FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT AUG 21, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 06- 1589 7 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D
. C. D oc ke t N o. 04- 0017 1- CV -D F- 5 JAM ES DOE, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us GE ORG IADE PA RT MEN T O F CO RRE CT IO NS , D ef en dants , GENE A. SCROGGY, In div idu al ly

and i n hi s f

orm er of fi ci al c ap ac ity

a s W ar de n of

F rank S co tt St at e Pr iso n, AU BRE Y JO NE S, In div idu al ly

and i n hi s f

orm er c ap ac ity a s D ep uty

W ar de n of

F rank S co tt St at e Pr iso n, TOM McELHENNEY, In div idu al ly

and i n hi s of

fi ci al c ap ac ity

a s D ep uty

W ar de n of

Care and T re atm en t fo r Fr an k S co tt St at e Pr iso n, GLORIA NICHOLSON, a. k.a. Gloria Chester, Captain, I ndiv iduallyand in her official c apacity as an em ploy ee of the G eorgia D epartm ent of Corre ctions serving as a supervisory of fi ce r of F rank S co tt St at e Pr iso n,De fe nd ants a lso we re su e d in the ir of fi c ia l c a pa c iti e s. Th e dist ri ct cou rt g ra nte d D e fe nd ants 1 summary judgme nt on Plaintiff’s officia l-ca pacity claims. Also named in the complaint wer e two investigators employ ed b y GD OC Interna l Investig ations Division. The district court deter mined that the se tw o d e fe nd ants we re e nti tle d to summa ry jud g me nt o n Pl a int if

f’ s f a ilure -t o- pr ote c t c la im. The only order we r eview in this appeal i s t h e denial of Def endants’s qua lified-immunity -base d summary judgme nt motion. 2 CARL E VA

NS , Ca pta in, I ndi vid

ua lly and i n hi s of

fi ci al c ap ac ity

a s an e m plo y ee of the G eo rg ia D ep ar tm en t of Co rr ec tio ns s er

vin g a s asup er

vis or y of fi ce r of F rank S co tt St at e Pri so n, DENNIS HOLSEY, Se rg eant, I ndi vid

ua lly and i n hi s of

fi ci al c ap ac ity

a s an e m plo y ee of the G eo rg ia D ep ar tm en t of Co rr ec tio ns s er

vin g a s asup er

vis or y of fi ce r of F rank S co tt St at e Pri so n, DENNIS KNIGHT, Se rg eant, I ndi vid

ua lly and i n hi s of

fi ci al c ap ac ity

a s an e m plo y ee of the G eo rg ia D ep ar tm en t of Co rr ec tio ns s er

vin g a s asup er

vis or y of fi ce r of F rank S co tt St at e Pr iso n, D ef en dants -Appe llants .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt for the Middle District of Ge orgia

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- (A ug us t 21, 200 7) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, D U BIN A and C A RN E S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: D ef en dants -Appe llants , se ve n G eo rg iaD ep ar tm en t of Co rr ec tio ns (“ G D O C” ) co rr ec tio na l of fi ce rs sue d inthe ir

ind ivi dua l c ap ac iti es , br ing thi s 1 int er loc uto ry

appe al of the de nia l of

the ir m oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t ba se d on3

qua lif ie d im m uni ty in Pl ai nti ff

-Appe lle e Ja m es D oe ’ s se ct ion198 3 a ct ionf or da m ag es , 42 U
. S. C. § 19 83. W e re ve rs e the de nia l of sum m ar y j udgm en t. This section 1983 civil rights action arises fr om a serie s of sexual assaults at Sco tt Sta te Pri so n b y

pri so n g ua rdNich ol as Tuft du rin g t he su m m er o f 20 02 . On 10 Jul y 2002 , an altercation to ok place betwee n Tuft and inm ate John Doe. T uft cl ai m ed that i nm at e JohnD oe pus he d hi m ; i nm at e JohnD oe de nie d th e ac cu sa tio n and claim ed Tuft dem anded sexual favors. John Doe and T uft we re e ach int er vie w ed ; no tin g in co nsi ste nc ie s be tw ee n th e state m en ts o f inm at e JohnD oe
an d T uf t, D ep uty W ar de n Jo ne s r ef

er re d th e m atte r to W ar de n S cr oggy on 1 2 Ju ly 2002
. T ha t sam e day , W ar de n S cr oggy r ef er re d th e m atte r to R eg ion al D ir ec tor Jim m y S ike s, and o n 17 Jul y

