T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s thr ee-j udge ** panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of mat er i al a ss ista n c e in th e d e ter m in a tio n o f th is a p p e a l. S e e F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a u se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Jan u ary24,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT RA M ANAND P E RS AUD, P lain tiff - A p p e llan t, v. J O H N D O E; T. BU TTS; D R. TO M F. GOF OR T H; L . WALK E R; T . KE L S O; C . W ILL IA M S ; E . B A R B Y ; J. P AR KE R; UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , D efen dan t s - A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 6234 ( D. C. No . CI V- 0 5 - 0 9 - R) (W .D . O k la .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , M c KAY , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es. ** R amanand Per s aud, a fe der al i nm at e appe ar i ng pr o s e, appea l s fr om the d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s g r a n to f s u mma ryj u d g me n ti n fa v o ro f d e fe n d a n t s , J o h n Doe , T.I n the capt i on t o thi s cas e, M s . B ut ti s r efe rr ed as M s . B ut t s . Seei ng as 1 th e d e fe n d a n t s ’ s u b mi s s i o n s c o n s i s t e n t l yr e fe rt o h e ra s M s . Bu t t , h o we v e r , we w ill d o th e s a m e . - 2 - B ut t , T om F. G ofor th, L . W al ker , T . K el s o, C . W i l l i ams, E . B arby , J . Par ker , and

1 the U ni t ed St at es of A m er i ca. O n February19, 2004, fede r al author i t i es tr ans ferr ed M r . Per s aud fr om a Feder al C orr ect i onal I ns t i tut e ( “FC I ”) i n E l kt on, Ohi o ( “ FCI El k t o n ” ) t o a n FCI i n Sc h u yk i l l , Pe n n s y l v a n i a ( “ FCI Sc h u yk i l l ” ) . En r out e, M r . Per s aud w as hous ed t empora r i l yfornear l ytw o m onths atthe Feder al Tr a n s fe rCe n t e ra tOk l a h o ma Ci ty , Ok l a h o ma ( “ F TC OKC” ) . M r . P e r s a u d c l a i ms th a t d u rin g tra n sfe r d e fe n d a n t D o e ’s a c tio n s, o r la c k th e re o f, ca u se d inju ryto h is l eftankl e and thathe s ubs equent l yr ece i ved i nadequa t e medi cal tr eatm entupon a rr iv a l a t F T C O K C . A s a re su lt, M r. P e rsa u d b ro u g h t an a c tio n a g a in st d e fe n d a n ts p u rsu a n t to Bi ve ns v. Si x Unkno w n Named Age nt s of Fe de r a l Bur e a u o f Nar c ot i c s , 40 3 U. S. 3 8 8 (19 7 1 ), an d the F ed era l T o rtC lai m s A ct (F T C A ), 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 3 4 6 (b)(1 ), a lleg in g th a t: d u rin g h is tra n sfe r b e tw e e n fe d e ra l p riso n s, d e fe n d a n ts s e c u re d h is leg s u sin g m e tal a n k le c u ffs, ra th e r th a n flex icu ffs, a s a lleg e d lyre q u ire d in h is m edical recor ds; the m et al ank l e cuffs caused sev ere pai n an d b l eeding b ecause theyrubbed aga i ns ts t eel s cr ew s pr evi ous l ys ur gi cal l yi ns ert ed i n hi s l eftankl e; a n d th a t d e fe n d a n ts w e re d e lib e ra telyin d iffe re n t to h is m e d ica l n e e d s d u rin g th is t i m e. T he di s tr i ctcourtr efe rr ed the mat t ert o a magi s tr at e j udge and, aft er r es ol vi ng M r . Per s aud’ s obj ect i ons t o the magi s tr at e’ s r eportand- 3 -

