FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT JANUARY 29, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 13823 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 06 -003 35 -C V -W S D -1 A N D R E W S P E A R , e t a l., P la in tif f s , R O G E R C . D A Y , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s M I L T O N E . ( B U D D Y ) N I X , J R ., G A R F I E L D H A M M O N D S , J R ., G A L E B U C K N E R , E U G E N E W A L K E R , G A R L A N D H U N T , e t a l., D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 29, 2007)2

B efo re W IL S O N , P R Y O R an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: R og erD ay , a G eorgi a s t at e pri soner procee di ng pro se, appeal s the di stri ct court ’ s di sm i ss al , pu rs uantt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 91 5A , of hi s c i vi l ri gh t s and R ac ket ee r Infl uenced and C orruptO rgani za t i on s A ct(“ R IC O ”) ac t i on s f or fa i l ure t o st at e a c la im . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a t f o llo w , w e a f

f irm in p a rt a n d r e v e r s e a n d r e m a n d in p a rt. I . Ba c k g r o und D ayw as conv i ct ed i n 1 99 0 o n charges of rape, bu rgl ary, and agg ra vat ed as saul t , w hi ch w er e c om m i tt ed i n 1 98 9. D ayw as se nt ence d t o tw o t erm s of l i fe i m pr i s onm e ntpl us 100 y e a r s , a nd i nc a r c e r a t e d i n M a c on S t a t e P r i s on. A c c or di ng t o D ay , al tho ug h h i s off ense s of c on vi ct i on di d n otm ake hi m el i gi bl e f or a s peci al bo otca m p p rogram prov i di ng expedi t ed parol e, he no nethel es s w as pl ac ed i n an S pe c i a l R e habi l i t a t i on P r ogr a m ( “ S R P ” ) bootc a m p. Y e tde s pi t e hi s pa rt i c i pa t i on i n the S R P bo otca m p, he w as deni ed parol e i n 1 99 6, atw hi ch t i m e the B oard i nform ed hi m thathe w ou l d n otbe consi dere d for parol e a gai n for ei gh tye ar s. In 2 0 0 4 , D a yw a s a g a in d e n ie d p a r o le , a n d th e B o a r d n o tif ie d h im th a t h is p a r o le w o u ld n o t b e r e c o n s id e r e d f o ra n o th e re ig h t y e a r s .Of thefiveorig inal pl aintif

fs , o nly Da y fi le d a no tic eof a pp e al. Wethere foreonly 1 c o n s i d er th ec h al l en g e d

c l ai m s a s t o D ay. 3 I n 2006, D a ya nd f

ourothe rG e or gi as t a t e pr i s one r s , a c t i ng pr o s e , f i l e d a 1 c om pl a i ntunde r18 U . S . C . § 1983 a nd R I C O , 18 U . S . C . § 1964( c ) , a ga i ns tM i l t on N i x a nd 34 othe rm e m be r s of G e or gi a ’ s S t a t e B oa r d of P a r dons a nd P a r ol e s ( “ the B oard”), the S t at e B oard of C orre ct i on s, and o ff i ci al s a tthe M ac on and H ancock s ta te p r is o n s ( c o lle c tiv e ly“D e f e n d a n ts ” ) in th e irin d iv id u a l a n d o f f ic ia l c ap a c itie s . T he c om pl a i nta l l e ge d va r i ous vi ol a t i ons of the D ue P r oc e s s C l aus e of the F ourt e e nth A m e ndm e nt , the E i ghth A m e ndm e nt , the E x P os tF a c t o C l aus e , a nd R I C O . S p e c if

ic a lly , D a ya lle g e d , in te ra lia , th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts ( 1 ) p la c e d h im in th e S R P b o o t c a m p in s te a d o f p a r o lin g h im a n d th e n d e n ie d h im p a r o le a f te rh is p a rtic ip a tio n in th e S R P ; ( 2 ) r e tr o a c tiv e lyap p lie d a n e ig h t- y e a rs e t- o f f f o rp a r o le c o n s id e r a tio n to h is p a r o le c o n s id e r a tio n ; ( 3 ) s u b je c te dh im to m u ltip le pu ni shm ent s ( thati s, hi s l i fe se nt ence s and hi s pl ac em enti n the S R P ); (4) s ubj ec t ed hi m t o the hars h con di t i on s of the S R P , i ncl ud i ng di sc i pl i naryi sol at i on , (5) a ct ed w i th d e l i b e r a t e i n d i f

