[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 11 70 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cv -0 02 68 -WS-M LEE CURTIS TATE, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us OFFIC ER ROCKFORD, OFFIC ER LANG, LT. EN GLISH, Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 19 , 20 12 )

Befo re MAR CUS, EDMONDSON an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

Case: 11-11708 Date Filed: 11/19/2012 Page: 1 of 10PER CURI AM:

Lee Cu rti s Tat e, a s ta te pri so ne r pr oc eed in g p ro se, app eal s the gra ntof su m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of de fen da nt s i n h is 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3 l aws ui t. No 1 rev ers ib le erro r ha s b een sh own ; we af firm . Inhi s co m

pl ai nt , Tate ra is edanEig ht h Am en dm en t ex ces si ve for ce cl ai m ag ai ns t Co rrec ti on al Offic er Kerry Ro th ch il d. Acco rd in g t o Tat e, on 9

2 Sep te m be r, 20 08 , he a sk edRo th ch il d fo r pe rm is si on to retrie ve hi s p ris on id en ti fic at io n c ardfro m

th e p ris on sh iftoff

ic e. Inres po ns e, Ro th ch il d p us he d Tate ; an d a fte r Tate tu rn edto di sc arda rad io th athe was h ol di ng , Rot hc hi ld pu nc he d Tat e inth e h ead , cau si ng Tate to be gi n b le ed in g. Tat e fu rth er al le ge d th atRo th ch il d b eathi m , th rew h im to th e fl oo r, an d h an dc uf fedhi m be fo re t ak in g hi m to th e sh iftoff

ic e. Cap ta in Sh irl ey

Sm it h a rri ve d a t t he sh iftoff ic e, in te rrupt edCo rrec ti on al Lieu te na ntSte ve n Lan e (wh o was in th e o ffi ce) b efo re
W e re v i ew d e novo the district court’s grant of summary judgme nt. Thomas v. Cooper 1 L ighting , Inc., 506 F .3d 1361, 1363 (11th Cir. 2007). And weview the e vidence in the light most favor able to the non- moving pa rty . I d. Tate also alleg ed an Eig hth Amendment claim ag ainst Correc tional L ieutenant Steven L ane for 2 instigation and failure to intervene , and a Four teenth Amend m en t du e proce ss violation ag ainst Correc tional L ieutenant J ames Eng lish. We conclude that Tate abandone d these claims beca use he fails to argue on appea l that the district court err ed in granting summary judgme nt on these claims. S ee N. Am. Med. Corp. v. Axi om Worldwide, Inc., 522 F.3d 1211, 1217 n.4 (11th Cir . 2 0 0 8 ) (statingthat “issues not raise d on appea l areabandone d”). 2 Case: 11-11708 Date Filed: 11/19/2012 Page: 2 of 10Lan e co ul d b eg in to be atTate , andord eredLane to lea ve th e o ffi ce af te r Lan e rep eat ed ly thre at en edto ki ll Tate . Sm ith t he n o rd eredRo th ch il d a ndsev eral ot he r of fic ers to esc ort Tat e to th e in firm ary. 3 Tate furth er al le ge d t ha t Li eu te na ntLane was wai ti ng in th e h al lway onth e way to th e in firm ary an d t ha t, af te r Lan e to ldth e o ffi cers “ y ’all kno w whatto do ,” Ro th ch il d a ndth e o ffi cers twi st edTate ’s han dc uf fs , pu sh edhi m

ag ai ns t t he wall , an d b eathi m

in th e h eadwith h an dc uf fs -- cau si ng Tate to bl eedpro fu se ly. Upo n he ari ng th e al te rcat io n, Capt ai n S m it h ra n i nt o t he ha ll way an d was kn oc ke d t o t he gr ou ndby Rothc hi ldan d o th er u nkno wn o ffi cers . After p ic ki ng he rs el f up fro m th e fl oo r, Sm it h a sk edLane whet he r he wou ldhe lp st op th e b eat in g; bu t Lan e -- acco rd in g t o Tat e -- o nl y

