FIL ED U.S . C OURT O F A PPE ALS ELE VEN TH CIRCUI T Nov emb er 1, 200 5 THO MAS K. KA

HN CLE RK

Honora ble David D. D owd, J r., United States District Judge f or the Nor

thern District of * Ohio, sitti ngby

desig nation. [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 03- 1349 2

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 01-14148 -CV -N CR PERRY T. HILTON, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant, ve rs us SE CRE TA RY FO R T HE DE PA RT MEN T O F CO RRE CT IO NS , J a mes C r o s b y, CAM BE LL , C OI , HA YE S, CO II, M. E . BIL LMA

N, CO II, BILLMAN, Lieu te na nt , et al ., D ef en dants -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S tate s D istri ct

Co urt f or the So uth er n D istri ct of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (N ove m be r 1, 200 5) Before BIR CH and W IL SO N, Circuit Judges, and DO W D , D istrict Judg e. * BI RC H , Ci rc uit

Jud ge :Hilton named as de fenda nts Depar

tment of C o rr ec tions S ecr etar y Michae l Moore, 1 Ok e e c ho be e Cor

re c tio na l Ins tit

uti on (“ OC I ” ) Wa

rd e n Jimmy

Pr e vatt, OC IAs sis tant Wa rd e n J.R. J enkins, and O C I C o rr ec tional Office rs M. Billman, Campbell, De nnis, B. Ellerbe e, E. F erguson, K. Foste r, J . Fr anza, Hamilton, Hayes, Mar g ekguin, Norman, Sauc edo, Stucche , G. Thompson, Randall Tifft, M. White, L . Wooden, and six J ohn Does. 2 Fl or ida pr iso ne r Pe rr

y T . H ilt on a

ppe al s th e dis m iss al of

his num er ous ci vil ri ght s c la im s, f

ile d purs uant t o 42 U . S. C. § 19 83, a ga ins t se ve ra l e m plo y ee s of

the Florida De partm ent of Corre ctions (“ DO C”). W e conclude that the district court erre d by dism issin g one of Hilton’ s claim s and affirm the rem aining d istrict court rulings . Ac cordingly , w e A FFI RM INPA RT and VA CAT E and REMA ND IN PART. I. BACKG ROUND H ilt on f ile d th is c ivi l a ct iona lle gin g c onst itutio na l vi olatio ns b y num er ous De partm ent of Corre ctions em ploy ees. H e asserte d that correctional office rs

1 Cam pbe ll, H ay es , and B ill m anr et al iate d a ga ins t hi m f or f ili ng g ri ev an ce s by fa ili ng t o no tif

y him that f am ily m em be rs ha d arr ive d f

or vis iti ng h our s, spi tti ng on h im and thr eate nin g hi m , pla ci ng h im a dm ini str at ive c onf

ine m en t, and r ef

usi ng to f ee d hi m . H e m ai nta ine d th at O ff ic er T if ft spi t t oba cc o j uic e in h is f ac e, sa id h e w as “ goi ng t o ki ck

[ H ilt on’ s] bla ck

a ss, ” an d pl ac ed

H ilt on i n a dm ini str at ive confinem ent. R 1-1 at 8. H ilton alleged that Of ficer s Ferguson, Sauce do, White, an d T if ft r ef use d to f ee d hi m dur ing an e igh t- hour

pe ri od o f adm ini str at iveH i l t o na l s o ar gu e dth at( 1 ) C amp b e l l an d H aye s d e n i e d

h i ma c c e s s t o th e l awl i b r ar y; 2 (2) Thompson ver

bally assaulted him upon his relea se fr om seg reg ated c onfinement; (3) Ellerbee and F oster ver

bally assaulted a

nd threatened him; (4) B illman retaliated a g ainst hi m by order ing Marg ekgui n to issue him a corre ctive consultation for disobeying a

n order ; (5) De nnis, Hamilton, and Wooden fa

bricated disciplinary

char g es ag ainst him; (6) he wa s forc ed to endur e 29 day s of disciplinary

confine ment without personal hy g iene items; a

nd (7) Pre vatt unconstitutionally seized and opene d his leg al mail. Be cause Hilton does not argue these issues on appea l, they are deeme d wa i v ed. See Rowe v. Schreibe r, 139 F .3d 1381, 1382 n.1 (11th Cir. 1998) (notingthat issues not argued on appe al ar e dee med waive d). 3 confinem ent and denied him food for a six-day