f e r e n c e t o h i s me d i c a l n e e d s b yp l a c i n g h i m i n th e SRP w i thoutr e ga r d t o hi s a s thm a , a nd ( 6) r e qui r e d hi m t o pa yva r i ous m e di c a l c op aym en t s, th e co st s o f m ai n t ai n i n g h i s p ri so n m o n ey acco u n t , an d th e co sto f p en s, pape r s , a nd pos t a ge us e d f orc om m uni c a t i ng w i th the c ourt s a nd a dm i ni s tr a t i ve c op aym en t s.Be causeDay does not challeng e the dismissal of his RI CO claims, we do not consider 2 them. Allison v. McGhan Medic al Corp., 184 F.3d 1300, 1317 n.17 ( 11th Cir. 1999) (“I ssues that arenot clearly

outlined in an appellant’ s initi al brief aredeeme d abandone d.”). In the “Statement of

the I ssues Presente d for Review” se ction of his brief, D ay raises the issue of whether the district c ourt erred in conc luding that Ge org ia’s two-year statute of limitatio nsba

rshisc laims . B ut t

hedis tric t c ourt

us e d thestatuteof

limita tio nsa s a n alternate basis for dismissing Da

y ’s ex post facto claim. Thecourt did not hold that the statute of limit ations barred any

of Da y ’s other c laims. In any

event, be causeDay

failed to a

rgue the merits of this issue in the argument section of his brief , he is deemed to have a

bandoned it. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Atty . Gen., 401 F .3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005) (“When an appe llant fails to offer argument on an issue, that issue is aba ndoned.”) ; Greenbriar, Ltd. v. City of Al a ba ster, 88 1 F .2 d 1 57 0, 15 73 n. 6 ( 11 th C ir . 1 98 9)(de emingan is su ewaive d when it s o nly mention in the party ’s brief was in the statement of the ca se); Te dder v. F .M.C. Corp., 590 F.2d 115, 117 (5th Cir. 1979) (holdingan issue waived on appe al where its only mention in the appellant’ s brief w as in the statement of issues). 4 A ft erperf

orm i ng the re qu i re d scr ee ni ng un der the P ri son L i t i gat i on R ef orm A c t , 28 U . S . C . § 1915A , the di s tr i c tc ourts uas pont e di s m i s s e d the c om pl a i ntf or f a ilin g to s ta te ac la im f

o rw h ic h r e lie f

c o u ld b e g r a n te d . D a yf ile d th is ap p e a l. I I . D i s c u s s i on O n appe a l , D a yc ha l l e nge s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s di s m i s s a l of hi s c om pl a i nton the gr ounds tha tthe c ourt : ( 1) e rr e d i n c onc l udi ng tha the ha d nota c qui r e d a lib e rtyin te r e s t in p a r o le , ( 2 ) ap p lie d th e w r o n g s ta n d a r d o f r e v ie w in d is m is s in g h is ex po stfa ct o cl ai m , (3) f ai l ed t o correc t l y app l y the del i bera t e i nd i ff er ence s ta n d a r d to h is E ig h th A m e n d m e n t c la im ; a n d ( 4 ) f a ile d to g r a n t h im a n le a v e to am en d h i s co m p l ai n tb efo re d i sm i ssi n g i t . H e al so arg u es th e m eri t s o f h i s cl ai m s. 2 U n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 A , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt is r e q u ir e d to s c r e e n c iv il c o m p la in ts f

ile d b yp r is o n e r s a g a in s t g o v e rn m e n ta l o f f ic e r s o re n titie s , a n d s h a ll5

di sm i ss the com pl ai nti f i ti s f ri vo l ou s, fa i l s t o st at e acl ai m , or se eks m on et ary re l i ef fr om a def

endantw ho i s i m m un e f rom such re l i ef

. 28 U . S . C . § 1 91 5A (a ), ( b) ( 1) , ( b) ( 2) . T hi s c ourtr e vi e w s de novo the s uas pont e di s m i s s a l of ac om pl a i nt un der 28 U . S . C . § 1 91 5A . H ug hes v. L ott , 35 0 F . 3d 11 57 , 11 59 -60 (11 th C i r. 2003) . A c om pl a i ntf