r ecomm endat i on, gr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entt o defe ndant s . O urj ur i s di ct i on a r i s e s u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d we a ffi r m. W e r evi ew a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entde novo, appl y i ng th e s a m e s ta n d a rd s a s th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . H a c k w o rt h v . P ro g re s s iv e C a s . In s . C o ., 4 6 8 F .3 d 7 2 2 , 7 2 5 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). S u m m a ryju d g m e n t is a p p ro p ria te o n ly w h e re th e re e x ists n o g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial fa c t, an d th e m o v in g p a rtyis en ti tl ed to jud g m en t as a m att er o f law . F ed . R . C iv. P. 56 (c). I. M r. P e rsa u d ’s B iv e n s c laim s a g a in st D e fe n d a n ts B u tt an d G o fo rth M r . Per s aud’ s B i vens cl ai m s agai ns tD efe ndant s B ut tand G ofor th al l ege th a t b o th d e fe n d a n ts w e re d e lib e ra telyin d iffe re n t to h is s e rio u s m e d ica l n e e d s in viol at i on of the E i gh th A m end m ent. A tthe ti m e of M r. P ers aud ’s transfer , M s. B ut tw as the as s oci at e w ar den atFT C O K C and D r . G ofor th w as the C l i ni cal D i r ect orof the medi cal cl i ni c atO K C . B oth M s . B ut tand D r . G ofor th ar gued b e lo w th a t th e yw e re e n tit led to su m m a ryju d g m e n t b e c a u se M r. P e rsa u d fa iled to b rin g fo rth su fficie n t ev id e n c e th a t th e yw e re d ire c tlyo r p e rso n a llyin v o lv e d in anydeci s i ons aboutM r . Per s aud’ s m edi cal car e, and the di s tr i ctcourtagr eed. In o rd e r to e sta b lish B iv e n s lia b ili ty , a p lain tiff is re q u ire d to b rin g fo rth evi dence thatan i ndi vi dual defe ndantdi r ect l yand per s onal l ypart i ci pat ed i n the purpor t ed cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on. See St eel e v. Fed. B ur eau of Pr i s ons , 355 F. 3d 1 2 0 4 , 1 2 1 4 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ), ce rt. d e n ied , 5 4 3 U .S . 9 2 5 (2 0 0 4 ). A s to M s. B u tt, M r . Pe r s a u d a l l e g e s i n h i s c o mpl a i n tth a t , n e a r l ya mon th a f t e rh e a rr i v e d a tFTC- 4 -

O K C , M s . B ut t“per s onal l ys aw and i nt ervi ew ed [M r . ] Per s aud i n r egar ds t o the l eg i nj ury , advi s i ng [M r . ] Per s aud t o cont act[D r . ] G ofor th. ” R . D oc. 1 at14; s ee al s o i d. at8. M r . Per s aud al s o m ai nt ai ns thatM s . B ut tcl ai m ed s he w oul d t ake s t eps t o gethi m on a fl i ghtt o Phi l adel phi a as s oon as pos s i bl e. I d. at8. Forher part , M s . B ut tnot es thatM r . Per s aud’ s m edi cal r ecor ds do noti ndi cat e thathe c o mp l a i n e d t o h e ra b o u ta n i nj u ryo rth a ts h e r e fe rr e d h i m fo rme d i c a l c a r e . R. D oc. 49, E x. 2 at1. M or eover , s he has no m emoryof M r . Per s aud orof an i nm at e w i th the i njuryhe d escr i bes. Id. V i ew i ng the ev i den ce i n the l i gh tm ost favor abl e t o M r . Per s aud, he has fai l ed t o cr eat e a ge nui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac t a s to M s. B u tt’s d ire c t an d p e rso n a l in v o lv e m e n t in a n ya lleg e d d e lib e ra te i nd i fference to hi s m edical need s. T h e e v iden ce o n lyind icates tha t M s. B u tt , w h en p rese n ted w ith M r. Per s aud’ s compl ai nt , att empt ed t o hel p hi m ( as s he w oul d anyi nm at e) by in fo rm in g h im o f

