A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a 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. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he 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, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue c o n s is te n t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### O c t ob e r 1, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT
RO NAL D M UR RA Y,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. E D W A R D S C O U N T Y S H E R IF F ’S DEPA RTM ENT; KEN SCHM I DT; BR YANT KUR T H; J UL I E L ONG; KENNET H DU P REE ; M ARK FRAM E, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 3376 ( D . C . N o . 0 4 - C V - 1 2 9 8 - J T M) 453 F. Supp. 2d 1280 ( D . K an. 2006)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T *
B efor e HA RTZ , EBEL , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es.

R o n ald M u rrayap p ea ls pro se f rom the d istri ct co u rt ’s gra n t of su m m ary ju d g m e n t in fa v o r o f

d e fe n d a n ts o n a ll o f

h is c laim s u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 . H is cl ai m s r el at e t o hi s confi nementi n the Edw ar ds C ountyJ ai l ( “J ai l ”) as a pr etr i al-2-

d e t a i n e e fo ra p e r i o d o f a p p r o x i ma t e l y1 1 mo n th s b e g i n n i n g i n J u l y2 0 0 3 . He soug ht dam ages fo r num erous al l eged viol at i on s of his con st i tuti on al ri gh t s, i ncl udi ng t he fol l ow i ng: ( 1) t he J ai l w as poor l yvent i l at ed, notadequa t el ycool ed orheat ed, uns ani t ary , and i ns ect - i nfes t ed; ( 2) l i ght s out s i de of the ce l l s r emai ned i l l um i nat ed 24 hour s a day ; ( 3) he w as notpr ovi ded w i th appr opr i at e cl othi ng and a means t o w as h hi s cl ot hi ng; ( 4) he w as deni ed al l out - of- cel l exer ci s e or r ecr eat i on; ( 5) he w as notpr ovi ded ade quat e medi cal , dent al orps y chol ogi cal car e; ( 6) he w as deni ed vi s i t at i on w i th fr i ends ; ( 7) hi s non- l egal m ai l w as s c r e e n e d o rb l o c k e d ; ( 8 ) h e w a s n o ta l l o w e d p h ys i c a l a c c e s s t o th e l a w l i b r a ry; ( 9) t he phone s y s t em att he J ai l w as i nadequa t e; and ( 10) he w as pr ohi bi t ed fr om f re e ly p ra c tic in g h is c h o s e n re lig io n . M r. M u rr a ya n d d e fe n d a n ts file d c ro s s -m o tio n s fo r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. T he di s t r i ctcourtgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof defendant s and M r . M u r r a yfi l e d a t i me l ya p p e a l . F o rth e r e a s o n s s e tfo r th b e l o w, we AFF I RM . I . Standard of

R eview “W e r evi ew a di s t r i ctcourt ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entde novo, vi ew i ng al l t he evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the nonmovi ng party . ” B ar ney v . P uls i pher , 1 4 3 F .3 d 1 2 9 9 , 1 3 0 6 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). S u m m a ryju d g m e n t is appr opr i at e “i f the pl eadi ngs , depos i t i ons , ans w er s t o i nt err ogat or i es , and admi s s i ons on fi l e, t ogetherw i t h the affi davi t s , i f any , s how thatther e i s no-3-

g e n u in e iss u e a s to a n ym a ter ial fa c t an d th a t th e m o v in g p a rtyis e n tit led to jud g m en t as a m att er o f law . ” F ed . R . C iv. P. 56 (c). T h e m o v in g p a rtyd o e s n o t h a v e to n e g a te th e n o n m o v a n t’s c laim s in or dert o obt ai n s um m aryj udgm ent . T he movantonl ybear s the i ni t i al b u rde n o f sh o w ing

– that is po inti n g o u t t o the d istri ct co u rt

– that there is an ab sen ce o f e v iden ce to su p p o rtthe n o n m o v ing p arty ’s ca se. If t he m ov ant carri es this i nit i al bu rden, the n on -m ov ant m ayno tres t upon i t s pl eadi ngs , butm us ts etfor th s peci fi c fa ct s s how i ng a g e n u in e iss u e fo r tria l as to th o se d isp o sitiv e m a tters fo r w h ich it carr i es t he bur den of pr oof. B ar ney , 1 4 3 F . 3 d at 13 0 7 (qu o tat ion s, cit ati o n s an d alt era ti o n s o m itted). I I . Phys i c alInj ur

y Requir e m e nt T h e d istric t co u rt’s first b a sis fo r g ra n tin g su m m a ryju d g m e n t to d e fe n d a n ts i s t hatM r . M ur r ayfai l ed t o m ake a nycl ai m of i nj uryotherthan as s er t i ons of me n t a l a n d e mo t i o n a l d i s t r e s s . Th e r e fo r e , th e c o u r tc o n c l u d e d , h i s § 1 9 8 3 c l a i ms w er e barr ed byt he Pr i s on L i t i gat i on R eform A ct , 42 U . S. C . § 1997e( e) , w hi ch pr ovi des : “N o Feder al ci vi l act i on m aybe br oughtbya pr i s onerconfi ned i n a j ai l , pr i s on, orot hercorr ect i onal fac i l i ty , form ent al oremot i onal i nj ur ys uffe r ed w hi l e i n cus t odyw i t houta pr i ors how i ng of phy s i cal i nj ury . ” M r . M urr aydoes no tdis pu t e t hat he seeks t o recov er dam ages fo r em oti on al or m ental i njuryas a re su lt o f th e a lleg e d c o n stitu tio n a l v io latio n s. B u t h e a rg u e s th a t § 1 9 9 7 e (e ) is a m b ig u o u s a n d sh o u ld n o t b e in terp re ted to re q u ire a p h y sic a l inju ryif th e c laim al l eges a cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on w hi ch r ar el yr es ul t s i n phy s i cal i nj ur y , s uch as hi s cl ai m s undert he Fi r s t , Si xt h, and Four t eenth A m endment s . A s M r . M urr ay-4-