period of confinem ent. H e ar gued that W ar de n P re vatt w as li ab le f or f ai lin g to r em edy

the c onst itutio na l vi olatio ns. 2 The m agistrate j udge foun d that Hilton’s a ssertion that he had n ot been notified of his fam ily

m em bers’ presence during visitin g hou rs failed to state a cl ai m und er § 19 83 b ec au se it

a lle ge d on ly

a“ de m ini m

us i nc onve nie nc e, ” an d hi s contentio n that Tiff

t had verbally

harassed him

and spit to bacco j uice in his face w as not a ct ion ab le a s e xc es siv e fo rc e unde r § 19 83. R 1- 8 at 9. T he m ag istrate j udge a lso f

ound that H ilt on h ad

f ai le d to state ac la im

a ga ins t P re vatt be ca

use § 19 83 l ia bil ity c annot be pr em ise d onvic ar iou s li ab ili ty . A cc or din gly , the m ag istrate j udge r ec om

m en de d di sm iss al of

the se c la im s un de r 28 U . S. C. § § 19 15( e) (2 )( B) (i i) f

or f ai lur e to s tate ac la im . O ve r H ilt on’ s ob j ec tio ns, the dis tr ic t c ourt a cc ep te d th e m ag istrate j udge ’ s r ec om m en datio n. Pr ior to the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r

uli ng, the c ourt ha d di re ct ed the m ar sha l t o personally

serve the com

plaint and su m

m ons up on Billm an, D ennis, E llerbee,4

Ferguson, H am ilton , Margekguin , S aucedo, T ifft, White, and W ooden. Af ter se rv ic e w as r et

ur ne d un ex ec ute d f

or D ennis , H am ilt on, Marg ek gui n, Whit e, and Wo o d e n , H i l t o na s k e dth a tth e c o u rtd i r e c tM o o r e t o p r o v i d e h i m w i th th e h o me addresses of these office rs. The court denied Hilton’s m otion and noted th at

“ [d ] isc ove ry

m ust be sou ght

f ro m de fe ndants . . . pur suant t o th e Fe de ra l R ule s of Ci vi l Pr oc edur e.” R2 -5 5 a t 1 . Bi llm an , E lle rb ee , F er guso n, and S au ce do m ove d f or sum m ar y j udgm en t, ar gui ng, int er

a lia , that H ilt on’ s a sse rt ionthat he ha d be enpla ce d ina dm ini str at ive co nf ine m en t i n r et al iatio n f

or f ili ng a gr ie vanc e la ck ed

m er it be ca

use pr iso n records indicated that Hilton was c onfined for disob ey ing an order. T he officer s furthe r m ai nta ine d th at

H ilt on w as ne ve r de nie d f ood dur ing his a dm ini str at ive co nf ine m en t, but

that he r ef

use d an e ve nin g m ea l and h ad a dvi se d S au ce do that he w as on a hun ge r str ike . F ina lly , the of fi ce rs not ed

that D ennis , H am ilt on, Marg ek gui n, Whit e, and W oode n w er e not sub j ec t t o th e sum

m ar y j udgm en t m oti on s inc e the y

ha d no t be ense rv ed . Insup port of

the ir m oti on, the of

fi ce rs a tta ch ed

ar ep ort of

a dm ini str at ive co nf ine m en t de ta ili ng the e ve nts sur ro undi ng H ilt on’ s pl ac em en t i n a dm ini str at ive co nf ine m en t. A cc or din g to the r ep ort, T if ft or de re d th at

H ilt on b e pla ce d in confinem ent after

Hilton disob ey ed verbal orders to re m ain silent and th en5

continu ed to raise his voice and argue with T ifft. R2-107, E xh. Aat A 4. T hey al so atta ch ed

c opi es of the gr ie vanc es in w hic h H ilt on c om pla ine d th at

he w as not gi ve n d in ne r on two da y s an d was de ni edall m eal s fo r si x d ay s. R2 -1 07 , Exh . B at H & J. Hilton responded th at T ifft’ s statem ent that he had diso bey ed a verbal order w as af ab ri catio n, and that he ne ve r re fu se d am ea l or ind ic at ed that he w as on a hung er str ike . H e atta ch ed

an a ff idavit statin g th at

he w as “pla ce d in adm ini str at ive c onf

ine m en t i n r et al iatio n f

or e xe rc isi ng [ his ] F ir st Am en dm en t ri ght s. ” R3 -1 15, E xh. Aa t H ilt on’ s a ff idavit . H e al so, how ev er , a tta ch ed ac opy of an 8 M ay