a i l s t o s t a t e ac l a i m w he n “ i tappe a r s be y ond doubttha tthe p la in tif f c a n p r o v e n o s e t o f

f a c ts in s u p p o rt o f

h is c la im w h ic h w o u ld e n title h im t o rel i ef . ” F l i ntv. A B B , Inc. , 33 7 F . 3d 13 26 , 13 28 -29 (11 th C i r. 20 03 ). In s c r e e ni ng ac om pl a i ntunde r§ 1915A , the di s tr i c tc ourti s r e qui r e d t o r e vi e w the a c t i on a nd i de nt i f

yc ogni z abl e c l a i m s . S e e 28 U . S . C . § 1915A ( b) . I n doi ng s o, the courtm ustpi er ce the vei l of the com pl ai ntand exam i ne the un derl yi ng fa ctual a l l e ga t i ons . S e e N e i t z ke v. W i l l i a m s , 490 U . S . 319, 327, 109 S . C t . 1827, 1833, 104 L . E d. 2d 338 ( 1989) ( appl y i ng 28 U . S . C . § 1915( d) ) . A l l a l l e ga t i ons i n the c o m p la in t m u s t b e v ie w e d a s tru e . B r o w n v . J o h n s o n , 3 8 7 F .3 d 1 3 4 4 , 1 3 4 7 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2004) . “ P r o s e pl e a di ngs a r e he l d t o al e s s s tr i nge nts t a nda r d tha n pl e a di ngs dr a f t e d bya tt orne y s a nd w i l l , the r e f or e , be l i be r a l l yc ons true d. ” T a nne nbaum v. U n ite d S ta te s , 1 4 8 F .3 d 1 2 6 2 , 1 2 6 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) . N o n e th e le s s , f e d e r a l c o u rts ha ve di s c r e t i on t o di s m i s s pr o s e c l a i m s i f the yl a c k a r guabl e ba s i s e i the ri n f a c tor i n l a w . N i e t z ke , 490 U . S . a t324- 25, 109 S . C t . a t1831- 32. A . D u e P r o c e s s C la im6

D a ya r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d in h o ld in g th a t h e h a s n o c o g n iz ab le lib e rtyin te r e s t in p a r o le . W e d is a g r e e . E s tab lis h m e n t o f

ap a r o le s y s te m d o e s n o t au to m a tic a llyc r e a te alib e rty i n t eresti n p aro l e; “ [o ] n l y w h en a st at e m ai n t ai n s a p aro l e syst em th atcreat es a le g itim a te e x p e c ta tio n o f p a r o le d o e s it [ a ls o ] e s tab lis h alib e rtyin te r e s t in p a r o le tha ti s s ubj e c tt o the pr ot e c t i ons of the D ue P r oc e s s C l aus e . ” J one s v. R a y , 279 F . 3d 94 4, 94 6 (11 th C i r. 20 01 ). In S ul t enfuss v. S no w , thi s c ou rthel d that G eorgi a’ s par ol e s ys t em di d n otcr ea t e s uch an exp ec t at i on so thatG eorgi a i nm at es ha ve no l i be rtyi nt e r e s ti n pa r ol e . J one s , 279 F . 3d a t946 ( c i t i ng S ul t e nf us s v. S no w , 35 F . 3d 14 94 , 15 02 (11th C i r. 19 94 ) ( en banc)). A nd t o the ext entthatD ay c h a l l e n g e s th e c o n s t i tu t i o n a l i tyo f Su l t e n f u s s , h e r a i s e s th i s i s s u e f o rth e f i r s tt i me on appe a l , a nd the r e f

or e , thi s c ourtne e d notc ons i de ri t . N a r e yv. D e a n, 32 F . 3d 1521, 1526- 27 ( 11th C i r . 1994) . M or e ove r , i t“ i s w e l l - s e tt l e d tha tthe r e i s no f e de r a l c ons t i tut i ona l r i ghtt o pa r ol e . ” J one s , 279 F . 3d a t946 ( c i t i ng G r e e nhol t z v. I nm a t e s of

N e b. P e na l & C orr . C om pl e x, 442 U . S . 1, 7, 99 S . C t . 2100, 2104, 60 L . E d. 2d 66 8 (19 79 )) . In the abse nce of a l i berty i nt er es ti n p ar ol e, D ay ’ s par ol er e l a t e d c ha l l e nge s f

a i l e d t o s t a t e ac l a i m upon w hi c h r e l i e f c a n be gr a nt e d. B . E x P o s t F a c to C la im T he E x P ostF ac t o C l ause proh i bi t s s t at es fr om enac t i ng st atut es w hi ch7