acknow l edges , how ever , t hi s cour thas al r eadyhel d that“[t ] he pl ai n l anguage of th e sta tu te d o e s n o t p e rm it alte ra tio n o f its c lea r d a m a g e s re stric tio n s o n th e b a sis of the under l y i ng r i ght s bei ng as s er t ed. ” Sear l es v. Van B ebber , 251 F. 3d 869, 876 ( 10t h C i r . 2001) . I n Sear l es w e r ej ect ed the cont ent i on that§ 1997e( e) s houl d notbe cons t rued t o r equi r e the s how i ng of a phy s i cal i nj ur yi n a cl ai m for vi ol at i on of the Fi r s tA m endmentr i ghtt o fr ee e xer ci s e of r el i gi on. W e conc l uded t hat“[t ] he s t atut e l i m i t s t he r emedi es avai l abl e, r egar dl es s of the r i ght s as s er t ed, i f the onl yi nj ur i es ar e ment al oremot i onal . ” Id. M r. M u rr a ya rg u e s in th e a lte rn a tiv e th a t h e d id a lle g e p h y s ic a l inju ri e s . W hen as ked athi s depos i t i on t o s peci fyeveryphy s i cal i nj ur yhe had s us t ai ned w hil e att he Jai l , he tes t i fi ed as fo l l ow s: D e fe n d a n ts’ C o u n se l: A n yso rt o f p h y sic a l im p a irm e n t, m u sc le atr ophy , bone det er i or at i on, anythi ng l i ke th a t? M r. M u rra y : N o t th a t I k n o w o f. Y o u k n o w , I’m n o t a m edi cal expertoranythi ng. D efe ndant s ’ C ouns el : W el l , butdi d y ou not i ce a ny condi t i ons –change of condi t i ons i n y our p h ys i c a l c o n d i t i o n d u r i n g E d w a r d s C o u n ty? M r. M u rra y : W e ll, I lo st w e ig h t. D e fe n d a n ts’ C o u n se l: A sid e f ro m lo sin g w e ig h t? M r . M u r r a y : Th a t ’ s – s e v e r a l t i me s I g u e s s I h a d p r o b l e ms s l eepi ng s om et i m es . H eada ches everynow and then. T hos e mi ghtj us tbe typi cal ai l m ents .M r. M u rra yd o e s n o t ar g u e o n a p p e a l th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in 1 reachi ng t his con cl usi on regar ding l ack o f evidence o f his al l eged w ei gh tl oss. -5- R . , V ol. II , D oc. 19 1, E xh i bit2 at 67-8. T he d i stri ctcou rtcon cl ud ed thathis o n ly c laim o f p h y sic a l inju ryw a s h is a lleg e d w e ig h t lo ss a s a re su lt o f h is in a b ili tyto exer ci s e out s i de of hi s cel l . T he courthel d, how ever , thatthe uncontr overt ed evi dence s how ed thathe w ei ghed the s ame am ountw hen he e nt er ed and l eftthe Ja il. 1 M r . M ur r aycont ends on appea l t hathe s uffe r ed otherphy s i cal i nj ur i es in c lu d in g “ h e a d a c h e s, m u sc le s o re n e ss a n d p a in s.” A p lt. B r. at 1 8 . N o w h e re in t he exc hange quot ed above , noranyw her e el s e i n hi s depos i t i on, di d he ment i on m us cl e s or enes s r es ul t i ng fr om t he condi t i ons of hi s confi nementi n the J ai l . Y et he s ubs equent l yfi l ed a c ont r adi ct or yaff i davi ts uppor t i ng hi s s um m aryj udgm ent m ot i on, i n w hi ch he c om pl ai ned of pe r i odi c s or e and a chi ng m us cl es . H e di d not e x p lain in h is a ffid a v it w h yh e fa iled to tes tifya b o u t so re m u sc les a t h is d e p o sitio n . N o r d id h e a ttem p t to c lar if yh is p rio r te stim o n yo r c laim th a t h is aff i davi tw as bas ed on new l y - di s cover ed evi dence . T her efor e, w e hol d that M r . M ur r ay ’ s aff