200 2, S ike s f

or w ar de d th e al le ga tio ns t o th e D ir ec tor of Int ern al Inv es ti ga ti on s wh o, i n t urn, as si gn editto an in ve st ig at or . No af fi rm at ive a ct ionw as take n by the inv es tig at or

unt il 12 Augus t 20 02, w he n th e investig ator heard that another inm ate, Charles D oe, a lso accused Tuft of sexual
as sa ul t. At som e point before the end of July 2002 , T uft wa s transferr ed to another dor m ito ry a t S co tt St at e Pr iso n; T uf t c ont inu ed

to int er ac t w ithinm at es . In late July

and early August 200 2, Pla intiff and Charles D oe, e ach inm ates in the S co tt St at e Pr iso n do rm ito ry to w hic h T uf

t ha d be entr an sf

er re d, c la im

toCha

rl e s D oe a lso re po rt s se nd ingle tte rs a bo ut T uf t thro ugh th e pr iso n mai l sy ste m. Th e e arl ie st 2 a lle g e d a ssa

ult a bo ut wh ic h Pla int if

f or Cha rl e s Do e c omp la ine d ha

pp e ne d on

29 July 20 02 ; th e la st alleg ed assa

ult on 1 August 2002. The recor d fails t o establish if and when the letters we re r ece ived by the def endants to whom they wer e addressed. Notably , the attacks started a nd stopped within a fo ur -d ay pe ri od . A n ele me nt of Pla int if f’ s sec tio n 198 3 cla im is c a us atio n: s ome e vid e nc e mus t e xist that defe ndants rec eived the le tters when the complained of harm could have been preve nted. See Troupe v. Sar asota County Fla., 419 F .3d 1160, 1165 (11 Cir. 2005) (“a section 1983 claim re quires th proof of an af firmative c ausal c onnection betwe en the de fenda nt’s acts or omissions and the a lleg ed c on sti tut ion a l de pr ivatio n. ” ). Ev e n if we we re to inf e r re c e ipt and to i nf

e r f ur the r t hat th e pr iso n ma il sy ste m op e rate d w ithun c omm on c omp e te nc e and

sw if tne ss, in t he light o f t

his tight t ime lin e , th e se letters alone establish no constitutional viol ation. 4 have been sexually

assaulted by

Tuf t. I n an incident on 30 July , T uft grabbed Pl ai nti ff ’ s pe nis ove r his gym

sho rt s. P la int if

f se nt a le tte r co m

pla ini ng a

bout Tuft ’s m is co nd uc t t o Ward en Scro gg y vi a th e in st it ut io na l m ai l s y st em . Unkno wn to P la int if

f, Ch ar le s D oe a lso ha d an e nc ount er w ithT uf t; Ch ar le s D oe r et ai ne d a
sem en-stained t-shirt as evidence of the incident. O n 1 August, Tuft f orced Pl ai nti ff to pe rf orm or al se x onhim

by thr eate nin g to a cc use P la int if f of a ssa ult ing
anof fi ce r. P la int if

f al so b el ie ve d hi s t- shi rt

c ont ai ne d se m ina l e vid en ce of his
e n c o u n t e r wi t h Tu f t . Ag a i n P l a i n t i f

f wr o t e t o Wa r d e n S c r o g g y. 2 Sh ortly a ft er the se inc ide nts , P la int if

