FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCTOB ER 22, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 13 74 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 7- 00 17 7- CV-4 CLARENCE R. SANKS, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us MIC HAEL W ILLIAMS, Co rrec ti on al Offic er II, Co as ta l St at e Pri so n, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Oct ob er 2 2, 2 01 0) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, PRYOR an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:App el la ntCla ren ce Sa nk s, pr o s e , app eal s the di stric t co urt’s g ran t o f

su m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Mi ch ael W il li am s, a c orrect io na l fa ci li ty offi cer, i n San ks ’s civ il rig ht s s ui t b ro ug htpu rs uantto 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3. Sank s’s § 19 83 co m pl ai ntaro se fro m

anex ces si ve for ce cl ai m ag ai ns t Will ia m s as a res ul t o f an al te rcat io n a t Co as ta l St at e Pri so n. Onap pe al , San ks arg ue s tha t h e was en ti tl edto th e ap po in tm en t o f bo thdi st ric t co urt an d app el la te co un se l. San ks als o a rg ue s th atW il li am s u se d e xc es si ve for ce dur in g t he alt erca ti on , subjec ti ng hi m to cru el an d u nu su al pu ni sh m en t i n v io la ti on of h is Eig ht h Am en dm en t ri gh ts . Add it io na ll y , San ks co nt en ds th athe was d en ie d h is Fo urte en th Am en dm en t ri gh ts be cau se th e p ris onau th or it ie s d idno t co nduc t a d is ci pl in ary he ari ng reg ard in g t he in ci de nt . Last ly, San ks arg ue s tha t Will iam s ac te d i n b adfai th by notsen di ng di sc ov ery do cum en ts to San ks , who ha d l os t p ert in en t d oc um en ts rel at edto hi s li ti ga ti on . As an in it ia l m at te r, San ks cla im s tha t h is Fo urte en th Am en dm en t due pr oc es s ri gh ts were v io la te d wh enau th or it ie s p uthi m inis ol at io n wi th ou t a he ari ng . Becau se San ks rai se s thi s i ss ue forth e fi rs t t im e o n app eal , we wil l n ot ad dr es s thi s cl ai m . Se e Acces s N ow, Inc . v. So uthw es t Ai rl in es Co . , 38 5 F .3d 13 24 , 13 30 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). I. 2A di st ric t co urt’s ap po in tm en t o f co un se l i n c iv il cas es is warran te d o nl y in ex cep ti on al cir cu m st an ces . St eel e v. S ha h , 87 F.3d12 66 , 12 71 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ). The di st ric t co urt h as bro addi sc ret io n i n m ak in g t he de te rm in at io n a ndwe rev ie w a d en ia l o f ap po in tm en t o f co un se l fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Bas s v. Per ri n , 17 0 F.3 d 1 31 2, 1 32 0 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9) . Excep ti on al cir cu m st an ces jus ti fy in g c ou rt ap po in tm en t o f co un se l ex is t i f th e fac ts an d l eg al is su es inth e p la in ti ff’s cas e are so no ve l o r co m

pl ex th atass is ta nc e o f a trai ne d p ract it io ne r is requi red . Ki lg o v . Rick s , 98 3 F .2d18 9, 1 93 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ). A no ti ce o f ap pe al do es no t co ns ti tu te anin te ntto ap pe al fro m anord er tha t ha s n oty etbe enen te redwhen th e n ot ic e o f ap pe al is fil ed . McDo ug ald v . Jen so n , 78 6 F .2d14 65 , 14 74 (11 th Cir . 19 86 ). Becaus e th e in te ntto ap pe al a subs eque nt or de r is no t ap paren t, re vi ew on th e m eri ts wou ldpre jud ic e th e o th er p arty . Id. Fed eral Ru le of Ap pe ll at e Pro cedur e 3 (c) “ requi res th ata no ti ce o f ap pe al de si gn at e anex is te ntjud gm en t o r or de r, no t o ne th atis m erel y ex pe ct edor t ha t i s, orsh ou ldbe , withi n the ap pe ll an t’s co nt em pl at io n wh enth e n ot ic e o f ap pe al is fil ed .” Bog le v. Ora ng e Co un tyBd. Of C ou nt y Co mm’rs , 16 2 F .3d65 3, 6 61 (11 th Ci r. 19 98 ). W e co nc lu de fro m