i davi tfai l s t o cr eat e a mat er i al di s put ed fa ctr egar di ng w hether he s uffe r ed muscl e s or enes s as a r es ul tof the condi t i ons of hi s det ai nm enti n t he J a il. S e e Fr a n ks v . Ni mmo , 7 9 6 F .2 d 1 2 3 0 , 1 2 3 7 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 8 6 ) (“ [ T ]h e u til ity of s um m aryj udgm entas a pr ocedur e fors cr eeni ng outs ham facti s s ues w oul d beT he di s t r i ctcour tgener al l ycr i t i ci zed much of M r . M ur r ay ’ s evi dence 2 a ttem p tin g to c o n tro v e rt d e fe n d a n ts’ fa c ts, b u t d id n o t m a k e a n ysp e c ific evi dent i aryrul i ngs excl udi ng part i cul arevi dence . N onethel es s , i ti s cl eart hatt he d istri ct co u rtd isr eg ard ed h is cl aim o f m u scle so ren ess. M o reo v er, w e m ayaffirm on anygr ound i f the r ecor d i s s uffi ci entt o perm i tconcl us i ons of l aw , even g ro u n d s n o t r e lie d u p o n b yth e d is tr ic t c o u rt . See B el lv. B d. of C ou nty C om m ’rs o f Je fferso n C o u n ty , 4 5 1 F . 3 d 1 0 9 7 , 1 1 0 2 n . 5 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). M r . M ur r ayt es t i fi ed as fol l ow s r egar di ng hi s t ooth pai n: 3 D efen d an ts’ co u n sel: A n d w h at w ere the s ym p tom s y o u w ere havi ng w i th the cr acke d t eeth? M r . M ur r ay : W el l , w hen I w oul d eatfood I w oul d get pai n per i odi cal l yfr om chew i ng dow n, and I m ean, i tw asn’tcon st ant. Itw as j ust p e rio d ic. B u t th e o th e r o n e , the to o th c ra c k e d a ll th e w a yto th e g u m , an d , in fa c t, I ended up pul l i ng a pi ece of i toff beca us e . . . i tw as bother i ng m e, and they w er en’ tbr i ngi ng m e t o the dent i s t , s o I w entahea d and pul l ed w hatpi ece I coul d. R . , V ol . I I . , D oc. 191, E xhi bi t2 at50. -6- gr eat l yunderm i ned i f a pa r t ycoul d cr eat e an i s s ue of factm er el ybys ubm i t t i ng an affid av itco n tr ad ict ing h is ow n p ri o r t esti m o n y . ”). 2 M r. M u rra yd id tes tifyin h is d e p o sitio n th a t h e e x p e rie n c e d p e rio d ic h ea d ac h es w h il e in th e Ja il , an d in h is affidav itin su p p o rto f h is sum m ary j udgm entm ot i on he att r i but ed hi s heada ches t o a l ack of s l eep due t o the c o n tin u o u s illu m in a tio n o f th e c e lls. H e a lso tes tifie d re g a rd in g p e rio d ic p a in r es ul t i ng fr om defe ndant s ’ fai l ur e t o pr ovi de hi m dent al car e fort w o br oken teeth. F o r th e p u rpo se o f th is ap p ea l, w e w il l assu m e tha t M r. M u rray ’s

3I n Sear l es w e hel d t hat , even i n the abs ence of a s how i ng of phy s i cal 4 injury , § 1 9 9 7 e(e ) do es n o t bar rec o v eryo f n o m inal o r pu n it ive d am ag es fo r a cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on. 251 F. 2d at879, 881. B utM r . M ur r aydoes notcont end on appea l t hatt he di s t r i ctcour terr ed i n gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entw her e he s o u g h t th a t r e lie f. H e th e re fo re h a s w a iv e d th a t a rg u m e n t o n a p p e a l. S e e S ta te Far m F i r e & C as . C o. v. Mhoon , 31 F. 3d 979, 984 n. 7 ( 10th C i r . 1994) ( hol di ng that issue n o t r aised in o p en ing ap p ell ate b ri ef w as w aive d ). I n i t s anal y s i s of the mer i t s of M r . M urr ay ’ s var i ous cl ai m s , t he di s tr i ct 5 cour tdi d notdi r ect l yaddr es s hi s cl ai m s r egar di ng cel l i l l um i nat i on and deni al of d e n tal c a re . B u t ag a in , w e m a ya ffirm o n a n yg ro u n d if th e re c o rd is s u fficie n t to p e rm it co n c lu sio n s o f law , ev e n g ro u n d s n o t re lied u p o n b yth e d istric t co u rt.

-7- h e a d a c h e s a n d to o th p a in a re “ p h y sic a l inju rie s” su fficie n t to p e rm it h im to r e c o v e rd a ma g e s fo rme n t a l o re mo t i o n a l i nj u ryu n d e r§ 1 9 9 7 e ( e ) o n h i s c l a i ms r el at ed t o cel l i l l um i nat i on and deni al of dent al car e. M r. M u rra yd o e s n o t ar g u e th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d b yfa ili n g to c o n s id e r a n yo th e r p h y s ic a l inju ri e s re s u ltin g f ro m a n yo f

h is o th e r c la im s . Th e r e fo r e , we a ffi r m th e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s g r a n to f s u mma ryj u d g me n to n a l l c l a i ms notr el at ed t o cel l i l l um i nat i on ordent al car e, bas ed on hi s fai l ur e t o s how any p h y sical i njuryas re q u ir ed b y§ 1 9 9 7 e(e ). 4 II I. R e m a in in gCla im s 5 T he condi t i ons of conf i nementm aynotamount t o puni s hm entof a pr etr i al d e ta in e e . B el lv. Wolf ish , 441 U . S. 520, 535 ( 1979) . B ut“j ai l condi t i ons m aybe r es t r i ct i ve and e ven har s h w i t houtvi ol at i ng cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . ” Ledbet t erv. C i t y of Topeka , 318 F. 3d 1183, 1188 ( 10th C i r . 2003) (qu o tat ion o m itted). A l t ho ug h, as a pretri al detai nee, M r. M urr ayw as prot ect ed b yt he D ue P rocess-8-

