i nj ury f r om the s pr a y . F i s c he rdoe s notm e nt i on the i nj ury i s s ue i n hi s br i e f , but i nst ea d say s thathe has pre se nt ed evi dence i n the form of hi s s w orn com pl ai ntthat the spra yi ng w as “ w ant on and d el i bera t e a nd no tnece ss ary a s no si tuat i on or threa t of sa fe ty e ver e xi st ed. ” T hi s, he sa ys , m ea ns thatsum m ary j ud gm entw as i m prop er . T o e s tab lis h ac la im f

o re x c e s s iv e f

o r c e in v io la tio n o f

th e E ig h th A m e ndm e nt , apl a i nt i f

f m us ts how ( 1) tha tthe f or c e w a s “ s a di s t i c a l l y a nd m a l i c i ous l y appl i e d f

orthe ve ry purpos e of

c a us i ng ha rm , ” J ohns on v. B r e e de n, 28 0 F . 3d 13 08 , 13 21 (11th C i r. 20 02 ), and (2) thatm ore than a de m i ni m i s i nj ury r e s u lte d . S e e id . E ven ass um i ng thatF i sc her pres ent ed suff i ci entevi dence of an i nj ury (w hi ch w e dou bt ), sum m ary j ud gm enti s due t o b e a ff i rm ed on the exces si ve force cl ai m because nothi ng i n the re cord sugg es t s the offi ce rs used the pepp erspra y8

w ith th e m a lic io u s in te n tio n o f c a u s in g h a rm to F is c h e r . I n s u p p o r t o f th e ir sum m ary j ud gm entm ot i on s, the defendant s produ ce d tw o “ O C S prayC om pl i ance F orm s” and the af

fi davi tof S er geantL af

ay ett e, al l of w hi ch i nd i ca t ed thatoffi ce rs s pr a y e d i nm a t e s D e l a m os a nd A rm s tr ong f orr e f us i ng t o f

ol l ow or de r s t o f

a c e the w a ll d u r in g th e s h a k e d o w n . G iv e n th is e v id e n c e , th e b u r d e n s h if te d to F is c h e rto pr e s e nt“ e vi de nc e on w hi c h the j ury c oul d r e a s onabl y f i nd f or[ hi m ] , ” A nde r s on v. L i be r ty L obby , I nc . , 477 U . S . 242, 252, 106 S . C t . 2505, 2512 ( 1986) , on the i s s ue o f th e d e f e n d a n ts ’ s u b

je c tiv e in te n tio n s w h e n th e y s p r a y e d th e in m a te s . F is c h e rd id n o t c a rry th is b u r d e n . I n h is s w o rn c o m p la in t, F is c h e rb a ld ly as se rt ed thatthe offi ce rs spra ye d h i m and the others as partof a “ shakedow n” that w a s in r e ta lia tio n f

o rh is w r itte n g r ie v a n c e o f A p r il 2 6 , 2 0 0 3 . H e a ls o b a ld ly a s s e r t e d tha tthe s pr a y i ng w a s “ unw a rr a nt e d a nd c a nnotbe j us t i f i e d the r e f

or e be i ng c la s s if ie d a s a n I m p r o p e ra n d E x c e s s iv e U s e o f F o r c e .” N e ith e ro f

th e s e s ta te m e n ts am ou ntt o evi dence of w hatthe defendant s i nt ended. T he sa m e i s true f or m er e pr om i s e s of

“ a f f i da vi t s a nd l i ve t e s t i m ony ” ( a s F i s c he rm a de i n hi s r e s pons e t o the d e f e n d a n ts ’ m o tio n s f

o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t) o r“e ig h t w itn e s s e s ” ( a s h e m a d e in hi s bri ef here ). T h e o n ly s w o rn s ta te m e n t F is c h e rh a s p r o v id e d in th e c o u r s e o f th is l i t i ga t i on appr oa c hi ng r e l e va nc e t o the “ m a l i c i ous a nd s a di s t i c ” s t a nda r d i s theFischer’s Eighth Amendment claim may in actuality

be a F ourteenth Amendment 2 cl ai m : I f h e w as a p re -tri ald et ai n eed uri n g th e r el ev antev ent s (a s o p p o s edt o a c o nv i cts erv i n g a prison sentenc e), F ischer w as protec ted not by the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel a nd unusual punishment, but by the Four teenth Amendment’s right to due proce ss. See Hamm v.