199 9 gr ie vanc e w ithar es pons e w hic h e xpl ai ne d th at he w as “ not pla ce d inA . C. f

or f ili ng a gr ie vanc e. Y ou w er e pla ce d inA C f or y our a ct ion s while being counseled with by Capt. Tif ft. Your disorderly

behavior war

ranted y ou r pl acement i n A.C.” R 3- 11 5, Ex h. C. Approxim ately

three m onth s after

all m otion s to add parties or claim s wer e due to be f

ile d, H ilt on m ove d f

or ade cl ar at or

y j udgm en t, arg uin g th at

m ai lr oom em plo y ee V ic tor iaP ow el l ha d r ef use d to not ar iz e his le ga l m ai l i n r et al iatio n f or fi lin g th e § 19 83 a ct ion . H e al so c la im ed that pr iso n of

fi ci al s ha d he ld h is outg oing legal m ail in an unrelated crim inal appeal for 31 day s, and that he w as term inated from

his pos ition as m edical orderly in retaliation for filing a grievance6

concerning the hol ding of his legal m ail. Hilton requested an order direc ting th at the retaliation against him cease and dem anding his reinstatem ent as a m edical o r d e r l y. T he m ag istrate j udge f

ound that H ilt on’ s se gr eg at ionc la im w as w ith out m erit because Hilton had failed to rebut the defendants’ evidence that Hilton had be enpla ce d ina dm ini str at ive c onf ine m en t f or dis obe y ing ave rb al or de r. T he m agistrate j udge next fou nd that Hilton’s food-deprivation claim wa s barred under 42 U . S. C. § 19 97e f

or his f ai lur e to e xhaust

a dm ini str at ive r em ed ie s be ca use he ha d f ai le d to f ile an in fo rm al or

f orm al gr ie vanc e. N ex t, the m ag istrate j udge fo und that H ilt on’ s c la im s a ga ins t D ennis , H am ilt on, Marg ek gui n, Whit e, and Wo o d e nw e r e s ub

j e c tt o d i s mi s s a l u n d e r

F e d e r a l R

u l e o f C i v i l P r o c e du r e 4 ( m) be ca use tho se de fe ndants ha d no t be ense rv ed w ith in 1 20 d ay s a ft er

his c om pla int w as f ile d. F ina lly , the m ag istrate j udge f ound that H ilt on w as not

e nti tle d to a de cl ar at or

y j udgm en t be ca

use the a ct ion s of

w hic h he c om

pla ine d w er e re m ote in tim e to the e ve nts a t i ssu e in the § 19 83 a ct ionand the nam ed ind ivi dua ls w er e not defendants in the pend ing case. Ac cordingly , the m agistrate j udge recom m ended (1 ) gr an tin g sum

m ar y j udgm en t i n f

av or of Bi llm an , E lle rb ee , F er guso n, S au ce do, an d T if ft on H ilt on’ s se gr eg at ionc la im ; ( 2) dis m iss ing H ilt on’ s f ood- de pr ivatio n cl ai m und er § 19 97e ; ( 3) dis m iss ing H ilt on’ s c la im s a ga ins t D ennis , H am ilt on,7

M ar g ek g u i n , Wh i t e, an dWoo d en u n d erRu l e 4 (m); an d(4 ) d en yin g Hi l t o n ’s m otion for a declaratory

j udgm ent. A lthou gh Hilton ob j ected, the district court ad opt ed the m ag istrate j udge ’ s r ec om m en datio n and e nte re d j udgm en t ac co rd ing ly . H ilt on n owappe al s. II. D ISCU SSION Hilton raises six issu es on appeal. F irst, he a lleges that the dist rict court er re d by dis m iss ing und er