f an d in m at e Ch ar le s D oe spo ke w ith each other about Tuft. A nd Plaintiff and Charles D oe each r elated his experience wi t h Tu ft t o h i s re s p ec t i v e s t ep -f at h er ; o n 1 2 Au g u s t2 0 0 2 Ch ar l es Do e’s ste pf athe r m et w iththe dir ec tor

of the G D O C’ s f

ac ili tie s di vis ionand i nf

orm ed the director of Char les Doe’ s allegations. About one wee k later, Plaintiff’ s stepfather5

al s o tra v el ed t o At l an t a a n di n fo rmeda r ep re s en t at i v e o f G DOC o f P l ai n t i ff ’s al le gatio ns. E ac h st ep -f

athe r de liv er ed

the t- shi rt

e vid en ce c oll ec te d by

his ste pson. On 12 August 200 2, when the invest igator assignedto the John Doe m atter
rece ived word that Charles D oe also accused T uft of sexual assault and had providedGD OC with clothing he believed to be sem en-stained, he interview ed Charles D oe. And on 16 August 2002 , the investigator interviewed P laintiff. Tuf t
wa s also interviewed on 16 August; he denied all allegations m ade by John Doe, Ch arl es Doe a nd Pla in ti ff. Tuft op te d t o re si gn in st eadof s ub m it ti ng to a DNA te st. O n 19 A ugus t 20 02, W ar de n S cr oggy r ec om m en de d th at

T uf t be ine lig ibl e fo r re hir e be ca

use he ha d r es ign ed

dur ing the c our se of

an in ve sti ga tio n. Pursuant to a search w arrant, a sam ple of T uft’ s DN A w as obtained. When
an al y sis c onf

irm ed that T uf t’ s D N A m at ch ed

the f lui d f ound on C harl es D oe ’ s tshirt (no fluid h ad been found on Plaintiff’ s t-shirt), T uft wa s arre sted on th ree ch arg es of s ex ua l as sa ul t ag ai ns t a p ers on in cu st od y , in vi ol at io n o f O.C.G.A. § 1 6
- 6
- 5
. 1
. Tu f

tl a t e r p l e a d e dg u i l t y. Pl ai nti ff a lle ge d hi s E igh th and F ourte en th A m en dm en t c onst itu tio na l r igh ts
we re violated by

De fendants’ s failure to take r easonable safety m easures to protect Pl ai nti ff f ro m T uf t’ s se xua l a ssa

ult
. A cc or din g to P la int if f, T uf t w as akno w n r isk6

to i nm at e sa fe ty

- - inm at e JohnD oe ’ s a lle ga tio ns p re date d T uf t’ s a tta ck on Pl ai nti ff - - an d D ef

en dants ’ s f

ai lur e to p ro te ct

P la int if f fr om thi s kn ow n r isk
co nst itu te d de lib er at e ind if fe re nc e to P la int if

f’ s c le ar ly e sta bli she d E igh th Am endm ent right to reasonable protection
. De fendants m oved for summ ary j udgm ent based on qu alified im m unity
. The district court deter m ined that Plaintiff had establish ed a constitutio nal deprivation and that qualified imm unitywa s unavailable to Defendants. W e disagree. T he E igh th A m en dm en t pr ohi bit s c ru el and unusu al pun ish m en t; pr iso n of fi ci al s vi olate that am en dm en t w he n th ey are de lib er at el y

ind if fe re nt t o a subs tanti al r isk

of se ri ous harm

to inm at es . Mars h v. Bu tle r Co unty , A la
. , 268 F. 3d 1 014, 102 7 ( 11 Ci r. 200 1)
. A s w e ha ve e xpl ai ne d, F ar m er v. Br en nan, 114 th S. Ct. 1970 , 1977; 198 2-83 (1994 ), sets out ob j ective and subjec tive elem ents that
m ust be sho w n to e sta