th e p ro p e r i n d iv id u a l ( D r. G o fo rt h ) t o c o n ta c t w ith in F T C O K C . A ft eral l , M s . B ut ti s nota medi cal doct orand coul d nothave tr eat ed M r . Per s aud h e rse lf. A lso , the fa c t th a t M s. B u tt m a yh a v e p ro m ise d to tra n sp o rt h im to Phi l adel phi a i n an expe di t i ous m annerdoes notcons t i tut e del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence g iv e n th a t h e w a s s e e n a t F T C O K C . A s a re su lt, th e d istric t co u rt c o rre c tly d e t e r mi n e d th a tM s . Bu t ti s e n t i t l e d t o j u d g me n ta s a ma t t e ro f l a w. T he onl yconcr et e al l egat i on M r . Per s aud as s ert s agai ns tD r . G ofor th i s that th e d o c to r “ p e rso n a llyre v iew e d o ra l sta tem e n ts a n d w ritten d o c u m e n tatio n inIn h is a p p e lla te b ri e f, M r. P e rs a u d a ls o a rg u e s th a t S a n d ra J . C ra ig e r, a 2 phy s i ci an’ s as s i s t antatFT C O K C , w as al s o del i ber at el yi ndi ffe r entt o hi s m edi cal need s. S ee A plt . B r. at8-9. M s. C rai ger, ho w ever, has no tbeen nam ed as a d e fe n d a n t in th is a c tio n . - 5 - re g a rd s to [ M r.] P e rs a u d ’s le g inju ry.” R . D o c . 1 a t 1 7 ; s e e a ls o A p lt. B r. a t 2 0 . D r . G ofor th cl ai m s that“[t ] he medi cal r ecor ds i ndi cat e thatI nevers aw or exami ned pl ai nt i ff w hi l e he w as atthe FT C . ” R . D oc. 49 E x. 1 at2. T he doct or also claim s tha t M s. B u ttn ev er m en ti o n ed M r. P ersa u d , letalon e re fe rred M r. Per s aud t o hi m . I d. T aki ng M r . Per s aud’ s al l egat i on atfac e val ue, the evi dence i ndi cat es onl ythatD r . G ofor th r evi ew ed M r . Per s aud’ s m edi cal fi l e ( and l at er expr es s ed the opi ni on thatthe tr eatm entr ece i ved byM r . Per s aud w as w i thi n the app l i cable s t and ard of care, i . e. no n-negli gen t ). Id. T his i s i nsuffi ci ent, as a m att erof l aw , t o di r ect l yand per s onal l yi m pl i cat e D r . G ofor th i n the al l eged del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence t o M r . Per s aud’ s m edi cal needs , and D r . G ofor th w as e n tit led to su m m a ryju d g m e n t. I I . M r . Per s aud’ s B i vens cl ai m s agai ns tdefe ndant s B arby , K el s o, Par kerand W al ker M r . Per s aud al s o cl ai m s thatdefe ndant s B arby , K el s o, Par kerand W al ker w er e del i ber at el yi ndi ffe r entt o hi s s er i ous m edi cal needs i n vi ol at i on of the E i ghth A m endment . T he governm ents oughts um m aryj udgm enton the gr ounds 2 thatdur i ng hi s s t ayatFT C O K C , M r . Per s aud w as s een f i ve t i m es bym edi cal p e rso n n e l fo r v a rio u s c o m p lain ts, a n d w a s tre a ted a p p ro p ria tely , p a rticu lar ly- 6 -