28 U . S. C. § 19 15( e) (2 )( B) (i i) his r et al iatio n c la im against Billm an, C am

pbell, and Hay es. Second, H ilton argues that the court err ed by dis m iss ing his e xc es siv e fo rc e cl ai m a ga ins t T if

ft and W ar de n P re vatt, a lso unde r § 19 15( e) (2 )( B) (i i) . T hir d, H ilt on m ai nta ins that the c ourt e rr ed by gr an tin g sum m ar y j udgm en t i n f

av or of Bi llm an , E lle rb ee , F er guso n, S au ce do, and T if ft on his c la im that he ha d be enpla ce d ina dm ini str at ive c onf ine m en t i n r et al iatio n f

or fi lin g agr ie vanc e. F ourth, H ilt on a sse rt s th at the c ourt e rr ed

by dis m iss ing his food-deprivation claim

under § 199 7e. Fifth, Hilton alleges that the court abused its dis cr et ionby

dis m iss ing his c la im s a ga ins t D ennis , H am ilt on, Marg ek gui n, White, and W ooden u nder Rule 4(m). Finally , H ilton argues that the court abused its discretion b y

deny ing hi s m otion for a declaratory j udgm ent. W e discuss each iss ue in tur

n. A . R et al iatio n8

W e re vie wde nov o di sm iss al s un de r § 19 15( e) (2 )( B) (i i) , “ vie w ing the al le gatio ns i n th e co m

pla int a s tr ue . ” Mi tc he ll v. F ar ca ss, 112 F . 3d 1 483, 149 0 (1 1thCi r. 199 7) . D ism iss al is ap pr opr iate und er § 19 15( e) (2 )( B) (i i) onl y

w he n a plaintiff “ can prove no set of facts that w ouldentitle him to relief. ” Se e id.; see al so 28 U.S.C. § 1 91 5( e)(2 )(B) (ii ).

“ T o st at e a fi rs t am en dm en t c la im f or r et al iatio n, apr iso ne r ne ed not a lle ge vio latio n of

ase parate and d ist inc t c onst itutio na l r igh t. ” T hom as v. E vans, 880 F. 2d 12 35, 1242 (11t h Cir. 1989 ). “ The gist of a r etaliation claim is that a prisoner is p en al iz ed

f or e xe rc isi ng the r igh t of

f re e spe ec h. ” I d. ; se e al so B ri dge s v. Ru sse ll, 757 F . 2d 1 155, 115 6 ( 11th C ir . 198 5) ( hol din g th at apr iso ne r state d a cl ai m of r et al iatio n ba se d onbe ing tr an sf er re d to anothe r fa ci lity

e ve n th ough pr is on ers ha ve no li be rty int eres t i n re m ai ni ng at apa rti cu la r fac il it y ). The district court dism issed Hilton’s r etaliation claim under § 191 5(e)( 2)(B) (ii) based on the m agistrate j udge’s f indin g that Hilton had been de nie d on ly

one hour of

vis itatio n and, thu s, ha d su ff er ed onl y ade m ini m

us injury . The question of whether H ilton ’ s alleged loss of vis itation tim e constituted a co nst itutio na l vi olatio n is ir re le vant, how ev er , f

or pur pose s of c onsi de ri ng h is re ta liatio n c la im

be ca use the gis t of

his c la im w as that he w as r et al iate d a ga ins t f or fi lin g apr iso n gr ie vanc e. S ee T hom as , 880 F . 2d at 12 42. H ilt on a lle ge d inhisWe n otethat, a lt ho ugh the “ Re po rt of Inv e sti g atio n” su

bmi tte d b y

B ill man, Ti ff

t, 3 Saucedo, F erguson, and Ellerbe e in support of summary judgme nt a ddresse d this incident, R2-107, Ex . A at 3 (re fer encing an intervie w with Hilton on 16 September 1999); Ex. B at 19 (“ Iwas ne ver notified of my

visit unt il five minutes . . . .”). The exhibi ts do not include copies of any g rieva nces filed by Hilton reg ardingthe offic ers’ failure to advise him of h i s fa m i l y ’s v isits. I t is, therefor e, unclea r as to whe ther the district c ourt consider ed any such grieva

nces a s to this i ssue. Be cause Hilton ha s failed to state a c laim for excessive f orce , we ne ed not re ach H ilton’s 4 a dd iti on a l argume nt that Ti ff t w a s n ot e nti tle d to qu a lif ie d immun ity . Se e Conn v . G a bb e rt , 5 26 U. S. 286, 290, 119 S. Ct . 1292, 1295 (1999). 9 co m pla int that C am pbe ll, Bi llm an , and H ay es r et al iate d a ga ins t hi m f or f ili ng gr ie vanc es by