bli sh an E igh th A m en dm en t vi olatio n. About the obj ec tiv e el em en ts, apr iso ne r m

ust f ir st s howthat an ob

j ec tiv el y sub stanti al r isk

of se ri ous harm e xis te d; and o nc e it is s how n th at an of fi ci al is aw ar e of

thi s ob j ec tiv el y subs tanti al r isk , the of

fi ci al m ust r es pond to thi s r isk

in anobj ec tiv el y
unr ea sona

ble m an ne r. S ee Mars h, 268 F
. 3d at 10 28- 29. About the sub j ec tiv e el em en ts, “ the of

fi ci al m ust both be aw ar e of

f ac ts f ro m w hic h th e inf

er en ce c oul d be dr awn th at

asub stanti al r isk

of se ri ous harm

e xis ts, and h e m

ust a lso dr awtheDe fe n d an t s ar gu e th atth e r e c o r d s h o w s th atJo h nD o e g av e i n c o n s i s t e n ta c c o un t s o f h is 3 encounte rs wit h Tuft and some of these acc ounts indicated that John Doe acc eded to Tuf t’s persistent re qu e sts fo r s e xua l f

avo rs in e xch ang e fo r c ig ars . A t th is s ta g e in t he pr oc e e din g s, we a c c e pt a ll well-plea ded fac tual alleg ations (with rea sonable infe renc es dra wn there from) in Plaintiff’s fa vor.
7 inf er en ce . ” F ar

m er , 114 S
. Ct
. a t 19 79. A s F ar m er e xpl ai ns, “ [t ] he E igh th A m en dm en t do es not

out lawc ru el and unusu al ‘ co ndi tio ns’ ; i t ou tlaw s c ru el and
unus ua l ‘ puni shm en ts. ’ ” Id
. F ai lur e to p ro te ct f ro m an ob j ec tiv el y sig nif ic an t r isk that sh oul d have be en- - but w as not - - pe rc ei ve d, is no i nf

lic tio n of pun ish m en t unde r the E igh th A m en dm en t. I d. S o, to showan E igh th A m en dm en t
co nst itu tio na l vi olatio n, the sum m ar y j udgm en t e vid en ce , vie w ed in the li ght

m ost favor ab le to Pl ai nti ff

, m ust sho w( i) f

ac ts p re se nti ng an ob

j ec tiv el y sub stanti al r isk to i nm at es and aw ar en es s of the se f ac ts o n th e part

of the of fi ci al s c harg ed

w ith de lib er at e ind if

fe re nc e; ( ii) that the of

fi ci al s dr ewthe sub

j ec tiv e inf

er en ce f ro m known f ac ts tha t a sub stanti al r isk

of se ri ous harm

e xis te d; and ( iii ) that the of fic ia ls res po nd edin an ob jecti ve ly unr eas on ab le m an ne r. W e ha ve som e doub t tha t on e unc or ro bor at ed and d isp ute d a lle ga tio n of sexual assault su pports th e conclusion that prisoners wer e exposed to an obj ec tiv el y

sub stanti al r isk

of se ri ous harm . Whe n P la int if f w as a ssa

ult ed by T uf t, the se of fi ci al s kn ewonl y

that T uf t ha d be ena cc use d of

se xua lly a ssa ult ing inm at e John Doe and that Tuft denied the allegations. T uft had never before been 3Plaintiff argues t hat GDOC policy and procedure require d remova l of a gua rd ac cused of

sexual 4 misconduct from c ont act with the inmate population. But eve n if Plaintiff cites cor rec tly GDOC po lic y -- a po int dis pute d by De fe nd ants -- “ fa ilure to f oll owpr oc e dure s d oe s n ot, by its e lf , r ise to the level of

deliberate indiffer ence beca use doingso is at most a fo rm o f n eglig ence .” Ta ylor v. Adams, 221 F .3d 1254, 1259 (11 Cir. 2000). th 8 ac cu se d of