9 s in g le s e n te n c e in h is c o m p la in t th a t: “D u r in g th is s h a k e d o w n S e r g e a n t L a f a y e tte i ns truc t e d the O f

f i c e r s t o ‘ m a ke s ur e the y ge ts om e thi ng i n the i rf a c e ’ . . . . ” T he p r o b le m , h o w e v e r , is th a t th is s ta te m e n t d o e s n ’t a c tu a lly b e a ro n w h e th e rL a f a y e tte or the “ O ff

i ce rs ” “ sa di st i ca l l y a nd m al i ci ou sl y app l i ed [the spra y] for the very pu rpose of c ausi ng harm . ” J oh nson , 28 0 F . 3d at13 21 . Itce rt ai nl y does notshed l i gh ton any of the fi ve fa ct ors w e use t o d et erm i ne w hether f orce w as used

“ s a di s t i c a l l y a nd m a l i c i ous l y ” : “ ( 1) the e xt e ntof i nj ury ; ( 2) the ne e d f

or appl i ca t i on of forc e; (3) the re l at i on shi p b etw ee n thatneed and the am ou ntof forc e us e d; ( 4) a ny e f

f or t s m a de t o t e m pe rthe s e ve r i ty of af or c e f ul r e s pons e ; a nd ( 5) the e xt e ntof the thr e a tt o the s a f

e ty of s t a f f a nd i nm a t e s , a s r e a s onabl y pe r c e i ve d by th e resp o n si b l e o ffi ci al s o n th e b asi s o f fact s k n o w n t o th em . ” C am p b el l v . S i k es, 16 9 F . 3d 13 53 , 13 75 (11th C i r. 19 99 ) ( qu ot at i on s a nd ci t at i on s om i tt ed). S um m ary j u d g me n tw a s th e r e f

o r e ap p r o p r i a t e o n Fi s c h e r ’ s e x c e s s i v e f o r c e c l a i m. C. T he thi r d i s s ue w e c ons i de ra l s o i nvol ve s a n E i ghth A m e ndm e ntc l a i m , but th is o n e d e a ls w ith th e o v e r c r o w d e d a n d u n s a n ita ry c o n d itio n s F is c h e ra lle g e d ly e ndur e d dur i ng the l oc kdow n. T he di s tr i c tc our tc onc l ude d tha tthe c ondi t i ons 2DeKalb County , 774 F.2d 1567, 1572 ( 11th Cir. 1985). We are unsure of F ischer’ s status during

the events at issue in this case, but that uncertainty is of no consequence. The “minimum standard”of ensuring inmate s with the “basic ne cessities” is the same re g ardle ss of the constitutional provision. I d. at 1574. 10 F i sch er ex p eri en ced w ere n o t“ so ex trem e as t o h av e p o sed an ‘ u n reaso n ab l e ri sk of se ri ou s dam age’ t o [F i sc her’ s] heal th o r s af ety. ” O n app ea l , F i sc her a rgues that a genui ne i ss ue exi st s a s t o thi s m at er i al fa cti n l i gh tof hi s i nt errogat ory r es po nses a n d th e f o rm a l g r ie v a n c e h e a tta c h e d to h is c o m p la in t. T o est abl i sh an E i gh th A m endm entcl ai m base d o n p ri son con di t i on s, an i nm a t e m us tm e e tboth a n obj e c t i ve c om pone nt , w hi c h r e qui r e s tha tthe c ondi t i ons be “ s uf f i c i e nt l y s e r i ous , ” a nd as ubj e c t i ve c om pone nt , w hi c h r e qui r e s tha tthe of f i c i a l s a c t e d w i th “ de l i be r a t e i ndi f f e r e nc e t o pr i s one rhe a l th ors a f e ty . ” J or da n v. D oe , 38 F . 3d 1559, 1564 ( 11th C i r . 1994) ( quot a t i on m a rks om i tt e d) . T o m e e tthe obj ec t i ve st andard, “ on l y tho se depri vat i on s denyi ng the m i ni m al ci vi l i ze d m ea sure o f lif e ’s n e c e s s itie s a r e s u f