C laus e o f th e F o u rt ee n th A m en d m en t, in d eterm ining w h ethe r his ri g h ts w ere v io late d w e a p p lyth e sa m e a n a ly sis a s a p p lied in § 1 9 8 3 c laim s a lleg in g E ig h th A m e n d m e n t v io la tio n s . See i d. “ T h e tes t fo r a ‘d e lib e ra te in d iffe re n c e ’ c laim undert he Ei ght h A m endmenthas both an obj ect i ve and a s ubj ect i ve component . ” K iku m u ra v . O sa g ie , 4 6 1 F .3 d 1 2 6 9 , 1 2 9 1 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). I n or dert o s at i s fyt he obj ect i ve component , M r . M urr ayw as r equi r ed t o s how t hat he s uffe r ed harm “s uffi ci ent l ys er i ous t o i m pl i cat e the C ruel and U nus ual Puni s hm entC l aus e. ” Id. ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . T o s at i s fythe s ubj ect i ve component , he nee ded t o es t abl i s h thatdefe ndant s “kn[e w ] of and di s r egar d[ed] an exc es s i ve r i s k t o [hi s ] heal t h ors afe ty . ” Id. (qu o tat ion o m itted). U n d er the o bjecti v e “ su ffici en tl yseriou s” c o m p o n en t, “a p ri so n o ffici al’s ac t or o m issi o n m u st r esu ltin the d en ial o f th e m inim al civil ized m ea su re o f li fe ’s nece s s i t i es . ” Far m erv. B r ennan , 5 1 1 U .S . 8 2 5 , 8 3 4 (1 9 9 4 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). M r . M ur r aym us ts how t hathe w as det ai ned “unde rcondi t i ons pos i ng a s u b s ta n tia l r is k o f

s e ri o u s h a rm ” to h is h e a lth o r s a fe ty. Id. T he purpos e of the

“ su fficie n tlyse rio u s” re q u ire m e n t “is to lim it cla im s to sig n ifica n t, as o p p o se d to t r i vi al , s uffe r i ng. C ons equent l y , w e l ook t o the al l eged i nj ur ycl ai m ed bythe pr i s oner , and as k w hethert hatharm i s s uffi ci ent l ys er i ous . ” K i kum ura , 461 F. 3d at 12 9 2 (qu o tat ion s an d cit ati o n o m itted). U n d er this objecti v e p ron g , the c o u rt e x a m in e s th e h a rm id e n tifie d b yth e p riso n e r to d e ter m in e if it w a s s u fficie n tly-9-

s e ri o u s , w ith o u t r e g a rd to c a u s a tio n o r t h e s u bje c tiv e p ro n g . Ma ta v . Sa iz , 4 2 7 F . 3 d 7 4 5 , 7 5 3 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). T he s ubj ect i ve pr ong of the del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence t es tr equi r es the pl ai nt i ff t o pr es entevi dence of the pr i s on offi ci al ’ s cul pabl e s t at e of m i nd. T he s ubj ect i ve componenti s s at i s fi ed i f the off i ci al know s of and di s r egar ds an exc es s i ve r i s k t o i nm at e hea l th ors afe ty ; the o fficia l m u st b o th b e a w a re o f fa c ts f ro m w h ich th e in fe re n c e c o u ld be d raw n thata subst anti al ri sk of seri ou s harm exis t s, and he m ust al s o dr aw t he i nfer ence . Id. a t 7 5 1 (q u o ta tio n , c ita tio n , a n d a lte ra tio n o m itte d ). A . CellIllum inati on M r . M ur r aychal l enges t he J ai l ’ s pr act i ce of l eavi ng cert ai n l i ght s on 2 4 h o u rs a d ayas a n u n co n sti tuti o n al de p ri v ati o n o f h is ba sic ri g h t t o sleep . In o rde r t o p rev ail o n this clai m , h e m u st prese n t evid en ce that h e su ffere d a h arm

“‘ s uffi ci ent l ys er i ous ’ t o i m pl i cat e the C ruel and U nus ual Puni s hm entC l aus e. ” K i kum ura , 461 F. 3d at1291 ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . H e mustal s o pr oduce e vi dence t hatdefe ndant s caus ed the harm “w i th the r equi s i t e cul pabl e s t at e of mi nd. ” Ma ta , 427 F. 3d at753. H e musts how thatthey“kn[e w ] of and di s r egar d[ed] an exce s s i ve r i s k t o [hi s ] heal t h ors afe ty . ” Id. at751. H e cl ai m s that l i gh t s outs i de o f t he cell s, con si st i ng of fou r 75-w at tbu l bs, r emai ned on cont i nuous l y . A l t hough the l i ght s w er e tw o t o thr ee feetaw ayfr om th e c e lls, the yill u m in a ted in sid e th e c e lls, an d th e lig h ts w e re b rig h t en o u g h to so m eti m es d istu rb h is sl ee p , resu lt ing in h ea d ac h es w h ich h e e x p erien ce d “e v ery now and then. ” R . , V ol . I I , D oc. 191, E x. 2 at68. A ccor di ng t o M r . M urr ay , the-10-