sm il edin res po ns e. Sm it h e ve ntua ll y was abl e to st op th e b eat in g b y

y el li ng rep eat ed ly, an d Tat e was tak ento th e in firm ary an d t he n t he ho sp it al . The di stric t co urt d et erm in edth atth e rec or d c ou ldno t s up po rt aco nc lu si on th atth e o ffi cers us edex ces si ve for ce i n s ub du in g Tat e ei th er dur in g the in it ia l co nf ro nt at io n i n t he pri so n d orm it ory or dur in g t he alt erca ti on in th e h al lway ou ts id e th e sh iftoff

ic e. The c ou rt s pe ci fic al ly not edth at(1) Ro th ch il d’s u se of

Tate’ s complaint incorre ctly identified Ke rry

Rothchild as Office r Rockford and Steven L ane 3 as L ieutenant L ang . 3

Case: 11-11708 Date Filed: 11/19/2012 Page: 3 of 10fo rce was m ot iv at edby a go od -fai theffo rt t o e ndTate ’s di srup ti ve an d v io le nt

ou tb ur st , (2) Tate ’s res ul ti ng in juri es were d e m in im is , and(3) th e p ro m pt adm in is tra ti on of m ed ic al tre atm en t t em pe redth e se ve rit y

of t he off

ic ers ’ fo rcef

ul res po ns e. The c ou rt s tre ss edth atTate ’s act s p os eda da ng er t o a ll of t he off ic ers an d i nm at es in th e are a, as well as t o Tat e h im se lf. Th e co urt co nc lu de d t ha t t he re was no supp ort i n t he reco rdforTate ’s all eg at io n t ha t h e was att ack edwitho ut jus ti fic at io n b y

th e o ffi cers . On ap pe al , Tate a rg ue s t ha t t he di stric t co urt erredin gra nt in g s umm ary jud gm en t b ecau se th ere wer e g enui ne is su es of m at eri al factab ou t wh ethe r he or Ro th ch il d e sc al at edth e in it ia l en co un te r in th e d orm it ory . He m ai nt ai ns th atth e ev id en ce es tabl is he d t ha t i t was Ro th ch il d wh o s tru ckhi m an d c reat eda ch ao ti c an d d an ge ro us si tu at io n. He fu rth er s ta te s t ha t h e was ha nd cu ffedan d n ot res is ti ng when Ro th ch il d a ndth e o th er o ffi cers ass au lt edhi m inth e h al lway. Su m m ary jud gm en t i s ap pr op ria te when “ th ere i s n o g enui ne di sp ut e as to an y m at eri al factan d t he m ov an t i s en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m at te r of law.” Fed .R.Ci v.P . 56 (a). A di st ric t co urt m us t v ie w th e ev id en ce an d a ll reas on ab le in fere nc es th eref

ro m , to th e ex te ntsupp orte d b y th e rec or d, “ in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e n on m ov an t.” J ean -Bap ti st e v . Gut ie rrez , 62 7 F .3d81 6, 8 20 (11 th Ci r. 20 10 ). 4

Case: 11-11708 Date Filed: 11/19/2012 Page: 4 of 10The Eig ht h Am en dm en t p ro hi bi ts th e in fli ct io n o f cru el an d u nu su al