gi ven thathe di d notm ent i on the pr obl em duri ng s om e of thos e vi s i t s . T he g o v e rn m e n t als o m a in tain e d th a t h is p ro b lem w a s c a u se d n o t b yth e m e tal a n k le cu ffs, b u t r athe r byh is i n cre ase in w o rk, w h ich a g g rav ated a p re-ex ist ing injury w hi ch had be en tr eat ed w i th s ur gi cal s cr ew s t o s t abi l i ze the bone. Fi nal l y , the g o v e rn m e n t m a in tain s th a t in M a y2 0 0 4 , M r. P e rsa u d h a d su c c e ss f u l su rg e ryto r emove t he l oos e s ur gi cal s cr ew s fr om hi s l eftankl e. T he di s tr i ctcourtgr ant ed su m m a ryju d g m e n t to th e se d e fe n d a n ts o n th e g ro u n d th a t M r. P e rsa u d “ fa iled to poi ntt o anyevi dence of del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence bythes e D efe ndant s of a s er i ous heal th r i s k t o [M r . Per s aud] orevi dence w hi ch cr eat es a genui ne i s s ue fortr i al . ” R . D o c . 8 6 a t 2 . T h e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t cr e a tes a n o b lig a tio n o n th e p a rt o f p riso n o fficia ls t o pr ovi de ade quat e hea l th car e t o i nm at es . E s t el l e v. G ambl e, 429 U . S. 97, 103 ( 1976) . T hi s does notm ean, how ever , thata mer e compl ai ntthata phy s i ci an has b e e n n e g lig e n t in d iag n o sin g o r tre a tin g a m e d ica l co n d iti o n sta tes a v a lid c laim of m edi cal m i s tr eatm entunderthe Ei ghth A m endment . I d. at106. R ather , “a p riso n e r m u st a lleg e a c ts o r o m iss io n s s u ff icie n tlyh a rm f

u l to e v id e n c e d e lib e ra te in d iffe re n c e to se rio u s m e d ica l n e e d s.” Id . T h is s tan d a rd is m e t w h e n (1 ) th e re is a medi cal need “ thathas been di agnos ed bya phy s i ci an as m andat i ng tr eatm entor o n e th a t is so o b v io u s th a t ev e n a lay pe rso n w o u ld e a silyre c o g n ize th e n e c e ss ity fo r a d o ctor’s a tt en ti o n , ” S ea lock v . C o lorad o , 2 1 8 F . 3 d 1 2 0 5 , 1 2 0 9 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ), an d (2 ) a p riso n o fficia l “k n o w s o f a n d d isre g a rd s a n e x c e ss iv e risk to- 7 -

inm ate h ea lth o r safety , ” F arm er v . B ren n an , 5 1 1 U . S . 8 2 5 , 8 3 7 (19 9 4 ). On F e b ru a ry2 3 , 2 0 0 4 , fo u rd a y s a f t e rM r . P e r s a u d a rr i v e d a tF TC OKC, d e fe n d a n t B a rb y , a n a d v a n c e d re g is te re d n u rs e p ra c titio n e r, t re a te d M r. P e rs a u d . T h is w as th e o n e a n d o n lyti m e M r. B arb ytr ea ted M r. P ersa u d . W h il e M r. P e rsa u d m a in tain s th a t h e in fo rm e d th e m e d ica l sta ff a t F T C O K C o f