l i ght i ng al s o “ca us ed otherps y chol ogi cal effect s , s uch as depr es s i on. ” Id. , E x . 1 at7. H e cl ai m s t hathe and otheri nm at es as ked thatthe l i ght s be tur ned off, but t hatt hei rr eques t s w er e r efus ed. I ns t ead, he and otheri nm at es att empt ed t o bl ock t he li gh t s w i t h tow el s. W e h av e h eld th at co n ti n u o u s li g h ti n g w ith in a c ell d u ri n g a sh o rt -t erm per i od of s ol i t aryconfi nement , al ong w i th otherr es tr i ct i ons , di d notamount t o a c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n . See G regory v. W yse , 5 1 2 F . 2 d 3 7 8 , 3 8 2 (10 th C ir . 1 9 7 5 ). M r. M u rra yc o n ten d s th a t o th e r c o u rts h a v e h e ld th a t su bjec tin g a n in m a te t o cont i nuous l i ght i ng i n a ce l l fora l ongerper i od of t i m e mayamount t o an E ig h th A m e n d m e n t v io la tio n . S e e , e.g ., Ke e n a n v . Ha ll , 83 F. 3d 1083, 1090- 91 (9 th C ir. 1 9 9 6 ) (h o ld in g in m a te p ro d u c e d su ff icie n t ev id e n c e o n lig h tin g c laim to a v o id s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t) , am ended by 135 F. 3d 1318 ( 9th C i r . 1998) . B utthe pl ai nt i ff i n Keenan al l eged thatas a r es ul tof the cont i nuous l i ght i ng he “ha d no w ayof t el l i ng ni ghtorday ” and s uffe r ed “gr ave s l eepi ng pr obl ems. ” Id. at1091 (qu o tat ion s o m itted). I n contr as t , M r . M ur r ayfai l ed t o pr oduce e vi dence of a s uffi ci ent l ys er i ous inju ryc a u se d b yth e c o n tin u o u s lig h tin g in h is c e ll. A lth o u g h h e a ss e rts th a t h is in a b ility to s le e p a m o u n te d to a “ d e p ri v a tio n o f c o n s titu tio n a l d im e n s io n ,” K i kum ura , 4 6 1 F .3 d a t 1 2 9 2 , h is o w n tes tim o n yin d ica ted th a t th e lig h ts o n ly so m e tim e s d istu rb e d h is s lee p a n d th a t h e su ffe re d h e a d a c h e s a s a re su lt o f h is l os s of s l eep onl yeverynow and then. I n r efe rr i ng t o hi s s l eep a nd heada cheW e no t e t hat M r. M urr ayst at ed in an affi dav i tt hat he “had al ot of sl eeples s 6 n i g h t s a n d t r o u b l e s l e e p i n g , d u e t o t h e l i g h t s r e m a i n i n g o n fo r2 4 h o u r s p e rd a y, e v e ry d a yfo r m ye n tir e 1 1 m o n th d e ta in m e n t.” R ., V o l. I I, D o c . 1 9 1 , E x . 1 a t 3 . H e al s o s t at ed that“[t ] hi s cont i nuous i l l um i nat i on m ade i tverydi ffi cul tt o s l eep atnight . Itdis turbed m ysl eep an d cau sed res t l essness , t ossi ng and turni ng m ost of the ni ght . ” Id. at7. B utt hes e s t at ement s contr adi cthi s pr evi ous t es t i m ony th a t th e lig h ts o n lyso m e tim e s d istu rb e d h is s lee p . T h e re fo re , h is a ffid a v it ag a in fa ils to c re a te a m a te ri a l d is p u te d fa c t. See Franks , 796 F. 2d at1237. -11- p ro b le m s , h e e v e n in d ic a te d th a t “ [ t] h o s e m ig h t ju s t b e typ ic a l a ilm e n ts .” R ., D o c . 1 9 1 , E x h ib it 2 a t 6 8 . T h e re fo re , h e fa iled to e sta b lish th a t eith e r h is 6 sle e p in g p ro b lem s o r h is h e a d a c h e s c o n stitu ted su fficie n tlyse rio u s h a rm to s us t ai n a cl ai m undert he C ruel and U nus ual Puni s hm entC l aus e. M r . M ur r aydi d pr oduce e vi dence t hathe s uffe r ed fr om s i gni fi cant d e p re ss io n w h ile h e w a s in th e Ja il. H e sta ted th e fo llo w in g in h is a ffid a v it: T he condi t i ons of the J ai l m ade me fee l as t hough I w er e bei ng puni s hed, hum i l i at ed and de gr aded byt he J ai l empl oy ees . I w as d ep resse d m o st of

the tim e in th e Ja il . S u ch last ed m yen ti re d e tain m e n t. I fe lt d e p re ss e d m o st o f th e d a y , ev e ryd a y . I fe lt w o rth les s. In fa c t I e n ter tain e d th o u g h ts o f su icid e o r d e a th per i odi cal l yi n t he J ai l . I fel tfat i gued orhad a l os s of ene r gyal l of th e tim e . T h e Ja il w a s d u ll an d g lo o m ya n d I h a d n o p lea su re in [ a ]n ya c tiv ityin th e Ja il. I p re ttym u c h h a d a lo ss o f in ter e st in e v e ry th in g , es p e c iallylife in g e n e ra l. R . , V ol . I I , D oc. 191, E x. 1 at3. B utw hi l e he mayhave pr es ent ed evi dence of a su fficie n tlyse rio u s h a rm w ith re sp e c t to h is d e p re ss io n , h e fa iled to sh o w th a t it w as caus edb yth e c o n tin u o u s illu m in a tio n o f h is c e ll. S e e Ma ta , 427 F. 3d at753 ( not i ng caus at i on r equi r ement ) . H e pr oduced no e vi dence t hatt he l i ght i ng, w hi ch onl ys om et i m es di s turbed hi s s l eep orgave hi m heada ches , caus ed hi m t o s uffe r-12-