pu ni sh m en t. U.S. Co ns t. am en d. VIII . In co ns id eri ng anEig ht h Am en dm en t ex ces si ve for ce cl ai m , we m us t co ns id er b ot h asubjec ti ve an d o bjec ti ve co m po ne nt : (1 ) whe th er the “ of fic ia ls act [ed ] wit h asu ffi ci en tl y cu lp ab le st at e o f m in d,” an d (2 ) “ if the all eg edwron gd oi ng was o bjec ti ve ly harm fu l en ou gh to es tabl is h aco ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n.” Hud so n v . McM il li an , 50 3 U.S. 1 , 8, 1 12 S.Ct . 99 5, 9 99 , 11 7 L.Ed .2d15 6 (1 99 2) (in te rn al qu ot at io ns om it te d) . Tate fa il ed to est ab li sh th e subjec ti ve an d o bjec ti ve co m po ne nt s o f anex ces si ve for ce cl ai m . Und er the subjec ti ve pa rt o f ou r an al y si s o f ex ces si ve for ce cl ai m s u nd er the Eig ht h Am en dm en t, fo rce i s d eem edleg it im at e in a cu st od ia l s et ti ng on ly so l on g as itis ap pl ie d “ in a go odfai th effo rt t o m ai nt ai n o r res to re d is ci pl in e [an d n ot ] m al ic io us ly andsad is ti cal ly for the ve ry pu rp os e o f cau si ng ha rm .” Skrti ch v. Tho rn to n, 2 80 F.3d12 95 , 13 00 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . Rele va ntto as cert ai ni ng whet he r fo rce was us ed“ m al ic io us ly andsad is ti cal ly” for t he pu rp os e of cau si ng ha rm

are, atlea st , fiv e fac to rs : (1 ) th e n eedfor th e ap pl ic at io n o f fo rce, (2 ) th e rel at io ns hi p b etween th atne edan d t he am ou ntof f or ce u se d, (3 ) th e ex te nt of th e p ris on er’s i nju rie s, (4 ) th e th reatreas on ab ly perce iv edby the off ic ia ls on th e ba si s o f th e fac ts kn own to th em , and(5) effo rts m ad e to tem pe r th e se ve rit y

of t he fo rce. Co ckrel l v . Spark s, 5 10 F.3d13 07 , 13 11 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). Whe n 5 Case: 11-11708 Date Filed: 11/19/2012 Page: 5 of 10co ns id eri ng th es e fac to rs , we “ gi ve a wid e ran ge of d efer en ce t o p ris onoff ic ia ls act in g t o p res erv e d is ci pl in e an d s ecu rit y , in cl ud in g wh enco ns id eri ng de ci si on s m ad e atth e sc en e o f a d is tu rb an ce.” Id . (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s, al te rat io ns , and ci ta ti on om it te d) . W e striv e to av oi d ju dg m en ts ba se d o n h in ds ig ht . Und er the ob

jecti ve co m

po ne nt , we con si de r whe th er the all eg ed wro ng do in g was “ ob

jecti ve ly harm fu l en ou gh to est ab li sha co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n.” Hud so n, 5 03 U.S. at 8 , 11 2 S .Ct. at99 9. Eig ht h Am en dm en t cl ai m s ba se d o n d e m in im is us es of p hysic al for ce b y pri so n g ua rd s ar e n otco gn iz ab le un le ss th ey

in vo lv e fo rce t ha t i s “ rep ug nantto th e co ns ci en ce o f m an ki nd .” Id . at 9- 10 , 11 2 S .Ct. at10 00 . W e h av e d et erm in edth at“ anin jury can b e ‘ob

jecti ve ly, su ffi ci en tl y

ser io us ’ [to co ns ti tu te a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n] on ly if th ere i s m or e th ande m in im

us in jury.” Box er v . Harri s, 4 37 F.3d11 07 , 11 11 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Here, the di st ric t co urt d idno t err in co nc lu di ng th atno ge nu in e is su es of m at eri al factex is t ab ou t wh ethe r de fen da nt s u se d e xc es si ve for ce i n s ub du in g Tat e du rin g e it he r of

th e in ci de nt s g iv in g ri se to th e co m pl ai nt . ThatTate an d Ro th ch il d wer e in vo lv edin a ph y si cal alt erca ti on in th e p ris on do rm it ory whi le Ro th ch il d was th e o nl y