h is a n k le p a in d u rin g e a c h o f

h is m e d ica l ch e c k u p s, th e m e d ica l re c o rd s d o n o t b e a r th is out . M r . Per s aud’ s m edi cal chartforthe February23 chec kup w i th M r . B arby d o es n o t i n d icate tha t M r. P ersa u d co m p lai n ed o f a n k le pa in. R athe r, the c h art i ndi cat es onl ythatM r . Per s aud w as pr ovi ded w i th an over - the- count er ant i hi s t ami ne. R . D oc. 39 E x. 2 at3. B eca us e M r . Per s aud has br oughtfor th no ev iden ce , o ther tha n co njecture , to ind icate tha t M r. B arb yk n ew o f M r. P ersa u d ’s a n k le p a in , s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in M r. B a rb y ’s fa v o r w a s a p p ro p ri a te . M s . Kel s o , a l s o a n a d v a n c e d r e g i s t e r e d n u r s e p r a c t i t i o n e re mpl o y e d a tFTC O K C , s a w M r. P e rs a u d o n tw o o c c a s io n s — F e b ru a ry 2 6 , 2 0 0 4 a n d M a rc h 2 , 2 0 0 4 . M r. P e rsa u d ’s m e d ica l re c o rd in d ica tes th a t M r. P e rsa u d , ag a in , d id n o t co m p lain of ankl e pai n dur i ng hi s vi s i tw i th M s . K el s o on February26. I ns t ead, he co m p lai n ed o f a thlete’s fo o t and w as p resc ri b ed an an ti fu n g al crea m . Id. M r. Per s aud’ s fi r s tcompl ai ntt o FT C O K C s t aff r egar di ng ankl e pai n occurr ed dur i ng hi s M ar ch 2 vi s i tw i th M s . K el s o. See i d. A s t o thatvi s i t , M s . K el s o s t at es that “[u] pon exami nat i on, I found the peda l pul s e t o be norm al . N o deform i tyw asA w eek lat er, on M arch 9, 20 04 , i n a v i si tw i th d efen dan tC . W i l l i am s, 3 M r . Per s aud r at ed the pai n he w as exper i enci ng i n hi s ankl e, on a s cal e of one thr ough t en, as a four . R . D oc. 39 E x. 2 at3. - 8 - ev iden t an d the sk in w as intact (no b rok en sk in). ” R . D o c. 4 8 E x . 3 at 1 . In 3 r es pons e t o hi s compl ai nt , M s . K el s o pr es cr i bed M r . Per s aud over - the- count er pai n m edi cat i on and w r apped the ankl e. R . D oc. 39 E x. 2 at3. B as ed on the fo re g o in g , n o re a so n a b le ju ryc o u ld fin d th a t M s. K e lso w a s d e lib e ra tely ind iffe ren t t o M r. P ersa u d ’s m ed ical ne ed s. W h en info rm ed o f M r. P ersa u d ’s ankl e pai n, M s . K el s o r es ponded w i th tr eatm ent

— though M r . Per s aud di s put es the e ffic a c yo f

th a t tr e a tm e n t, h e c a n n o t e s ta b lis h d e lib e ra te in d iffe re n c e . A ccor di ngl y , the di s tr i ctcourtpr oper l yent er ed s um m aryj udgm entforM s . K el s o. M s . Pa r k e r , a n a d v a n c e d r e g i s t e r e d n u r s e p r a c t i t i o n e re mpl o y e d a tFTC O K C as an i ndepende ntcontr act or , s aw M r . Per s aud on tw o occa s i ons . D ur i ng the fi r s tvi s i t , on M ar ch 18, 2004, M s . Parkernot es that“[M r . Per s aud] di d not compl ai n of orpr es ents ym pt om s cons i s t entw i th s i gni fi cantankl e pai n. ” R . D oc. 53 E x. A at2. M r. P ers aud ’s m edical recor ds i nd i cat e t hat, no nethel ess, M s. Par ker , cons i s t entw i th pr i s on pol i cy , pr es cr i bed M r . Per s aud an ove r - the- count er pai n m edi cat i on. R . D oc. 39 E x. 2 at4. T he medi cal r ecor ds s how thatdur i ng M r. P e rsa u d ’s s e c o n d v isit w ith M s. P a rk e r, o n M a rc h 2 3 , 2 0 0 4 , M r. P e rsa u d d id n o t com p lai n o f a n k le pa in, and w as p resc ri b ed an ti fu n g al crea m fo r athlete’s fo o t. Id . V iew in g th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to M r. P e rsa u d , it appea r s thatM s . Par kercannotbe dee m ed del i ber at el yi ndi ffe r entand w as thus- 9 -

p ro p e rlyg ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t. Fi nal l y , defe ndantW al ker , a phy s i ci an’ s as s i s t antw i th the B ur eau of P ri so n s, tr ea ted M r. P ersa u d o n M arc h 2 6 , 2 0 0 4 . T h is w as th e last t im e M r. Per s aud w as tr eat ed atFT C O K C . M r . W al ker ’ s not es i n the medi cal r ecor ds p e rta in in g to M r. P e rsa u d ’s M a rc h 2 6 c h e c k u p a re d e v o id o f a n ym e n tio n o f