th e rec or d t ha t the m ag is tra te jud ge pro pe rly den ie d San ks ’s firs t m ot io n fo r ap po in tm en t o f co un se l as th e is su es inSan ks ’s cas e are 3ne it he r no ve l n orco m pl ex . The d is tri ctco urts ha ve bro addi sc ret io n i n de te rm in in g wh ethe r to ap po in t co un se l, an d t he m ag is tra te jud ge co rrec tl y co nc lu de d t ha t Sank s’s ca se di d n otin vo ke ex cep ti on al cir cu m st an ces warran ti ng ap po in tm en t o f co un se l. Thu s, we co nc lu de th atth e m ag is tra te jud ge di d n ot ab us e h is di sc ret io n i n d en y in g S an ks ’s m ot io n t o app oi ntco un se l. W it h re sp ectto San ks ’s m ot io n t o app oi ntap pe ll at e co un se l, we l ack juri sd ic ti on to co ns id er thi s m ot io n a s Sa nk s fi le d h is sec on d m ot io n a fte r hi s no ti ce o f ap pe al an d i t d idno t d es ig na te anex is te ntord er as requi redby Fed. R. App . P. 3(c ). Mo reo ve r, we can no t fi ndth atSan ks ’s no ti ce o f ap pe al co ns ti tu te d anin te ntto ap pe al fro m

anord er d en y in g app oi nt m en t o f ap pe ll at e co un se l be cau se th atord er h adno t yet be enen te redwhenSan ks fil edhi s n ot ic e o f ap pe al . II.

“ W e rev ie w de no vo a di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t an d app ly th e sa m e le ga l s ta nd ard s tha t g ov ern edth e d is tri ctco urt’s an al y si s.” Pen le y v. Esl in ge r , 60 5 F .3d84 3, 8 48 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (ci ti ng Ca po ne v. Aetn a L if

e In s. Co . , 59 2 F .3d11 89 , 11 94 (11 th Cir . 20 10 )). Inde te rm in in g the rel ev an t s etof f act s at th e su m m ary jud gm en t s ta ge , we m us t v ie w all ev id en ce an d m ak e an y reas on ab le in fere nc es th atm ig htbe dra wn the refr om inth e li gh t m os t favo rab le to th e n on m ov in g p arty . Pen la

y v. Esl in ge r , 60 5 F .3dat 8 48 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d

4ci ta ti on om it te d) . “ Thu s, the requi rem en t t o v ie w th e fac ts inth e n on -m ov in g

pa rty’ s fa vo r ex te nd s t o g enui ne di sp ut es ov er m at eri al fact s an d n otwher e al l tha t ex is ts is ‘ so m e m et ap hysic al do ub t as to th e m at eri al fact s.’” Id . (qu ot in g Mat su sh ita El ec. In du s. Co . v. Zen ith Ra di o C or p ., 47 5 U.S. 5 74 , 58 6 1 06 S. Ct. 13 48 , 13 56 , 89 L. Ed. 2d53 8 (1 98 6) ). A dis pu te ov er a fa ctwil l o nl y pre cl ud e su m m ary jud gm en t i f th e d is pu te “ m ig htaffe ctth e o ut co m e o f th e su itun de r th e go ve rn in g l aw.” Ander

so n v . Lib er tyLo bb

y, In c. , 47 7 U.S. 2 42 , 24 8, 1 06 S. Ct. 25 05 , 25 10 , 91 L. Ed. 2d20 2 (1 98 6) .

“ The Eig ht h Am en dm en t’s p ro sc rip ti on of c ru el an d u nu su al pu ni sh m en ts . . . go ve rn s p ris on off

ic ia ls ’ us e o f fo rce a ga in stco nv ic te d i nm at es .” Ca mpb el l v. Si kes , 16 9 F .3d13 53 , 13 74 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). “ [I]n m ak in g a ndcarry in g o ut de ci si on s i nv ol vi ng th e u se of f or ce t o re st or e o rd er i n t he face of apri so n di sturba nc e, pr is on off

ic ia ls un do ub te dl y

m us t t ak e in to acco un t the ve ry real th reat s the un res t p res en ts to in m at es an d p ris on off ic ia ls ali ke , inad di ti onto th e po ss ib le ha rm s t o i nm at es ag ai ns t wh om for ce m ig htbe us ed .” W hi tl ey v. Albe rs , 47 5 U.S. 3 12 , 32 0, 1 06 S. Ct. 1 07 8, 1 08 4, 8 9 L. Ed. 2 d 2 51 (19 86 ). Thu s,

“ [w]here apri so n s ecu rit y m eas ur e is un de rta ke n t o re so lv e a d is tu rb an ce, . . . th at in di sp ut ab ly pos es si gn ifi can t ri sk s t o t he saf ety of i nm at es an d p ris onst aff, . . . th e que st io n wh ethe r th e m eas ur e ta ke n i nf li ct edun ne ces sa ry

an d wan to n p ai n a nd 5su ffer in g u lt im at el y tu rn s o n wh ethe r fo rce was ap pl ie d i n ago odfai th effo rt t o m ai nt ai n o r res to re d is ci pl in e o r m al ic io us ly andsad is ti cal ly for the ve ry pu rp os e of cau si ng ha rm .” Id . at 3 20 -2 1, 1 06 S. Ct. at10 85 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) . Inrul in g o n ajud gm en t as a m at te r of law o n a n e xc es si ve us e o f fo rce cl ai m , th e Supr em e Co urt h as he ld : [C]ou rts m