t he s ever e depr es s i on t hathe al l eged. I n fac t , he ci t ed numer ous othercondi t i ons and r es t r i ct i ons as caus i ng orexac erbat i ng hi s depr es s i on, s uch as the deni al of p s y c h o lo g ic a l tr e a tm e n t, s ee R ., V o l. II, D o c . 1 9 1 , E x . 1 a t 3
. ; th e d e n ial o f a ll out s i de orout - of- cel l exer ci s e orr ecr eat i on, deni al of vi s i t at i on pr i vi l eges , and im p ro p e r s c re e n in g a n d b lo c k in g o f h is m a il, s ee i d. , E x . 1 1 ; and the u n san it ary c e ll c o n d itio n s , s ee i d. , E x. 1 at6. N um er ous i nhum ane c ondi t i ons of confi nementm aybe ac t i onabl e i f i n combi nat i on they“pr oduce[ ] the depr i vat i on of a s i ngl e, i dent i fi abl e human need. ” Mi t chellv. Mayn ard , 80 F. 3d 1433, 1442 ( 10t h C i r . 1996) . B uti n t hi s cas e w e have al r eadyconcl uded thatM r . M urr ay cannotr ecove rforhi s m ent al oremot i onal i nj ur i es r el at ed t o anyof thes e other c laim s b e c a u se h e fa iled to p ro d u c e e v id e n c e o f a p h y sic a l inju ry . T h u s, h is fai l ur e t o s how t hathe s uffe r ed s ever e depr es s i on s peci fi cal l yas a r es ul tof the i l l u mi n a t i o n o f

h i s c e l l p r e c l u d e s h i s r e c o v e ryo n th i s c l a i m. W e conc l ude thatM r . M ur r ayhas fai l ed t o pr oduce e vi dence cr eat i ng a g e n u in e iss u e o f

m a ter ial fa c t, an d th e re fo re th e d istric t co u rt d id n o t er r in gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm enton hi s cl ai m r el at ed t o cel l i l l um i nat i on. B. D e nialof

D e ntalTr e atm e nt M r . M ur r ayal s o cont ends thathi s r eques t s fordent al car e w er e deni ed by defe nd ants , causi ng him t o suffer s uffi ci entl yser i ou s harm . A gain, he m ust pr oduce e vi dence t hathe s uffe r ed fr om an obj ect i vel ys er i ous harm caus ed by d e fe n d a n ts ’ d e lib e ra te in d iffe re n c e to h is s e ri o u s n e e d fo r d e n ta l c a re . S e e Ma ta ,M r. M u rra ye x p lain e d th a t th e in tak e p ro c e ss fo r K -D O C w a s in ten d e d o n ly 7 t o eval uat e anym edi cal needs and thatt r eatm entcame s ever al m onths l at erw hen (c o n tin u e d ...) -13- 427 F. 3d at752- 54. A l t hough M r . M urr aypr es ent s a s uper fi ci al l yper s uas i ve t h e o r y , a r e v i e w o f

t h e e v i d e n c e h e p r e s e n t e d d o e s n o ts u p p o r th i s c l a i m. H e tes tifie d th a t w ith in th e first fe w m o n th s o f h is d e tain m e n t in th e Ja il, w h ich b e g a n in Ju ly2 0 0 3 , h e c ra c k e d tw o tee th w h ile e a tin g . H e sta ted th a t h is t oot h pai n w as notcons t ant , butthathe per i odi cal l yexper i ence d s ever e, s hoot i ng pai n w hen he a t e. H e s ay s t hathe ende d up pul l i ng outs om e of one of the br oken t eeth hi m s el f, i n or dert o al l evi at e the pai n. H e t es t i fi ed thathe as ked s ever al tim e s , in c lu d in g in w ri tin g , to s e e a d e n tis t, b u t th a t h is re q u e s ts w e re re f u s e d . D e fe n d a n ts d e n yth a t M r. M u rra ye v e r a sk e d fo r d e n tal c a re fo r a n yre a so n w h ile h e w a s in th e Ja il, b u t w e m u st v iew 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 hi m . B uteven w hen r evi ew ed i n thatl i ght , w e fi nd no evi dence r egar di ng the n ature o f h is r eq u ests fo r de n tal tr ea tm en t w h il e in th e Ja il o r t o w h o m theyw ere m ade. S u b se q u e n t to h is d e tain m e n t in th e Ja il, M r. M u rra yw a s in c a rc e ra ted in th e K a n sa s D e p a rtm e n t o f C o rre c tio n s (“ K -D O C ” ) p riso n sy ste m b e g in n in g in M ay2004. H e t es t i fi ed thathe i nform ed K - D O C of hi s br oken t eeth dur i ng the i nt ake pr oces s and ther e i s evi dence i ndi cat i ng he had a dent al exam on M ay12, 2004. D efe ndant s poi ntout , how ever , thathe di d notr ece i ve tr eatm entfr om K - D O C unt i l s ever al m ont hs l at er , w hen one t ooth w as extr act ed. T he evi dence 7( . . . cont i nued) 7 he w as s entt o a r egul arpr i s on fac i l i ty . B uthe di d notpr es entanyevi dence of compl ai nt s of t oot h pai n fr om t he t i m e thathe l eftthe J ai l i n M ay2004, unt i l the en d o f S ep tem b er. -14- r efl ect s t hatM r . M ur r ays ubm i t t ed a w r i t t en medi cal r eques tt o K - D O C on S ep tem b er 3 0 , 2 0 0 4 , in w h ich h e ind icated that h is t o o th w as e ith er b rok en o r a fi l l i ng had come outand he w as exper i enci ng a s harp pai n w hen he c hew ed. T hat t oot h w as extr act ed the nextday . M r . M urr aypr oduced no e vi dence of any tre a tm e n t re c e iv e d fo r h is s e c o n d b ro k e n to o th a f ter lea v in g th e Ja il. M r . M ur r aycl ai m s t hathe s uffe r ed a s uffi ci ent l ys er i ous harm r es ul t i ng fr om defe ndant s ’ deni al of dent al car e. “The subs t ant i al harm r equi r ementm ay be s at i s fi ed byl i fel ong handi cap, perm anentl os s , orcons i der abl e pai n. ” Ma ta , 427 F. 3d at751 ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . H e ar gues thatdefe ndant s ’ deni al of dent al car e ca us ed hi m t o be i n extr eme pai n forthe dur at i on of hi s confi nementi n the Ja il an d a lso re su lted in th e lo ss o f tw o tee th . B u t h e tes tifie d th a t h is to o th p a in

