FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ANUARY 25, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 35 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 6 :0 9- cv -0 13 94 -PCF -DAB CAROLYN MCC REARY, as Pers on al Rep res en ta ti ve of t he Est at e o f Lor en za M cCre ary, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us BREVARD COUNTY SHERIFF J ACK PARKER, in di vi du al ly andin hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty, OFFIC ER JAM ES MOFFI TT, et al ., Defen da nt s- App el la nt s.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J an ua ry 25 , 20 12 ) ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es .PER CURI AM:

The ap pe ll an t’s m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n i s g ran te d. Th e p an el ’s pre vi ou s or de r in th is cas e is withd rawn , andth e fo ll owi ng op in io n i s s ub st itut edin it s pl ace: Brev ardCo un ty Sheri ff J ackPark er, Offi cer J am es Mo ffi tt , Offic er Larry Cu m m in gs , andGeor ge Reed(co ll ect iv el y , “ Defen da nt s” ) ap pe al th e d is tri ct co urt’s d en ia l o f th ei r m ot io n t o d is m is s o n qua li fie d i m m un it y gro un ds Caro lyn McC reary ’s (“ Pl ai nt iff

”) 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 cla im s ar is in g fr om th e d eat h o f Lore nz a Mc Crea ry

(“ McC reary ”) atth e h an ds of Do nt e Eva ns , a fel lo w in m at e in Brev ardCo un ty Jail . Inth ei r in te rlo cu to ry

ap pe al , Defen da nt s cl ai m th atPla in ti ff “ fai le d t o su ffi ci en tl y

all eg e th atth e co nd it io ns at t he Brev ardCo un ty Jail co ns ti tu te d a subs ta nt ia l ri skof s eri ou s i nju rie s, o r th atth e co nd it io ns cau se d t he att ackon ” McC reary . Defen da nt s al so arg ue th atPla in ti ff fai le d t o s ho w a cau sa l co nn ect io n be twee n P ark er’s act s an d M cCre ary’ s d eat h o r th atDefen dant s wer e actua ll y aware of t he ris k o f a s pe ci fic subs ta nt ia l h arm to McC reary . Pl ai nt iff co nt en ds th atth is co urt d oe s n otha ve juri sd ic ti on to he ar de fen da nt s’ cla im s. We di sa gr ee, b utwe affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f qu al ifi edimm

un it y . 2A di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f qu al ifi edimm un it y is animm ed ia te ly app eal ab le or de r pr ov id edth atitco nc ern s s ol el y th e p ur e le ga l d eci si on s o f whe th er “ (1 ) th e pl ai nt iff ha s al le ge d avi ol at io n o f a co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht ; an d (2 ) whe th er the rig ht was ‘ cl earl y

est ab li sh ed ’ atth e ti m e o f th e d efen da nt ’s m is co nduc t.” Re hb erg v. Pau lk , 61 1 F .3d82 8, 8 38 -3 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) . Ano th er way to lo okat i t i s t o s ay th atth is Co urt ca n p ro pe rly revi ew su ch cas es wher e th e d efen da nt s ar gu e th at“ ev enon th e p la in ti ff’s v ers io n o f th e fac ts , th e d efen da nt s ar e en ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm un it y as am at te r of

law.” M on iz v. Ci ty of Fo rt Lau de rd al e, 14 5 F .3d12 78 , 12 81 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). Becaus e o f th is ,