f ai lin g to not if

y him that f am ily m em be rs ha d arr ive d f

or vis iti ng hours. V iewing the allegations in th e com plaint as true, H ilton ’ s com plaint stated a claim of reta liation; thus, the district court’ s dism issal of this claim under § 19 15( e) (2 )( B) (i i) w as e rr one ous. S ee Br idg es , 757 F . 2d at 11 57. 3 B. Exce ssive Force “ [A ] de m ini m

us u se of f or ce c annot

sup port a c la im f or e xc es siv e use of force. ” Skrtich v. Thornton, 280 F.3d 1295, 1302 (11th Cir. 2002). Hilton does not c ont es t the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ind ing that the tob ac co spi tti ng i nc ide nt i nvol vin g T if ft c au se d hi m

onl y ade m ini m

us i nj ur y . A ddi tio na lly , no l eg al auth or ity supp orts H ilt on’ s pr opos iti on that T if ft ’ s a lle ge d st at em en t, that he w as goi ng t o

“ kic k [ H ilt on’ s] bla ck

a ss, ” am ount s to a

c onst itutio na l vi olatio n. T hus, the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y

dis m iss ed

H ilt on’ s e xc es siv e fo rc e cl ai m a ga ins t T if

ft . 410

Re gard ing his e xc es siv e fo rc e cl ai m a ga ins t P re vatt, H ilt on c ont en ds f or the fi rs t t im e on a

ppe al that P re vatt is l ia

ble f or f ai lin g to a de quate ly

tr ai n and supe rv ise his sub or din at es . I t i s w el l- es ta bli she d th at

iss ue s no t r ai se d inthe dis tr ic t c ourt w ill not

be c onsi de re d onappe al . S ee N ar ey v. D ean, 32 F . 3d 1 521, 1526 -2 7 ( 11th C ir . 199 4) ( se tti ng f orth f ive e xc ep tio ns t o th is r

ule ). B ec au se H ilt on’ s c la im

a ga ins t P re vatt doe s no t f al l w ith in o ne of

the e xc ep tio ns s et

f orth in N ar ey , thi s c la im

is de em ed

w ai ve d. F urthe rm or e, be ca use H ilt on h as f

ai le d to present any

evidence showing that Prevatt participated in the alleged unc onst itutio na l a ct s or

that the re w as ac au sa l c onne ct ionbe tw ee n P re vatt an d th e al le ge d c onst itutio na l vi olatio n, H ilt on w as not e nti tle d to r el ie f ag ai nst

P re vatt based on respon deat superior. See Cross v. State of A la., State D ep’ t of Mental H ea lth& Me nta l R et ar datio n, 49 F . 3d 1 490, 150 8 ( 11th C ir . 199 5) ( hol din g th at a superviso r is liable only

if he or she per sonallyparticipates in the alleged co nst itutio na l de pr ivatio n or the re is a ca

usa l c onne ct ionbe tw ee n a ct ion s of the supervisin g official and the alleged constituti onal vio lation). C. S um m ar y Jud gm en t H ilt on a lle ge s f

or the f ir st t im e on a

ppe al that the de fe ndants ’ f ai lur e to com ply with his discov ery

requests precluded him

from obtainin g necessary ev ide nc e to s uppo rt

his c la im . W e re vie wde nov o adis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of11

sum m ar y j udgm en t, vie w ing the e vid en ce in the li ght m ost f av or ab le to the party oppo sing th e m otion . Allen v. Ty son Food s, I nc., 121 F.3d 642, 646 (11t h Cir. 1997 ). S um

m ar y j udgm en t i s pr ope r w he re “ the re is no g enuin e iss ue a s to any m aterial f act and . . . the m ovin g party is entitled to judgm ent as a m atter of law. ” Id . (qu ot in g F ed . R. Civ . P. 56 (c)) . Be sid es se lf

-s er vin g and c onc lus or

y a lle gatio ns, H ilt on h as of fe re d no thi ng to r eb ut the e vid en ce sho w ing that he w as pla ce d ina dm ini str at ive c onf ine m en t for disobey ing a verbal order r ather than for f iling a grievance. D . F ood D ep ri vatio n