“ w a sn ’t c o n sta n t. Itw a s ju st p e rio d ic.” R ., V o l. II, D o c . 1 9 1 , E x . 2 a t 5 0 ; s ee als o i d. , E x. 1 at10 ( s t at i ng pai n w as per i odi c r atherthan cons t ant ) . A nd aft er l eavi ng t he J ai l he di d nots eek de nt al car e fors ever al m or e mont hs , nordoes the re c o rd re flec t an yin ter im c o m p lain ts to K -D O C o f to o th p a in . A lth o u g h “ p a in exper i ence d w hi l e w ai t i ng fort r eatm ent ” maycons t i tut e s ubs t ant i al harm , “not everyt w i nge of pa i n s uffe r ed as a r es ul tof del ayi n m edi cal car e i s act i onabl e. ” K i kum ura , 4 6 1 F . 3 d at 12 9 2 (qu o tat ion o m itted).-15-

B utM r . M ur r aydi d t es t i fythat , aft erbei ng deni ed tr eatm ent , he s uffe r ed pai n ats om e poi ntt hatw as s ever e enough t o caus e hi m t o r emove par tof one of hi s t eeth hi m s el f, w hi ch coul d be s uffi ci entt o s how “cons i der abl e pai n. ” Ma ta , 4 2 7 F .3 d a t 7 5 1 (q u o tatio n o m itt e d ); see also K i kum ura , 461 F. 3d at1293 (h o ld in g th a t p lain tiff ’s “ to rtu ro u s” p a in re late d to life -th re a ten in g ill n e ss , as w e ll as s i gni fi cantphy s i cal i nj ur i es , s at i s fi ed s ubs t ant i al harm r equi r ement ) . A nd e v id e n c e o f

th e lo ss o f

a to o th c o u ld a lso sa tisf yth e su b sta n tial h a rm re q u ire m e n t, as a “pe r m anentl os s . ” Ma ta , 427 F. 3d at751 ( quot at i on om i t t ed)
. A gai n, M r . M ur r ayal s o m us ts how thatdefe ndant s caus ed the s ubs t ant i al harm he cl ai m s t o have s uffe r ed. I n Ma ta w e not ed, [ o ]f c o u rse , a p riso n e r m u st b e c a re f u l in se lec tin g w h a t h a rm to c laim . T h e p riso n e r m a yb e b e tter o ff c laim in g so m e in ter m e d iate harm r athert han the l as tunt ow ar d eventt o befa l l her . A ft eral l , the pr i s onerm aynotbe abl e t o pr ove thatthi s l as teventw as caus ed by anygovernm entact orort hatthe ac t orw ho caus ed the eve ntact ed w i t h t he r equi s i t e cul pabl e s t at e of mi nd. Id. at753. H er e, M r . M ur r ayfai l ed t o s uppor thi s cl ai m thatdefe ndant s ’ r efus al t o pr ovi de hi m dent al t r eatm entcaus ed th e lo s s o f th e to o th e x tr a c te d in K -D O C . Fi r s t , he pr es ent ed evi dence of onl yone “l os t ” t ooth. A nd the dent al tr eatm enthe ul t i m at el yr ece i ved w as t he extr act i on of thatt ooth i n K - D O C . H e pr oduced no evi dence t hatear l i erdent al t r eatm ent , w hi l e he w as i n the J ai l , w oul d have p re v e n te d th a t c o n s e q u e n c e a n d a llo w e d h im to a v o id re m o v a l o f h is to o th . See Seal ock v
. C ol or ado , 218 F. 3d 1205, 1210 ( 10th C i r . 2000) ( not i ng l ack of-16-

m e d ic a l e v id e n c e th a t d a m a g e to h e a rt re s u lte d f ro m d e la yin re c e iv in g c a re ). T here i s si m plyno evidence sup po rt i ng M r. M urr ay ’s assert i on that defend ants ’ deni al of dent al car e r es ul t ed i n hi m l os i ng anyt eeth. B uthe di d pr oduce e vi dence of ca us at i on w i th r es pectt o the pai n he e x p e r i e n c e d wh i c h l e d h i m t o p u l l o u tp a r to f h i s t o o th wh i l e a tth e J a i l . He i ndi cat ed thathe di d s o i n or dert o al l evi at e the pai n, aft erhe w as deni ed dent al tr e a tm e n t. See i d. a t 1 2 1 0 n .5 (h o ld in g th e re w a s s u fficie n t ev id e n c e fo r ju ryto concl ude thatdel ayi n m edi cal car e unnec es s ar i l ypr ol onged pr i s oner ’ s pai n and su ffering ). N o n ethe less, M r. M u rrayfa il ed to p rod u ce ev iden ce o f a n yd efen d an t’ s c u lp a b le s ta te o f