suc h m isc ondu ct . A s w e ha ve sa id, “ [t ] he kno w n r isk of inj ur y m ust be a strong likelih ood, rather than a m ere poss ibilitybefore a guard’ s failure to ac t
can c onst itu te de lib er at e ind if fe re nc e. ” Br ow n v. H ughe s, 894 F
. 2d 1 533, 153 7 (1 1 Cir . 19 90 ) (ci ta ti on s an d i nt ern al qu ot at io ns om it te d)
. th But even if w e acc ept for sum m ary j udgm ent purpos es that the record supp orte d an ob

j ec tiv el y sub stanti al r isk

of se ri ous harm , and e ve n a ssu m ing argu en do that the officials drewthe requisite inference s -- which they deny -- fr om kno w n f ac ts, no E igh th A m en dm en t c onst itu tio na l vi olatio n is sho w n un le ss the official’ s response was obj ectively unreasonable. T he district court concluded that the of

fi ci al s r es pons e -- r ep ortin g Jo hn D oe ’ s a lle ga tio ns t o r es pe ct ive superiors and the comm encem ent of an investigatio n by GD OC’ s Internal Investigatio n Division -- wa s an objec tively unreasonable response to th e danger p o s ed . B u tt o re ac h th i s co n cl u s i o n , o n e h as t o ac ce p tth e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s unde rl y ing pr em ise : no r es pons e to J ohn D oe ’ s a lle ga tio ns w oul d be r ea sona ble unl es s it div es te d T uf

t of his guard dut ie s. W e cannot

a cc ep t this pr em ise ; t o do 4 so would em

power any

prisoner at any

tim e to dictate prison staffing. Pe nolo gical9

int er es ts m

ust f ac tor int o th e ca lc ulu s of

r ea sona ble r es pons es . S ee Ch an dle r v. Cr osby , 379 F
. 3d 1 278, 129 0 ( 11 Ci r. 200 4) ( “ A s j udge s, w e la ck c ar te blanc he th to i m pose our ow n th eo ri es of

pe nol ogy on the na tio n’ s pr iso ns. ” (I nte rn al c itatio n
an d qu otatio n om itt ed
. ))
. I t i s tr ue , in hin dsi ght , that T uf

t’ s r em ova l a t the f

ir st sugg es tio n of

m isc ondu ct

li ke ly w oul d have pr ev en te d th e as sault P la int if f al le ge s; but “ [w ] e w ill not allo w the a dvantage of hind sight to determ ine whether
co ndi tio ns o f co nf

ine m en t am ount ed

to ‘ cr ue l and unusu al ’ pun ish m en t. ” P ur ce ll ex rel. Estate of Morgan v. T oom bs Coun ty , G A, 400 F.3d 1313 , 1320 (11 Cir. th 20 05 ). T he dis tr ic t c ourt di sm iss ed the a de qua cy

of the inv es tig at or

y pr oc es s be ca use , w ith out

a ddi tio na l a ff

irm at ive m ea sur es to en sur e sa fe ty , the pos sib ili ty of an ot he r at ta ckby a po ss ib ly pred at ory gu ardlo om edpe nd in g t he in ve st ig at io n. W e thi nk the dis tr ic t c ourt m isa ppr eh en de d th e de lib er at e ind if fe re nc e standard ;
w e cannot

c onc lud e that the im

m ed ia te c om

m en ce m en t of

an in ve sti ga tor

y pr oc es s int o un subs tanti at ed

and c ont es te d a cc usatio ns c onst itu te d an in dif fe re nt and obj ec tiv el y

unr ea sona

ble r es pons e to J ohn D oe ’ s c la im s.10

Be ca use w e co nc lud e that P la int if f fa ile d to sho wac onst itu tio na l vi olatio n,
w e ne ed not pr oc ee d f

urthe r to c onsi de r the appl ic ab ili ty of the de fe nse of qu a l i f i e di mm un i t y. REVERSED.