“ whe th er a p art ic ul ar co m pl ai ntsu ffi ci en tl y

all eg es a cl earl y

est ab li sh edvi ol at io n of law ca nn otbe de ci de d i n i so la ti on fro m th e fac ts pl ead ed . In tha t s en se th e su ffi ci en cy

of r es po nd en t’s p le ad in gs is bo th in ex tri cab ly int ert win edwit h a nd di rect ly im

pl ic at edby the qu al ifi edimm un it y de fen se .” Ash cro ft v . Iqb al , 12 9 S . Ct . 19 37 , 19 46 -4 7 (2 00 9) (qu ot at io ns an d c it at io ns om it te d) . Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 8 (a)( 2) requi res th ata pl ead in g m us t co nt ai n a“ sh ort an d p la in st at em en t o f th e cl ai m sh owi ng th atth e p le ad er i s en ti tl edto rel ie f.” Fed . R. Civ . P. 8(a )(2 ). The p le ad in g d oe s n otrequi re “ de ta il ed factua l al le ga ti on s, b utitde m an ds m or e th ananun ad orne d, th e-d efen da nt -u nl awfu ll y -h arm ed -m e acc us at io n.” Iqb al , 12 9 S . Ct. at19 49 . A 3pl ead in g t ha t u se s ju stlab el s an d c on cl us io ns or aform ul ai c rec it at io n o f th e el em en ts of acau se of a ct io n wi ll no t m eetRu le 8(a )(2 ). Id. Ra th er, t o s urvi ve a m ot io n t o d is m is s, “ a co m pl ai ntm us t co nt ai n s uf

fic ie ntfactua l m at te r, acce pt edas tru e, to st at e a cl ai m

to rel ie f th atis pl au si bl e o n i ts face . A clai m ha s fa ci al pl au si bi li ty whe n t he pl ai nt iff pl ead s fa ctua l co nt en t t ha t al lo ws t he co urt t o d raw th e rea so nabl e in fere nc e th atth e d efen da ntis li ab le forth e m is co nduc t al le ge d.” Id . (qu ot at io ns an d c it at io ns om it te d) . Qua li fie d i m

m un ity pro te ct s g ov ern m en t o ffi ci al s p erfo rm in g d is cret io na ry fu nc ti on s fr om

su it s i n t he ir i nd iv idua l capa ci ti es un le ss th ei r co nduc t v io la te s

“ cl earl y est ab li sh edst atut ory

or c on st itut io na l ri gh ts of wh ic h areas on ab le pe rs on wou ldha ve kn own .” Hop e v . Pel zer, 5 36 U.S. 73 0, 7 39 , 12 2 S . Ct. 2 50 8, 2 51 5 (2 00 2) . In t hi s ca se , Pla in ti ff’s s eco ndam en de d c om pl ai ntsat is fie s R

ul e 8 (a)( 2) as to all de fen da nt s. Mo ffi tt , Cumm in gs , andReed W e h av e p rev io us ly hel d t ha t i t i s “ well set tl edth ata pr is on off ic ia l’s de li be rat e in di ffer en ce t o asubs ta nt ia l ri skof s eri ou s h arm to anin m at e v io la te s” th e Co ns ti tu ti on . Hale v . Tall ap oo saCn ty., 50 F.3d15 79 , 15 82 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ) 1 McCrea ry was a pre- trial detaine e and thus the Eighth Amendment does not apply 1 direc tly . Howeve r, “the due proc ess rights of a [pretrial de tainee] are at least a s great as the Eig hth Amendment protec tions available to a c onvicted prisoner .” City of Rever e v. Mass. Ge n. 4(quo ta ti on s an d a lt erat io ns om it te d) . Accor di ng ly, Pl ai nt iff was re qu ire d t o p le ad (1 ) th ere was a subs ta nt ia l ri skof s eri ou s h arm to McC reary ; (2 ) th e d efen da nt s were d el ib erat el y

in di ffer en t t o t ha t ri sk ; an d (3 ) cau sa ti on . Id. Pl ai nt iff all eg es th atEvan s re pe at ed ly tol d t he se co rrec ti on s o ffi ci al s st art in g i n J un e 2 00 8 t ha t h e wou ldno t b e cel le d wi th “ jit te rb ug s” an d h e wou ld