“m a k e m o r e b u r d e n s o m e th e p u n is h m e n t f o rac r im e , af

teri t s c om m i ss i on . ” U n ite d S ta te s v . D e L aM a ta , 2 6 6 F .3 d 1 2 7 5 , 1 2 8 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . R e tr o a c tiv e c h a n g e s to la w s g o v e rn in g th e p a r o le o f p r is o n e r s m a y , in s om e i ns t a nc e s , vi ol a t e the E x P os tF a c t o C l aus e . G a rne rv. J one s , 529 U . S . 244, 2 5 0 , 1 2 0 S . C t . 1 3 6 2 , 1 2 6 7 , 1 4 6 L . E d . 2 d 2 3 6 (2 0 0 0 ). T o p rev ai l o n an E x P o st F act o C l au se ch al l en g e co n cern i n g ch an g es i n p aro l e p ro ced u res, a p ri so n er “ m u st s how tha ta s appl i e d t o hi s ow n s e nt e nc e the l a w c r e a t e d as i gni f i c a ntr i s k of in c r e a s in g h is p u n is h m e n t.” I d . a t 2 5 5 , 1 2 0 S .C t. a t 1 3 7 0 . I n hi s c om pl a i nt , D a ya l l e ge d tha tthe B oa r d’ s P ol i c yS t a t e m e nt4. 110, w hi ch anno un ce d an ei gh t -y ear s et -off peri od for r ec on si dera t i on of parol e f or l i fe se nt ence ca se s, w as appl i ed re troac t i vel y t o h i s par ol e c on si dera t i on . T he di stri ct c ourthe l d tha tthe e i ght - y e a rs e t - of f w a s i n f or c e a tthe t i m e of

D a y ’ s 1990 c o n v ic tio n , a n d th e r e f

o r e , th e s e t- o f

f w a s n o t r e tr o a c tiv e lyap p lie d to h is p a r o le re consi dera t i on . W e a gree . D ayw as conv i ct ed on M ar ch 5, 19 90 . A l tho ug h the pert i nentpo l i cy s ta te m e n t w a s e n a c te d in 1 9 9 6 , th e B o a r d a m e n d e d its p a r o le - c o n s id e r a tio n ru le s in 1985 t o pr ovi de f

orr e c ons i de r a t i on e ve rye i ghty e a r s . L e m l e l yv. B ow e r s , 813 F . S u p p . 8 1 4 , 8 1 6 (N . D . G a. 1 9 9 2 ); G a. C o m p . R . & R eg s. T . 4 7 5 , R efs. & A n n o s. ( not i ng the F e b. 1, 1985 a m e ndm e ntt o G a . C om p. R . & R e gs . 475- 3- . 05. a ddi ng8

para graph (2), w hi ch prov i des f or re consi dera t i on of parol e e veryei gh tye ar s) ; se e a l s o H a rr i s v. H a m m onds , 217 F . 3d 1346, 1348 ( 11th C i r . 2000) ( s t a t i ng tha tthe 1986 ve r s i on of

G a . C om p. R . & R e gs . 475- 3. 05 r e qui r e d apa r ol e - r e c ons i de r a t i on he a r i ng a tl e a s tonc e e ve rye i ghty e a r s ) . T hus , the e i ght - y e a rs e t - of f w a s not re troac t i vel y app l i ed t o D ay , and w e there fore concl ud e “ beyond do ub t ” thatD ay c a n pr ove no s e tof

f a c t s e s t abl i s hi ng a n E x P os tF a c t o C l aus e vi ol a t i on. C . E i gh th A m endm entC l ai m of D el i bera t e I nd i ff er ence T h e E i g h th A m en d m en t ’ s p ro h i b i t i o n o n “ cru el an d u n u su al p u n i sh m en t s” i m pos e s adutyon pr i s on of f i c i a l s t o pr ovi de pr i s one r s w i th “ hum a ne c ondi t i ons of c onf i ne m e nt , ” i nc l udi ng a de qua t e m e di c a l c a r e . F a rm e rv. B r e nna n, 511 U . S . 825, 832- 34, 114 S . C t . 1970, 1976- 1977, 128 L . E d. 2d 811 ( 1994) . I ti s onl ythe unne c e s s a rya nd w a nt on i nf l i c t i on of pa i n, how e ve r , tha tc ons t i tut e s c rue l a nd unus ua l puni s hm e ntf