a n k le pai n. See R . D oc. 39 E x. 2 at4; s ee a l s o R . D oc. 48 E x. 4 at1. R ather , acc or di ng t o M r . W al ker , he exa m i ned M r . Per s aud and pr es cr i bed hi m ant i bi ot i c oi nt m ent fo r c h a p p e d lip s o r s k in . R . D o c . 4 8 E x . 4 a t 1 ; s e e a ls o R . D o c . 3 9 E x . 2 a t 4 . M r . P e r s a u d h a s b r o u g h tfo r th a b s o l u t e l yn o e v i d e n c e , o th e rth a n h i s o wn uncorr obor at ed al l egat i ons , thatM r . W al kerw as even a w ar e thatM r . Per s aud w as su ffering an k le pa in. A n d this l ac k o f e v iden ce as to aw are n ess is fa tal to M r. P ersa u d ’s de li b era te i n d iffe ren ce claim ag ains t M r. W alke r. II I. M r. P ers aud ’s cl ai m s agai nstdefe nd ants D oe an d W i l l i am s. M r . Per s aud al s o pr es s ed del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence cl ai m s agai ns tJ ohn D oe, a n u n k n o w n re le a s e a n d d e liv e ry o ffic e r a t F C I E lk to n , a n d C . W illia m s , a m em ber of the m edical st aff at FT C O K C . T he d i stri ctcou rtdis m i ssed these cl ai m s w i thoutpr ej udi ce forfai l ur e t o t i m el yand pr oper l yeffects ervi ce of pr oces s . See R . D oc. 86 at4. B eca us e M r . Per s aud’ s appel l at e br i ef makes no m ent i on of the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s m i s s al as t o thes e cl ai m s and does notar gue w hy the d i stri ctcou rtm ayhav e been i n err or, the d i stri ctcou rt ’s dis m i ssal of these c laim s is a ffirm e d . S e e A d ler v . W a l-M a rt S to re s, In c ., 1 4 4 F .3 d 6 6 4 , 6 7 9 (1 0 th- 10 -

C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) ( “ A rg u m e n ts in a d e q u a te ly b ri e fe d in th e o p e n in g b ri e f a re w a iv e d . . .

. ”) ; O gden v. San J uan C ounty , 32 F. 3d 452, 455 ( 10th C i r . 1994) ( obs ervi ng that appel l ant ’ s pr o s e s t atus does notexcus e hi m fr om “compl y [i ng] w i th the f u n d a m e n tal re q u ire m e n ts o f th e F e d e ra l R u les o f

C iv il an d A p p e llate P roc ed u re” ); A b erc rom b ie v. C ityo f C atoo sa, 89 6 F . 2 d 1 2 2 8 , 1 2 3 1 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) (ho lding issue n o t argu ed in ap p ell ate b ri ef is w aive d ). I V . M r . Per s aud’ s FT C A cl ai m s agai ns tthe U ni t ed St at es of A m er i ca L ik e th e d istric t co u rt, w e lib e ra llyc o n stru e M r. P e rsa u d ’s c o m p lain t to al l ege tw o FT C A cl ai m s agai ns tthe U ni t ed St at es : ( 1) negl i gence bas ed on an unknow n r el eas e and de l i veryoffi cer ’ s fai l ur e t o us e fl exi cuffs , i ns t ead of m et al cuffs , on M r . Per s aud’ s ankl es dur i ng tr ans por t , and ( 2) negl i gence bas ed on the fai l ur e of the FT C O K C m edi cal s t aff t o pr oper l ytr eatM r . Per s aud’ s al l eged a n k le inju ry. T he “t es tes t abl i s hed bythe TortC l ai m s A ctfordet erm i ni ng the U ni t ed St at es ’ l i abi l i tyi s w hethera pr i vat e per s on w oul d be r es pons i bl e fors i m i l ar negl i gence underthe l aw s of the St at e w her e the ac t s occurr ed. ” R ay oni er , I nc. v. U ni t ed St at es , 352 U . S. 315, 319 ( 1957) . N egl i gence , of cour s e, i s a r ecogni zed caus e of a ct i on i n O kl ahoma, r equi r i ng a pl ai nt i ff t o s how “( 1) a dutyow ed bythe defe ndantt o pr ot ectthe pl ai nt i ff f r om i nj ury , ( 2) a fa i l ur e pr oper l yt o exer ci s e or per form thatduty , and ( 3) an i nj uryt o pl ai nt i ff pr oxi m at el ycaus ed bythe defe ndant ’ s br eac h of thatduty . ” A ki n v. M i s s our i Pac. R . R . C o. , 977 P. 2d 1040,- 11 -