f ic ie n tly g r a v e to f

o rm th e b a s is o f

a n E ig h th A m e ndm e ntvi ol a t i on. ” H uds on v. M c M i l l a n, 503 U . S . 1, 9, 112 S . C t . 995, 1000 ( 1 9 9 2 ) ( q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) . I n ap p ly in g th is s ta n d a r d to th e p r e s e n t c a s e , w e n o te th a t 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 9 7 e ( a ) lim its o u rr e v ie w o f F is c h e r ’s c o n d itio n s - o f - c o n f in e m e n t c la im to o n ly th o s e c o n d itio n s h e in c lu d e d in th e f o rm a l g r ie v a n c e h e s u b m itte d to C ap ta in E lle g o o d . S e e 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 9 7 e ( a ) ( “N o a c tio n s h a ll b e b r o u g h t w ith r e s p e c t to11

p ri so n co n d i t i o n s u n d er sect i o n 1 9 8 3 o f th i s t i t l e, o r an y o th er fed eral l aw , b y a p r is o n e rc o n f

in e d in a n y ja il . . . u n til s u c h a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s a s a r e a v a ilab le a r e e x h a u s te d .” ) . F i l ed on the fi fth d ayof the l ockd ow n, the gri evance menti on ed th e s e f o u rc o n d itio n s : ( 1 ) “S o m e c e lls h a d a s lo w a s f o u rin m a te s in th e m w h ile othe rc e l l s ha d a s m a ny a s s e ve n; ” ( 2) “ i nm a t e s w e r e notonl y f or c e d t o s l e e p on ba r e c e m e ntf

l oor s buta l s o on othe ri nm a t e s m a ttr e s s e s a nd l i ne n” ( w hi c h ha d not be e n w a s he d a f

t e rothe r s ’ us e of

thos e l i ne ns ) ; ( 3) the i nm a t e s w e r e de pr i ve d of th e ird a ily s h o w e r s ; a n d ( 4 ) th e in m a te s ’ la u n d ry h a d n o t b e e n d o n e . F i sc her does n o t m e n tio n th e la u n d ry is s u e in h is b r ie f , s o w e d e e m a n y c la im a s to it ab a n d o n e d . S e e G r e e n b r ia r , L td . v . C ity o f A lab a s te r , 8 8 1 F .2 d 1 5 7 0 , 1 5 7 3 n .6 (11th C i r. 19 89 ). W he n vi e w e d thr ough the appl i c abl e pr oc e dur a l f i l t e r s , i ti s c l e a rtha te ve n a l i bera l re adi ng of F i sc her’ s s w orn st at em ent s r evea l s no con st i tut i on al vi ol at i on as t o the three cond i t i on s w e have before us (the ov er cr ow di ng , sl ee pi ng , and sho w er c o n d itio n s ) . F o re x a m p le , u n d is p u te d e v id e n c e s h o w s th a t e a c h ja il c e ll c o u ld h o ld a t le a s t f o u rin m a te s , m e a n in g th a t th e a f f e c te d c e lls w e r e n e v e re v e n a t d o u b le c apa c i ty dur i ng the l oc kdow n. E ve n doubl e c apa c i ty , the S upr e m e C our tha s he l d, do es no tvi ol at e the const i tut i on abse nt“ depri vat i on s of e ss ent i al food , m edi ca l c a r e , ors a ni t a t i on. ” R hode s v. C hapm a n, 452 U . S . 337, 347–48, 101 S . C t . 2392,12

2400 ( 1981) . F ur the rm or e , F i s c he rha s gi ve n us no r e a s on t o be l i e ve tha ts l e e pi ng on the fl oo r or on u nw as hed b ed l i nens or bei ng deni ed show er s a m ou nt s t o ei ther a d ep riv atio n o f “es se n ti al . . . san it atio n ” ( w h ich w o u ldb e r elev an t as to F isch er ’s ov er cr ow di ng cl ai m ) or a n E i gh th A m endm entvi ol at i on i n thei r ow n ri gh t