orbi dde n bythe E i ghth A m e ndm e nt . F a rr ow v. W e s t , 320 F .3 d 1 2 3 5 , 1 2 4 2 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) ( citati o n s o m itted ). A n d a p riso n o ff icial’ s de l i be r a t e i ndi f

f e r e nc e t o a n i nm a t e ’ s s e r i ous m e di c a l ne e ds c ons t i tut e s the u n n e c e s s a rya n d w a n to n in f lic tio n o f p a in p r o s c r ib e d b yth e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t. E s te lle v . G a m b le , 4 2 9 U .S . 9 7 , 1 0 4 , 9 7 S .C t. 2 8 5 , 2 9 1 , 5 0 L .E d .2 d 2 5 1 ( 1 9 7 6 ) . B utno t“ every c l ai m by a pri soner thathe has notre ce i ved adequ at e m edi ca l tr e a tm e nts t a t e s avi ol a t i on of the E i ghth A m e ndm e nt . ” I d. M e r e i na dve rt e ntor9

n e g lig e n t f

a ilu r e to p r o v id e a d e q u a te m e d ic a l c a r e d o e s n o t c o n s titu te d e lib e r a te i ndi f f e r e nc e a nd c a nnotbe s a i d t o c ons t i tut e a n unne c e s s a rya nd w a nt on i nf l i c t i on o f p a in . M c E llig o tt v . F o le y , 1 8 2 F .3 d 1 2 4 8 , 1 2 5 4 - 5 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . T o s h o w th a t ap r is o n o f f ic ia l a c te d w ith d e lib e r a te in d if f e r e n c e to h is s e r i ous m e di c a l ne e ds , apl a i nt i f f - i nm a t e m us ts a t i s f

yboth a n obj e c t i ve a nd a s ubj e c t i ve i nqui ry . F a rr ow , 320 F . 3d a t1223 ( c i t i ng T a y l orv. A da m s , 221 F . 3d 12 54 , 12 57 (11th C i r. 20 00 )) . F i rs t , the i nm at e m ustpres ent“ evi dence of an obj e c t i ve l ys e r i ous m e di c a l ne e d, ” w hi c h, “ [ i ] n ourc i r c ui t , . . . i s c ons i de r e d one th ath as b een d i ag n o sed b y a p h ysi ci an as m an d at i n g treatm en to r o n e th ati s so o b v io u s th at ev en a lay p er so n w o u ldea sily re co g n ize th e n ec es sity fo r a d o cto r’s a tt e nt i on. ” I d. ( c i t a t i ons a nd i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks om i tt e d) . I n e i the rs i tua t i on,

“ the m e di c a l ne e d m us tbe one tha t , i f l e f tuna tt e nde d, pos e s as ubs t a nt i a l r i s k of s e r i ous ha rm . ” I d. ( c i t a t i ons a nd i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks om i tt e d) . S e c ond, the in m a te “m u s t p r o v e th a t th e p r is o n o f f ic ia l a c te d w ith a n a ttitu d e o f ‘d e lib e r a te i ndi f f e r e nc e ’ t o tha ts e r i ous m e di c a l ne e d. ” I d. ( c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . “ [ A ] pr i s on of f i c i a l c a nnotbe f

ound de l i be r a t e l yi ndi f

f e r e ntunde rthe E i ghth A m e ndm e nt

‘ unl e s s the of

f i c i a l know s of

a nd di s r e ga r ds a n e xc e s s i ve r i s k t o i nm a t e he a l th or s a f e ty ; the of

f i c i a l m us tboth be a w a r e of f a c t s f r om w hi c h the i nf

e r e nc e c oul d be dr a w n tha tas ubs t a nt i a l r i s k of s e r i ous ha rm e xi s t s , a nd he m us ta l s o dr a w the10