us t d et erm in e whe th er the ev id en ce g oe s b ey on d am ere di sp ut e o ve r th e rea so nabl en es s o f a p art ic ul ar u se of f or ce o r th e ex is te nc e o f arg uabl y

supe rio r al te rn at iv es . Unl es s i t ap pe ars th atth e ev id en ce, v ie wedinth e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e p la in ti ff, wil l supp ort a r el iabl e in fere nc e o f wan to nn es s i n t he in fli ct io n o f pa in un de r th e st an da rdwe ha ve de sc rib ed , th e cas e sh ou ldno t g o t o the jury. Id. at 3 22 , 10 6 S . Ct. at10 85 . The Supr em e Co urt o ut li ne d fi ve di st in ctfact or s rel ev an t t o a sc ert ai ni ng whet he r fo rce was us ed“ m al ic io us ly andsad is ti cal ly for th e v ery pu rp os e o f cau si ng ha rm ”: (1) th e ex te ntof t he in jury; (2) th e n eedfor ap pl ic at io n o f fo rce; (3) th e rel at io ns hi p b etweenth atne edan d t he am ou ntof fo rce u se d; (4) an y

effo rts m ad e to tem

pe r th e se ve rit y

of afor cefu l re sp on se ; an d (5 ) th e ex te ntof t he th reatto th e sa fety of s ta ff an d i nm at es , as re as on ab ly pe rcei ve d b y

th e res po ns ib le off

ic ia ls onth e b as is of f

act s kno wn t o t he m . Ca mpb el l , 16 9 F .3dat 1 37 5 (c it in g W hi tl ey , 47 5 U.S. at32 1, 1 06 S. Ct. at10 85 ); se e a ls o Hu ds on v. McMil li an , 50 3 U.S. 1 , 7, 1 12 S. Ct. 9 95 , 11 7 L. Ed. 2 d 1 56 6(1 99 2) (ap pl y in g the same fiv e fac to r te stsetforth in W hi tl ey ). W e co nc lu de fro m

th e rec or d t ha t the di st ric t co urt d idno t err in gra nt in g W il li am s’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t as th ere was no ge nu in e is su e o f m at eri al fact . There was ane edforW il li am s t o u se li m it edfor ce i n o rd er t o subdue San ks an d h is ag gr es si ve act io ns an d t o re ga in co nt ro l o f a thr eat en in g si tu at io n. He ce as edto us e fo rce wh enSan ks st op pe d re si st in g, d em on strat in g n ot th athe was a ct in g m al ic io us ly int en di ng to cau se ha rm , bu t ra th er ac ti ng ingo od fai th to res to re o rd er. W il li am s was ina th reat en edpo si ti onas h e was th e so le of fic er i n S an ks ’s cel l, wh os e ex itwas b lo ck edby a crowdof i nm at es . Mor eo ve r, San ks ’s in

juri es refl ecta li mit edam ou ntof f or ce as he su ffer edno bro ke n b on es an d o nl y mil d s well in g a ndredne ss . W il li am s ac te d wi th th e ap pr op ria te am ou nt of for ce t o i ns ur e h is saf

ety an d m ai nt ai n o rd er, an d c eas edus in g fo rce wh enit was no lo ng er n eces sa ry

to co nt ro l Sa nk s. Th eref or e, we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ct co urt d idno t err in grant in g s umm ary jud gm en t. III. As d is cu ss edab ov e, we can no t fi ndth ata no ti ce o f ap pe al co ns ti tu te d a n in te ntto ap pe al fro m

anord er the di st ric t co urt h adno t en te redwhen th e n ot ic e o f ap pe al was fi le d. McDo ug ald , 78 6 F .2dat 1 47 4. Ad di ti on al ly, Fed . R. App . P. 3( c) re qu ire s tha t a n ot ic e o f ap pe al de si gn at e anex is te ntjud gm en t o r or de r, no t 7on e th atis m erel y ex pe ct ed . Bog le , 16 2 F .3dat 6 61 . W e d o n otha ve juri sd ic ti on ov er ei th er o f th e p os t-ju dg m en t d is co ve ry m ot io ns fil edby Sank s. Bo th of S an ks ’s m ot io ns were fi le d e it he r be fo re o r on th e da y th athe fil edhi s n ot ic e o f ap pe al . There fo re, h is no ti ce o f ap pe al wou ldha ve be eninan ti ci pa ti on of a n e xp ect edord er, n otanord er i n e xi st en ce atth e ti m e th e no ti ce o f ap pe al was fi le d. McDo ug ald , 78 6 F .2dat 1 47 4; Bog le , 16 2 F .3dat 6 61 . W e al so co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in grant in g s umm ary jud gm en t in fav orof Wil li am s an d d eny in g S an ks ’s m ot io ns forbo th ap po in tm en t o f co un se l an d p os t-ju dg m en t d is co ve ry . AFFIRMED.

8