pri so n o ffi ci al in anareafil le d wi thin m at es is un di sp ut ed . Tate do es no t d is pu te th atRo th ch il d -- in adva nc e o f a s tru gg le -- o rd eredTate to st ep away fro m th e g at e se ve ral ti m es aft er Tat e ap pr oa ch edRo th ch il d abo ut 6 Case: 11-11708 Date Filed: 11/19/2012 Page: 6 of 10ge tt in g Tat e’s id en ti fic at io n c ard . After R othc hi ldatt em pt edto pu sh Tate away , Tate adm it s tha t h e p us he d R othc hi ld ’s han d a way . A str ug gl e b etween Ro th ch il d an d Tat e res ul te d: Ro th ch il d’s u ni fo rm was ri pp edan d b lo od ie d, an d R othc hi ld lo sthi s ra di o a ndsec ur it y ke y s. Tate arg ue s t ha t an in te rn al in ve st ig at io n c on du ct edby the Alab am a Dep artm en t o f Co rrec ti on s d et erm in edth atRo th ch il d e ng ag edin th e u nn eces sa ry es cal at io n o f vi ol en ce. The rep ort al so no te d t ha t, i ns te adof s im pl y lo ck in g t he ga te to av oi d t he ph y si cal co nf ro nt at io n, Ro th ch il d e nt eredth e d orm it ory alo ne to co nf ro ntTate , res ul ti ng inanalt erca ti on du rin g wh ic h R othc hi lddi d n otus e jus t reas on ab le , nec es sa ry

ph y si cal for ce. Aft er an adm in is tra ti ve he ari ng , Rot hc hi ld , ho wev er, was lat er fo un d n otgu il ty of ap pl y in g u nn eces sa ry for ce. See Fen ne ll v. Gil st rap , 55 9 F .3d12 12 , 12 17 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (h ig hl ig ht in g tha t, the st an da rdfor sh owi ng ex ces si ve for ce i n v io la ti on of t he Co ns ti tu ti onis hi gh er tha n t ha t requi redby a law en fo rcem en t d ep art m en t’s ad m in is tra ti ve po li ci es ). Ro th ch il d was fou ndto ha ve vi ol at edso m e p ris on po li ci es an d p ro cedur es . As the di st ric t co urt o bs erv edco rrec tl y , Tate’s thr eat s, co up le d wi th hi s refu sa l t o o be y

Ro th ch il d’s co m

m an ds to be qu ie t an d m ov e away from th e g at e m ad e u se of f

or ce n eces sa ry , parti cu la rly becaus e th e al te rcat io n o ccu rredin th e

7 Case: 11-11708 Date Filed: 11/19/2012 Page: 7 of 10pr es en ce o f ot he r in m at es an d R ot hc hi ldwas t he on ly offi cer i n t he area . See

Skrti ch , 28 0 F .3dat 1 30 0. On t he lat er i nc id en t i n t he ha ll way , th e ev id en ce, v ie wedinth e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to Tate , sh ows th es e ci rcu m st an ces . Tate was pl acedin hand cu ffs whi le be in g e sc orte d t o t he he al th care un it . Afteranoff ic er twis te d h is ha nd cu ffs , Tate 4 tu rn edaro un d; an d a n o ffi cer p us he d Tat e ag ai ns t t he wall an d s ev eral off ic ers be athi m . Rot hc hi ldan d a no th er o ffi cer h itTate with h an dc uf fs . Tate arg ue s t ha t t he di stric t co urt d idno t co ns id er the fact s an d draw al l reas on ab le in fere nc es inth e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to hi m . Furt he rm or e, in he r de cl arat io n -- subm it te d b y de fen da nt s -- Cap ta in Sm ith d es cri be d t ha t, al th ou gh sh e co nt in uo us ly y el le d fo r th e o ffi cers (in cl ud in g R ot hc hi ld ) to st op be at in g Tat e in th e h al lway, non e o f th em co m pl ie d i m m ed ia te ly w it h h er o rd ers , eve n wh en Tate ceas edres is ti ng . Our p rece de nt , ho wev er, p erm it s t he us e o f fo rce e ve n wh en a d efen da ntis no t p hysic al ly resi st in g. We hav e co nc lu de d t ha t wh ena pr is on er crea te d adi sturba nc e b y