m in d in s u p p o rt o f

h is c la im re g a rd in g th e d e n ia l o f d e n ta l c a re . “[T] he off

i ci al m us tboth be aw ar e of fact s fr om w hi ch the i nfer ence coul d be dr aw n t hata s ubs t ant i al r i s k of s er i ous harm exi s t s , and he mustal s o dr aw the i nfer ence . ” Ma ta , 4 2 7 F . 3 d a t7 5 1 ( q u o t a t i o n a n d a l t e r a t i o n o m i t t e d ) . We addr es s ed i n Ma ta t he pr oof nec es s aryt o s at i s fythi s r equi r ement . T he pl ai nt i ff, M s . M at a, offe r ed evi dence t hr ough depos i t i on t es t i m onyand heraff i davi tthat s h e re p o rt e d s e v e re c h e s t p a in to a p ri s o n n u rs e . Id. at750, 758- 59. W e hel d that evi dence w as s uffi ci entt o avoi d s um m aryj udgm ent , not i ng: W h at i s sign ifi ca n t i s tha t th e e v iden ce p rese n ted to the d istri ct co u rt su p p o rts th e c o n c lu sio n th a t [ th e n u rse ] w a s in fa c t aw a re M s. M a ta w a s s u ffe ri n g f

ro m s e v e re c h e s t p a in s a n d re q u ir e d m e d ic a l a tte n tio n . M s. M ata p erso n all yrep o rt ed as m u ch to [ the n u rse].-17-

Id. at756. M r . M ur r ay , i n contr as t , t es t i fi ed thathe made a w r i t t en r eques tt o s ee a dent i s t , w hi ch w as deni ed. I n hi s aff i davi t , he s i m i l ar l ys ai d thathe as ked t o s ee a dent i s ts ever al t i m es , buthi s r eques t s w er e deni ed. H e al s o s ai d thathe “l odged n u m e ro u s c o m p lain ts re g a rd in g m e d ica l, de n tal a n d p sy c h o lo g ica l ca re , b u t all w er e deni ed. ” R . , V ol . I I I , D oc. 216 at3. B utM r . M urr aypr oduced no e vi dence , t hr ough hi s aff

i davi torot herw i s e, s how i ng thathe made know n t o anyof the d e fe n d a n ts th e n a tu re o f h is n e e d fo r d e n ta l tr e a tm e n t o r t h e e x te n t o f h is p a in . T h u s, h e fa iled to e sta b lish a n in fe re n c e th a t an yo f th e in d iv id u a l d e fe n d a n ts k n e w o f a n d d is re g a rd e d a n e x c e s s iv e ri s k to h is h e a lth . S e e Ma ta , 427 F. 3d at 756
. N orhas he s how n t hatE dw ar ds C ountyact ed w i th del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence b yp r o d u c i n g e v i d e n c e o f a r i s k “ s o o b v i o u s th a tth e o ffi c i a l s h o u l d h a v e k n o wn of i t . ” B ar ney , 1 4 3 F . 3 d at 13 0 7 n . 5 . T h ere fo re, M r. M u rrayfa il ed to su p p o rt h is c laim w ith e v id e n c e f ro m w h ich a ju ryc o u ld in fe r th e d e fe n d a n ts’ d e lib e ra te in d iffe re n c e . Se e Ma ta , 427 F. 3d at751. W e aga i n concl ude thatM r . M urr ayhas fai l ed t o pr oduce e vi dence cr eat i ng a g e n u in e iss u e o f

m a ter ial fa c t, an d th e re fo re th e d istric t co u rt d id n o t er r in g ra n tin g su m m a ryju d g m e n t o n h is c laim re late d to d e n ial o f d e n tal tre a tm e n t.-18- IV. D en ial of

Motion s to S trike Aff ida vits, ForPr ote c ti v e O r de randSanc ti ons W e have cons i der ed M r . M urr ay ’ s ar gum ent s of err orr egar di ng the di s tr i ct cour t ’ s deni al of hi s var i ous m ot i ons t o s tr i ke ce r t ai n aff i davi t s , hi s m ot i on for p ro tec tiv e o rd e r, an d h is m o tio n s fo r sa n c tio n s a n d fin d th e m to b e w ith o u t m e rit. V. Conclusion B e c a u se M r. M u rra yh a s fa iled to p ro d u c e e v id e n c e e sta b lish in g a d isp u te of m at er i al fac ton hi s cl ai m s r el at ed t o cel l i l l um i nat i on and deni al of dent al t reatm ent, w e affirm t he d i stri ctcou rt ’s grantof sum m aryj ud gm ent on t ho se cl ai m s . W e affi r m t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm enton al l of M r . M ur r ay ’ s ot hercl ai m s bas ed on hi s fai l ur e t o s how anyphy s i cal i nj uryas r e q u i r e d b y§ 1 9 9 7 e ( e ) . T h e j u d g me n to f t h e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti s AF F I RMED .

E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

T i m othyM . T ym kovi ch C i r cui tJ udge