i nfer ence . ’ ” I d. at12 45 (quo t i ng F arm er , 51 1 U . S . at83 7, 11 4 S . C t . at19 79 ). In M c E llig o tt, th is c o u rt e x p la in e d th a t “d e lib e r a te in d if f e r e n c e h a s th r e e c o m p o n e n ts : ( 1) s ubj e c t i ve know l e dge of ar i s k of s e r i ous ha rm ; ( 2) di s r e ga r d of tha tr i s k; ( 3) by c o n d u c t th a t is m o r e th a n m e r e n e g lig e n c e .” M c E llig o tt, 1 8 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 5 5 . I n a n a f f i da vi ta c c om pa ny i ng hi s c om pl a i nt , D a ya l l e ge d tha tbe c aus e he s u f f e r s f r o m c h r o n ic m ig r a in e s , c h r o n ic a s th m a , d e g e n e r a tiv e h e rn ia te d d is c s , h is part i ci pat i on i n the S R P subj ec t ed hi m an i ncre as ed ri sk for “ heal th fai l ure, strokes and d ea th” and “ sudd en and frequentas thm a a tt ac ks. ” T he di stri ctcourthel d that D ay fai l ed t o st at e a cl ai m fo r w h i ch rel i ef co u l d b e g ran t ed u n d er § 1 9 8 3 b ecau se he di d n ot“ appear” t o h ave s uffe re d any ac tual i nj ury or e ven an agg ra vat ed c ondi t i on a s ar e s ul tof

hi s pa rt i c i pa t i on i n the S R P . I n s o hol di ng, how e ve r , the di stri ctcourtfa i l ed t o app l y the tw o-parti nq ui ryse tforth b y thi s c ou rti n cas es such as F arrow and T ay l or. S ee F arrow , 32 0 F . 3d at12 23 ; T ay l or, 22 1 F . 3d at 1 2 5 7 . N o n e th e le s s , w e a g r e e w ith th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s c o n c lu s io n th a t D a yf a ile d to s t a t e ac l a i m upon w hi c h r e l i e f c oul d be gr a nt e d. W e accep tas tru e D ay’ s al l eg at i o n s th ath e su ffers fro m ch ro n i c m i g rai n es, as thm a, degenerat i ve herni at ed di sc s, and o ther a i l m ent s, se e B row n, 38 7 F . 3d at 1 3 4 7 , an d w e assu m e, w i th o u td eci d i n g , th atth ese ai l m en t s, t o g eth er o r sep arat el y, const i tut e ase ri ou s m edi ca l cond i t i on . B utbeyond hi s c on cl usory a l l egat i on s that11

the defendant s w er e del i bera t el y i nd i ff er entt o h i s m edi ca l needs, D ayhas a l l eged no f a c t s t o s upportaf

i ndi ng tha tthe de f

e nda nt s pos s e s s e d the r e qui s i t e know l e dge o ra c te d w ith th e r e q u is ite c u lp ab ilityto s u p p o rt af in d in g o f d e lib e r a te i n d i fferen ce. F o r ex am p l e, D ay d i d n o tal l eg e th atth e d efen d an t s knew he suff er ed f r o m a s th m a , m ig r a in e s , o rh e rn ia te d d is c s , n o rd id h e a lle g e th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts kne w ( ors houl d ha ve i nf e rr e d) tha thi s pa rt i c i pa t i on i n the S R P c r e a t e d a s u b s ta n tia l r is ko f

s e r io u s h a rm to h is h e a lth . B e c au s e D a yh a s a lle g e d n o f a c ts i ndi c a t i ng tha ta nys pe c i f i c de f e nda ntw a s a w ar e of

as ubs t a nt i a l r i s k of

s e r i ous ha rm t o hi m f

r om hi s pa rt i c i pa t i on i n the S R P a nd f a i l e d t o t a ke pr ot e c t i ve m ea sure s, D ayhas f

ai l ed t o st at e acl ai m up on w hi ch re l i ef can b e grant ed. C f. M ar sh v. B ut l erC ou nty, 26 8 F . 3d 10 14 , 10 27 (11th C i r. 20 01 ) ( en banc) (o b serv i n g th at“ o ffi ci al s, t o b e l i ab l e [fo r v i o l at i n g th e E i g h th A m en d m en t ] , m u st be a w a r e of

as ubs t a nt i a l r i s k of

s e r i ous harm t o the i nm a t e s a nd nott a ke r e a s onabl e m e a s ur e s t o a l l e vi a t e tha tr i s k” ) . A c c or di ngl y , the di s tr i c tc ourtdi d not e rrin d is m is s in g D a y ’s E ig h th A m e n d m e n t c la im .