— at l e a s tnotw he n the dur a t i on i s onl y f i ve da y s . S e e , e . g. , H a m i l t on v. L y ons , 74 F . 3d 99 , 10 6– 07 (5th C i r. 19 96 ) ( no const i tut i on al vi ol at i on w here i nm at e w as deni ed s he e t s a nd s how e r s ( a m ong othe rthi ngs ) f orathr e e - da y pe r i od) ; H a m m , 774 F . 2d a t1575 ( no c ons t i tut i ona l vi ol a t i on w he r e i nm a t e ha d t o t e m por a r i l y s l e e p on a m attre ss on a f

l oo r or on a t abl e) . In other w ords, w e a gree w i th the di stri ctcourt th a t F is c h e rf

a ile d to p r o v id e e v id e n c e o f c o n d itio n s th a t w e r e s u f f ic ie n tly “e x tr e m e ” a s to “p o s e [ ] a n u n r e a s o n ab le r is k o f s e r io u s d a m a g e to h is f u tu r e h e a lth or sa fe ty. ” C hand l erv. C rosby, 37 9 F . 3d 12 78 , 12 89 (11th C i r. 20 04 ). S um m ary j ud gm enton F i sc her’ s c on di t i on s- of-c on fi nem entcl ai m w as there fore approp ri at e. D. N e xt , w e c ons i de rF i s c he r ’ s c l a i m of “ r a c i a l di s c r i m i na t i on” s t e m m i ng f r om the ra ci al se gregat i on of i nm at es du ri ng the l ockd ow n. T he di stri ctcourtconstrued thi s c l ai m as an equal prot ec t i on cl ai m un der the F ou rt ee nth A m endm ent , appl i ed s tr i c ts c rut i ny , a nd f

ound tha tthe s e gr e ga t i on w a s na rr ow l y t a i l or e d t o s e rve the c om pe l l i ng i nt e r e s tof

j a i l s a f e ty a nd s e c ur i ty . I n hi s br i e f , F i s c he ra r gue s tha tthe13

th reato f v i o l en ce j u st i fyi n g th e l o ck d o w n w as n o traci al i n n atu re, an d th atas a re sul tthe ra ci al se gregat i on di d n otac tual l y s epar at e the al l eged aggress or i nm at es f r o m th o s e w h o c o m p la in e d o f th e th r e a ts . W e v ie w F is c h e r ’s “r a c ia l d is c r im in a tio n ” c la im a s a n e q u a l p r o te c tio n c la im unde rthe F our t e e nth A m e ndm e nt , a nd thus appl y s tr i c ts c rut i ny . S e e J ohns on v. C al i forni a, 54 3 U . S . 49 9, 50 6, 12 5 S . C t . 11 41 , 11 47 (200 5) (hol di ng thatstri ct s c rut i ny i s the appr opr i a t e s t a nda r d of r e vi e w f orr a c i a l c l a s s i f

i c a t i ons e ve n i n the pr i s on c ont e xt ) . “ U nde rs tr i c ts c rut i ny , the gove rnm e ntha s the bur de n of pr ovi ng tha tr a c i a l c l a s s i f

i c a t i ons a r e na rr ow l y t a i l or e d m e a s ur e s tha tf ur the rc om pe l l i ng go vernm ent al i nt er es t s. ” I d. at50 5, 12 5 S . C t . at11 46 (quo t at i on m arks om i tt ed). H e r e , the de f

e nda nt s m e tthe i rbur de n of s how i ng tha tthe r a c i a l s e gr e ga t i on s e rve d a“ c om pe l l i ng gove rnm e nt a l i nt e r e s t ” by pr e s e nt i ng the a f f i da vi tof S er geantR ei s, i n w hi ch he expl ai ned thathe ordered the ra ci al se para t i on af t er re ce i vi ng an i nm at e’ s c om pl ai ntthatthe w hi t e i nm at es i n F i sc her’ s c el l bl ock fe ar ed vi ol ence fr om the bl ac k i nm at es i n thatbl ock. F i sc her has m ai nt ai ned th r o u g h o u t th is litig a tio n th a t n o th r e a t o f r a c ia l v io le n c e e v e re x is te d . B u t e v e n if F i sc her i s c orre ctabou tthat , he has notre fut ed S er geantR ei s’ expl anat i on of w hat m o tiv a te d th e d e c is io n to s e g r e g a te . T h e r e a s o n w a s p r is o n s a f e ty ( e v e n if S e r g e a n t R e is w a s m is ta k e n ab o u t th e tru e n a tu r e o f th e th r e a t) , a n d p r is o n s a f e ty is14