1 0 5 4 (O k la. 1 9 9 8 ). A s n o ted , M r. P e rsa u d first c laim s th a t th e U n ited S tate s s h o u ld b e h e ld liab le b e c a u se its e m p lo y e e , the u n k n o w n re lea se a n d d e liv e ryo ffice r, fa iled to r es tr ai n M r . Per s aud’ s ankl es w i th fl exi cuffs dur i ng tr ans por t . M r . Per s aud ar gues that , atthe t i m e of tr ans por t , ther e exi s t ed a medi cal di r ect i ve r eques t i ng thatpr i s on per s onnel us e fl exi cuffs on hi s ankl es , and thatthe r el eas e and del i veryoffi cerw as negl i genti n deny i ng “r eas onabl e r eques t s t o fol l ow m e d ica llyd ire c ted c o n d u c t.” R . D o c . 1 a t 1 0 . W h ile M r. P e rsa u d is c o rre c t th a t, atone t i m e, ther e exi s t ed a M edi cal R eportof D utySt atus ( “R eport ”) that r eques t ed pr i s on offi ci al s t o us e fl exi cuffs , thatR eportexpi r ed on D ece m ber3, 2003. See R . D oc. 39 E x. 2 at25. T he exi s t ence of thatR eportdemonstr at es that M r. P e rsa u d w a s m o re th a n c a p a b le o f in fo rm in g m e d ica l p e rso n n e l as to h is ankl e pai n and that , w hen appr opr i at e, the s t aff w oul d r ecomm end the us e of fl exi cuffs . N o otherr eporti n M r . Per s aud’ s m edi cal fi l e, how ever , r eques t s that fl exi cuffs be us ed. See i d. at26- 32. I n fac t , the form fi l l ed outexcl us i vel yfor th e p u rp o se o f

M r. P e rsa u d ’s tra n sfe r b e tw e e n F C I E lk to n a n d F C I S c h u yk ill i ndi cat es no m edi cal condi t i on w hat s oever . See i d. at31. T he l ogi cal concl us i on, ther efor e, i s thatM r . Per s aud fa i l ed t o i nform the medi cal s t aff atFC I E l kt on t hat he had a n ankl e condi t i on orthathe di d i ndeed i nform them but theyei ther di s r egar ded the i nform at i on orconcl uded thathi s condi t i on w as nots o s ever e as to m e rit a r e c o m m e n d a tio n o f flex icu ffs. M r. P e rsa u d h a s n o t b ro u g h t su it,- 12 -

how ever , agai ns tthe U ni t ed St at es bas ed on anypurpor t ed negl i gence of the m edi cal s t aff

atFC I E l kt on. R ather , he bas es hi s cl ai m on the ac t i ons of an offi ceri nvol ved i n hi s tr ans fer , butcons i der i ng the l ack of an unexpi r ed r ecomm endat i on orr equi r ementof fl exi cuffs i n M r . Per s aud’ s m edi cal fi l es atthe tim e o f tra n sfe r, th e re is n o e v id e n c e th a t th e re lea se a n d d e liv e ryo ffice r fa iled to t ake a m edical l ydir ect ed acti on . A s such, the b asi s for M r. P ers aud ’s fi rs t n e g lig e n c e c la im a g a in s t th e U n ite d S ta te s fa ils . M r . Per s aud al s o as s ert s a negl i gence cl ai m agai ns tthe U ni t ed St at es bas ed o n a n a lleg e d fa ilu re o f th e m e d ica l sta ff