“ W e re vie wde nov o adis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sm iss al . . . f or f ai lur e to e xhaust av ai la ble a dm ini str at ive r em ed ie s un de r § 19 97e (a ) of the P L RA[ Pr iso n L iti gatio n Re fo rm A ct ] . ” Br own v. S ike s, 212 F . 3d 1 205, 120 7 ( 11th C ir . 200 0) . S ec tio n 1997 e of the P L RAstate s th at

“ [n ] o a ct ionsha ll be br ough t w ithr es pe ct to pr iso n conditi ons un der section 1983 of this title, or any other Feder al law , by

a prisoner co nf ine d inany

j ai l, pr iso n, or

oth er c or re ct ion al f

ac ili ty unt il suc h a dm ini str at ive re m ed ie s a s are ava ila

ble are e xhaust ed . ” 42 U . S. C. § 19 97e (a ); se e al so B ro w n, 212 F. 3d at 12 07 ( hol din g th at “ w he n astate pr ovi de s a gr ie vanc e pr oc ed

ur e fo r its prisoners, . . . an inm ate alleging harm suffere d from

prison cond ition s m

ust file a12

gr ie vanc e an d e xhaust

the r em ed ie s ava ila

ble und er that pr oc ed

ur e be fo re pur sui ng a § 19 83 laws ui t” ). InF lor ida , “ [i ] nm at es sha ll uti liz e the inf orm al gr ie vanc e pr oc es s pr ior to initiatin g a form al grievance. ” Fla . A dm in. Code A nn. r. 33-103.005 (1) (2004). If it is n ot f ea sib le f or the inm at e to f

ile agr ie vanc e w ith in the r el ev an t t im e pe ri od, he w ill be gr an te d an e xte nsi on i f he “ m ad e a good f ai th e ff ort t o f ile in a tim el y m anner. ” Id. r. 33-103.011 (2). If “ [the] inm ate decides to file a form al grievance, he . . . sha ll do s o by

c om ple tin g [ an d su

bm itt ing to the w ar de n] F orm D C1 -3 03, Req ue stforAdm in is tra ti ve Rem edy or Ap pe al .” Id . r. 33 -1 03 .00 6( 1) -(a) . T he r ec or d r ev ea ls that H ilt on f ai le d to sub m it aninf

orm al or f orm al pr iso n grievance in conj unction with his claim that he wa s denied all m eals for a six-day period. S ee Br own, 212 F.3d at 1207 . Hilton’ s contentio n, that he w as denied gr ie vanc e fo rm s duri ng h is t er m of a dm ini str at ive c onf

ine m en t, doe s no t e nti tle h i m t o r e l i e f

b e c au s e h e f

a i l s t o a l l e g e th ath e w a s u n ab l e t o o b t a i nth e s e f o rms once he wa s release d from confinem ent. T he district court did n ot, theref ore, err in dism issin g this claim

under § 199 7e. E. D ism issal Under Rule 4(m) W e re vie wadis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sm iss al f or f ai lur e to t im el y

se rv e a sum

m ons an d c om pla int f or abuse of dis cr et ion . B ro w n v. N ic hol s, 8 F . 3d 7 70, 775 ( 11th13

Ci r. 199 3) ( an al y zi ng f

orm er F ed . R. Ci v. P . 4(

j )) . “ If se rv ic e of

the sum m ons an d co m pla int is not m ad e uponade fe ndant w ith in 1 20 d ay s a ft er the f ili ng o f the com plaint, the court . . . shall dism iss the action withou t prej udice as to that de fe ndant o r dir ec t that se rv ic e be e ff ec te d w ith in a

spe ci fi ed ti m e. ” F ed . R. Ci v. P. 4(m). A ft er se rv ic e w as r et

ur ne d un ex ec ute d onD ennis , H am ilt on, Marg ek gui n, Whit e, and W oode n, H ilt on m ove d th e co urt t o or de r de fe ndant M oor e to p ro vid e him w iththe hom e ad dr es se s of the se of fi ce rs . T he c ourt de nie d H ilt on’ s m oti on, statin g th at

“ [d ] isc ove ry

m ust be sou ght

f ro m de fe ndants in the c as e pur suant t o the F ed er al Ru le s of

Ci vil P ro ce dur e. ” R2 -5 5 at 1. Mo re than on e y ear late r, the co urt di sm iss ed