fai li ng to fol lo w a pr is ongu ard ’s in stru ct io ns an d sh ou ti ng ob sc en it ie s, i t was no t u nr eas on ab le forth e g uardto grab t he pri so ne r by th e th ro atan d s ho ve hi m

ag ai ns t t he pri so n b ars . Ben ne ttv. Pa rk er, 8 98 F.2d

The district court conclude d that Tate was not in handcuf fs while being escor

ted to the 4 healthca re unit; Tate, how ever , alleg ed in his verifie d complaint that he wa s handcuf fed. 8 Case: 11-11708 Date Filed: 11/19/2012 Page: 8 of 1015 30 , 15 33 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ). Ind eed , we pre vi ou sl y co nc lu de d t ha t t he us e o f fo rce s uf fic ie ntto bre ak

bo ne s d idno t v io la te th e Eig hth Am en dm en t u nd er the ci rcu m st an ces ev enth ou gh th e p ris on er h adno t o ffer edph y si cal res is ta nc e. See Co ckrel l, 5 10 F.3dat 1 31 1. An d t he to ta l re co rdsh ows a co m pl ex setof ci rcu m st an ces actua ll y

face d t he off

ic ers . Tate do es no t d is pu te th atth e h al lway was fi ll edwith o th er i nm at es an d t ha t he ha d b een y el li ng ob sc en it ie s an d t hr eat s ag ai ns t the off ic ers . The o ffi cers kn ew th atTate ha d b een vi ol en t an d d is rupt iv e an d t ha t h e al ready ha d b een in vo lv edin a rec en t p hysic al alt erca ti onwith R ot hc hi ldin th e p ris on do rm it ory . In t he li gh t o f Tate ’s th reat s an d re cen t p rio r vi ol en t b eh av io r, whe n Tat e tu rn edaro un d i n t he ha ll way , th e o ffi cers m ig htha ve reas on ab ly bel ie ve d t ha t fo rce was ne ces sary to en su re h is co m

pl ia nc e. The o ffi cers li ke ly also reco gn iz edth ata st ru gg le with Tate co ul d e sc al at e to in vo lv e th e o th er i nm at es in th e h al lway; an d, t he refo re, th ey act edwith the for ce n eces sa ry to subdue Tate an d m ai nt ai n o rd er an d di sc ip li ne . See i d. Fo rce was jus ti fie d. Abo utth e o bjec ti ve pa rt o f hi s ex ces si ve for ce cl ai m , th e ev id en ce s ho ws Ro th ch il d app li edth e am ou ntof f or ce n eces sa ry

si m pl y to res to re o rd er; itwas n ot ex ces si ve . The m ed ic al reco rd s b el y Tate ’s cla im

th athi s i nju ry

was n otde m in im is : b rie fly sta te d, h e h ada la cera ti on on hi s fo reh ead , sev eral sm al l 9 Case: 11-11708 Date Filed: 11/19/2012 Page: 9 of 10ab ras io ns an d c ut s, an d aswo ll enrig htey e. It i s i m po rta ntth athe su ffer edno br ok enbo ne s o r ad di ti on al in juri es an d t ha t n ot hi ng ev id en ces th athe su ffer ed pe rm an en t i nju ry

or d eb il it at in g p ai n. Se e Bo xe r, 43 7 F .3dat 1 11 1. Tat e n ev er lo stco ns ci ou sn es s. By the way , so m e o f th e o ffi cers were al so in jure d. Insu m , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in co nc lu di ng th atno ge nu in e is su e o f m at eri al factex is te d o n wh ethe r de fen da nt s u se d e xc es si ve for ce i n v io la ti on of th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t. AFFIRM ED.

10 Case: 11-11708 Date Filed: 11/19/2012 Page: 10 of 10