c l e a r l y a“ c om pe l l i ng i nt e r e s t ” unde rS upr e m e C our tpr e c e de nt . S e e i d. a t514, 125 S . C t. a t 1 1 5 1 . L i kew i se , the defendant s m etthei r burden o f s ho w i ng thatthe ra ci al s e g r e g a tio n w a s n a rr o w ly ta ilo r e d to n e u tr a liz e th e th r e a t o f r a c ia l v io le n c e . A l tho ug h the defendant s pre se nt ed a l og entryand the af fi davi t s of tw o o ff

i ce rs s how i ng tha tthe s e gr e ga t i on l a s t e d f r om A pr i l 23 t o A pr i l 27, the s w orn s t a t e m e nt in F is c h e r ’s c o m p la in t th a t it la s te d tw o w e e k s c r e a te s ag e n u in e is s u e o f f a c t a s to the se gregat i on ’ s durat i on . T he prob l em for F i sc her i s thatthi s f ac tual i ss ue, th o u g h g e n u in e , is n o t m a te r ia l. I n d e e d , th e d e f e n d a n ts a ls o s u b m itte d th e a f f id a v it of C apt a i n E l l e good, i n w hi c h he e xpl a i ne d tha tone of the J a i l ’ s c l a s s i f

i c a t i on s upe rvi s or s c onduc t e d athor ough i nve s t i ga t i on dur i ng the l oc kdow n, a nd tha tthe s e gr e ga t i on c e a s e d “ i m m e di a t e l y ” a f t e rs he de t e rm i ne d tha tthe r a c i a l thr e a tno l onge re xi s t e d. F i s c he r , on the othe rha nd, ha s poi nt e d t o no e vi de nc e s ugge s t i ng thatthe se gregat i on cont i nu ed af t erJa i l offi ci al s tho ug htthe threa tof ra ci al vi ol ence had p as se d. H e thu s has no ti dent i fi ed a genui ne i ss ue on the m at er i al que s t i on of

w he the rthe s e gr e ga t i on w a s na rr ow l y t a i l or e d t o s e c ur e the s a f e ty of in m a te s a n d e m p lo y e e s a t th e J a il. E. F in a lly , w e e x a m in e F is c h e r ’s c o n te n tio n th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t v io la te d h is15

S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts b y f a ilin g to g r a n t h is r e q u e s t f o rap p o in te d c o u n s e l. T h is c o n te n tio n h a s n o m e r it. N o tw ith s ta n d in g F is c h e r ’s s u g g e s tio n to th e c o n tr a ry , a pl a i nt i f f ha s no c ons t i tut i ona l r i ghtt o appoi nt e d c ouns e l i n ac i vi l c a s e . B a s s , 170 F .3 d a t 1 3 2 0 . R a th e r , ad is tr ic t c o u r t h a s b r o a d d is c r e tio n in d e c id in g w h e th e rto ap p o in t c o u n s e l, a n d s h o u ld d o s o “o n ly in e x c e p tio n a l c ir c u m s ta n c e s .” I d . F i s c he rs tr e s s e s tha the i s i ne xpe r i e nc e d i n the l a w , buta s w e ha ve he l d be f or e the m er e f ac tthata l aw ye r’ s a ss i st ance w ou l d b e hel pful do es no tam ou ntt o an “e x c e p tio n a l c ir c u m s ta n c e ” w h e r e , a s h e r e , th e c o r e f a c ts o f th e c a s e a r e p r e tty m uch u nd i sput ed and the l egal cl ai m s a re stra i gh t forw ar d. S ee i d. T he di stri ct courtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng F i sc her’ s m ot i on for app oi nt ed c o u n s e l. AF F I RME D.