a t F T C O K C to p ro p e rlytre a t h is a n k le w ounds . I n O kl ahoma, the el ement s of a medi cal m al pr act i ce c l ai m ar e i dent i cal to tho se in an yo ther n eg li g en ce claim . S ee R o b erso n v . Jeffre yM . W altn er, M . D . , I nc. , 108 P. 3d 567, 569 ( O kl a. C i v. A pp. 2005) . A ddi t i onal l y , “i n al l but the extr aor di narym edi cal m al pr act i ce c as e, the pl ai nt i ff ha s the bur den of p ro d u c in g e x p e rt te s tim o n yto s u p p o rt a p ri m a fa c ie c a s e o f n e g lig e n c e .” Id . T hi s i s notan “e xtr aor di narym edi cal m al pr act i ce c as e, ” and be caus e M r . Per s aud h a s fa iled to p re se n t an ye x p e rt e v id e n c e , h is s e c o n d b a sis fo r a n e g lig e n c e c laim a g a in s t th e U n ite d S ta te s s im ila rl yfa ils . S e e H ill v . S m ith K lin e B e e c h a m C o rp ., 393 F. 3d 1111, 1117 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ( concl udi ng that“the C ol or ado r evi ew s t atut e i s appl i cabl e t o pr ofes s i onal negl i gence cl ai m s br oughtagai ns tthe U ni t ed S tate s u n d e r th e F T C A ” a n d d ism iss in g th e p lain tiff ’s F T C A c laim fo r fa ilu re to fil e a ce rt ifi ca te of

rev iew ).- 13 -

V . M r. P ers aud ’s M oti on for Sa ncti on s M r . Per s aud ar gues thatthe di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n fai l i ng t o s anct i on defe ndant s as a r es ul tof thei ral l eged fai l ur e t o turn overcert ai n r eques t ed document s . W e r evi ew foran abus e of di s cr et i on the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s rul i ng r ej ect i ng M r . Per s aud’ s m ot i on fors anct i ons . See, e. g. , A ugus t i ne v. U ni t ed S tate s, 8 1 0 F .2 d 9 9 1 , 9 9 6 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 8 7 ) (“ T h e re f u sa l to im p o se sa n c tio n s is s ol el yw i thi n the di s cr et i on of the tr i al court , t o be r ever s ed onl yw hen that di s cr et i on i s abus ed. ”) . I tappea r s thatM r . Per s aud’ s pr i m arybas i s fors anct i ons is d e fe n d a n ts’ p u rp o rte d fa ilu re to tu rn o v e r a n e x p ire d “ D u tyS tatu s R e p o rt” a lo n g w ith “ a ll d o c u m e n ts re g a rd in g [ h is] tra n sfe r to [ F C I] S c h u yk ill . . . . ” A p lt. B r. at 2 1 -2 2 . M r. P e rsa u d , h o w e v e r, w a s g iv e n a c o p yo f a sp e c ial re p o rt, compi l ed s peci fi cal l yforthi s l i t i gat i on bythe B ur eau of Pr i s ons , w hi ch cont ai ns num er ous m edi cal r ecor ds r el at i ng t o M r . Per s aud’ s tr ans fert o FC I Schuyki l l and hi s s ubs equentm edi cal car e. A m ong the medi cal r ecor ds cont ai ned w i thi n the s p e c ia l r e p o rt w a s th e e x p ir e d M e d ic a l D u ty S ta tu s R e p o rt . S e e R . D o c . 3 9 E x . 2 a t 2 5 . M r. P e rsa u d a lso fa ils to in d ica te w h a t d o c u m e n ts re latin g to h is tra n sfe r to F C I S c h u yk ill d e fe n d a n ts h a v e fa iled to h a n d o v e r. T h u s, th e d istric t co u rt d id n o t a b u s e its d is c re tio n in d e n y in g M r. P e rs a u d ’s m o tio n fo r s a n c tio n s .- 14 -

A F F IR M E D . W e g ra n t M r. P e rsa u d IF P sta tu s, a n d re m in d h im o f h is c o n tin u in g o b lig a tio n to m a k e p a rt ia l p a ym e n ts u n til th e filin g fe e is p a id . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt P au l J. K ell y , Jr. C i r cui tJ udge