D ennis , H am ilt on, Marg ek gui n, Whit e, and W oode n un de r Ru le 4(m ) for Hilton’ s failure to properly serve them . Af

ter dism issal, H ilton attem pted to provid e the court w ith Ham ilton ’ s contact inform ation, but this inform ation was pr ope rl y r ef use d be ca use H ilt on f

ai le d to sho wgoo d c au se f or the de lay . S ee Ru le 4(m ). Hil to n n ow al le ge s t ha t h e was un ab le to serve th es e d efen da nt s fo r two re as ons: ( 1) be ca

use the y f ai le d to c om

ply w ithhis r eque st f

or pr oduc tio n of doc um en ts and ( 2) be ca

use the D O C f

al se ly tol d hi m that the se of

fi ce rs w er e no lon ge r em

plo y ed by D O C. H ilt on’ s f

ir st arg um en t f

ai ls b ec au se his doc um en t14

reque stdi d n otsee k a ny con ta ctin fo rm at io n re ga rd in g t he un se rv edde fen da nt s. H ilt on’ s se co nd arg um en t f ai ls b ec au se he did

not pr es en t any

e vid en ce sho w ing the DO C w as untruthful regarding th e em ploym ent status of the un served de fe ndants . A cc or din gly , the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y dis m iss ed

the se de fe ndants under Rule 4(m). F. D ec larator

y Jud gm en t W e re vie wadis tr ic t c ourt’ s “ de nia l of de cl ar at or

y r el ie f fo r anabuse of dis cr et ion . ” Mc Cu lla gh v . D ean W itt er Re ynol ds, I nc . , 177 F . 3d 1 307, 130 8 ( 11th Ci r. 199 9) . “ Inac as e of

a ct ua l c ontro ve rs y

w ith in i ts j ur isd ic tio n, . . . any c ourt of the U nit ed

S tate s, upo n th e fi lin g of an a ppr opr iate ple ad ing , m ay de cl ar e the rights and o ther legal re lations o f any interested party

seeking such d eclar ation.” 28 U . S. C. § 22 01( a) . “ T he pr oc ed ur e fo r obt ai nin g ade cl ar at or y j udgm en t pursuant to Title 28, U. S. C., § 2201 , shall be in acc ordance w ith [the Federa l Ru le s of Ci vil P ro ce dur e] . ” F ed . R. Ci v. P . 57. H ilt on m ove d f

or de cl ar at or

y j udgm en t ba se d onhis c ont en tio n th at pr iso n of fi ci al s r ac ia lly

dis cr im inate d a ga ins t hi m by w ithhol din g hi s outgo ing le ga l m ai l and term inating him

from his m edical orderly

positi on. H is m otion , how ever, v i o l a t e dth e F e d e r a l R

u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e du r e b e c au s e i ta d d e dp art i e s an dc l a i ms that w er e not

inc lud ed in his c om

pla int and w as f

ile d a ppr oxi m at el y

thr ee m onths15

after the expiration of the period allott ed by the district court for adding addit ional parties and claim s. H ilton also failed to present any evidence in supp ort of either claim . Ac cordingly , the district court properly denied Hilton’ s declaratory j udgm en t m oti on. II I. CONCLUSI ON W e co nc lud e that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed by dis m iss ing H ilt on’ s r et al iatio n cl ai m a ga ins t B ill m an , Cam

pbe ll, and H ay es und er

§ 19 15( e) (2 )( B) (i i) , and v ac at e the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r as to thi s c la im . W e af fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r em ai nin g ru lin gs: ( 1) dis m iss ing H ilt on’ s e xc es siv e fo rc e cl ai m a ga ins t P re vatt an d T if

ft unde r § 19 15( e) (2 )( B) (i i) ; ( 2) gr an tin g sum m ar y j udgm en t i n f

av or of B ill m an , E lle rb ee , F er guso n, S au ce do, and T if ft r eg ar din g a dm ini str at ive c onf ine m en t; (3 ) dis m iss ing H ilt on’ s f

ood- de pr ivatio n c la im

und er § 19 97e ; ( 4) dis m iss ing D ennis , H am ilt on, Marg ek gui n, Whit e, and W oode n un de r Ru le 4( m ); and ( 5) de ny ing H ilt on’ s m oti on f

or ade cl ar at or

y j udgm en t. AF FIRMED IN P AR T, VA CA TED AN D REMA ND ED IN P AR T.