D . O pportuni tyt o A m e nd the C om pl a i nt F i nal l y, D ayar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourtshou l d h ave s ua spon t e grant ed hi m l e a ve t o a m e nd hi s c om pl a i nt . B utD a yne ve rf i l e d am ot i on t o a m e nd nor r e que s t e d l e a ve t o a m e nd be f or e the di s tr i c tc ourt . I n W a gne rv. D a e w oo H e a vy12

Indu stri es A m er i caC orp. , 31 4 F . 3d 54 1, 54 2 (11 th C i r. 20 02 ) ( en banc), thi s c ou rt hel d thata di stri ctcourtw as no tre qu i re d t o sua spon t e granta coun se led p a rty l e a ve t o a m e nd hi s c om pl a i ntw he n no m ot i on t o a m e nd w a s f i l e d. T he appl i cabi l i ty of the W agner rul e t o p ro se pl ai nt i ff s, ho w ever , re m ai ns an op en que s t i on. S e e i d. a t542 n. 1 ( “ I n thi s opi ni on, w e de c i de a nd i nt i m a t e nothi ng aboutapa rtypr oc e e di ng pr o s e . ” ) . A tl e a s tr e ga r di ng D a y ’ s e x pos tf a c t o a nd due pr oc e s s c l a i m s , w e ne e d n o t r e s o lv e th is q u e s tio n h e r e b e c au s e e v e n if w e w e r e to h o l d th atW ag n er d o es n o t e x te n d to p r o s e p la in tif f s , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt s till w o u ld ha ve pr ope r l ydi s m i s s e d D a y ’ s e x pos tf a c t o a nd due pr oc e s s c l a i m s w i thoutl e a ve t o a m e nd a s a m e ndm e ntw oul d ha ve be e n f ut i l e . S e e H a l l v. U ni t e d I ns . C o. of A m . , 367 F . 3d 1255, 1262 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( hol di ng tha t“ de ni a l of l e a ve t o a m e nd is ju s tif ie d b yf u tilityw h e n th e c o m p la in t a s a m e n d e d is s till s u b je c t to d is m is s a l” ) . A s w e c on cl ud ed abov e, there w er e no setof fa ct s upo n w hi ch D aycoul d sup po rt an ex po stfa ct o o r due process vi ol at i on . A cc ordi ng l y, the di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n fai l i ng t o g rantD ayl ea ve t o am end h i s c om pl ai ntas t o h i s due proces s and ex p o s t f a c to c la im s . A s t o D ay ’ s del i bera t e i nd i ff er ence cl ai m , ho w ever , w e c anno tsay that al l ow i ng D ayt o am end h i s c om pl ai ntw ou l d h ave been fut i l e. B ec ause thi s c ou rt h as n o t h e ld th a t W a g n e rap p lie s to p r o s e litig a n ts , o n th is p o in t a t le a s t, th e ru le13

a rtic u la te d in B a n kv . P itt, 9 2 8 F .2 d 1 1 0 8 , 1 1 1 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) , o v e rru le d , in part , by W agner, 31 4 F . 3d at54 2 (en banc), re m ai ns go od l aw . In B ank, thi s c ou rt h e ld th a t “[ w ]h e r e am o r e c a r e f u llyd r a f te d c o m p la in t m ig h t s ta te ac la im , a pl a i nt i f f m us tbe gi ve n a tl e a s tone c ha nc e t o a m e nd the c om pl a i ntbe f or e the di stri ctcourtdi sm i ss es the ac t i on w i th p re j ud i ce . ” B ank, 92 8 F . 2d at11 12 . U nd er th is s ta n d a r d , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d in d is m is s in g D a y ’s E ig h th A m e ndm e ntc l a i m of

de l i be r a t e i ndi f

f e r e nc e w i thouts uas pont e gr a nt i ng hi m l e a ve to a m e n d h is c o m p la in t. I I I . C on c l u s i on F or the foregoi ng re as on s, w e R EVER SE a nd RE MAND th e d istrict co u rt’s d i s m i s s a l o f

Day ’ s E i g h th Am e n d m e n tc l a i m f o rf u rth e rp r o c e e d i n g s , a n d we AF F I RM th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d i sm i ssal o f D ay’ s ex p o stfact o an d d u e p ro cess cl ai m s.