2 cau se sev ere b od il y

in jury to an y

“ jit te rb ug s” who were qua rte redwith h im . Pl ai nt iff all eg es th atth e o ffi ci al s t ol d Ev an s t o “ de al wit h i t” an d s ai d, “ [W] e are go nn a d o wh atwe are g on nado an d t he n youare g on nado whaty ou are g on na do .” Evan s was cla ss ifi edas “ Pu rp le Tag Do ub le Res tra in Dire ,” whi ch Pla in ti ff al le ge s i s a c la ss ifi cat io n re se rv edforhi gh ly dan ge ro us in m at es an d re qu ire d Eva ns to be in do ub le res tra in ts at a ll ti m es he was o ut si de hi s ce ll . Evan s h ad rep orte d t ha t h e wou ldatt ackpe op le jus t b ecau se th ey lo ok edat h im , andhe ha d pr ev io us ly been ve ry

ag gr es si ve to ward s co rrec ti on s o ffi ci al s wh enth ey ha d t rie d to qu art er h im

with “ jit te rb ug s.” Ev an s h adals o a tt ack eda pr ev io us cel l-mate wit h arazo r bl ad e. Pl ai nt iff ha s al le ge d s uf

fic ie nt , pl au si bl e fac ts to sh ow tha t McC reary

–wh om Evan s wo ul d c la ss ify as a “ jit te rb ug ”– face d asubs ta nt ia l ri skof Hosp., 463 U.S. 239, 244, 103 S. Ct . 2979, 2983 (1983).

Plaintiff alleg es that “jitterbug s” is jail slangfor “ youngblack men.” 2 5ha rm

fro m be in g qua rte redwit h Ev an s, t ha t t he se co rrec ti on s o ffi ci al s kne w abo ut Eva ns ’s vi ol en t p ro pe ns it ie s wh enqu art eredwit h “ jit te rb ug s,” a ndth atth e of fic ia ls ’ in di ffer en ce t o t hi s kno wled ge cau se d M cCre ary to be pl acedwit h Eva ns , ul ti m at el y

res ul ti ng in McC reary ’s dea th .

Park er

“ [S]up erv is or s ca n b e h el d l iabl e fo r subo rd in at es ’ us e o f ex ces si ve for ce ag ai ns t i nm at es invi ol at io n o f th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t o n t he ba si s o f supe rv is ory li ab il it y un de r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3. Supe rv is ory li ab il it y un de r § 1 98 3 o ccu rs when th e supe rv is orpe rs on al ly part ic ip at es inth e al le ge d c on st itut io na l v io la ti on or whe n the re i s a c au sa l co nn ect io n b etween th e act io ns of t he supe rv is in g o ffi ci al an d t he all eg edco ns ti tu ti on al de pr iv at io n.” Vald es v. Cr os by, 450 F.3d12 31 , 12 36 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (quo ta ti on s an d c it at io ns om it te d) . There i s n o a ll eg at io n th atPark er h im se lf d ire ct ly too k p artinth e d eci si on to pl ace M cCre ary in Evan s’s cel l. As fo r th e o th er m etho d b y whi ch Park er co ul d b e res po ns ib le for hi s subo rd in at es ’ act io ns , a “ cau sa l co nn ect io n m ay be est ab li sh edwhen : 1 ) a h is to ry of wid es pr eadab us e p ut s t he res po ns ib le supe rv is oron no ti ce o f th e n eedto co rrec t t he all eg edde pr iv at io n, an d h e o r sh e fai ls to do so ; 2 ) a s up erv is or ’s cu st om or p ol ic y res ul ts in de li be rat e in di ffer en ce t o c on st itut io na l ri gh ts ; o r 3) 6fact s s up po rt a n i nf eren ce tha t t he supe rv is ordi rect edsubo rd in at es to act un la wfu ll y

or kne w th atsubo rd in at es wou ldactun la wfu ll y an d fa il edto st op th em fro m do in g s o.” Id. at12 37 . Park er ar gu es th athe is be in g d en ie d i m m un ity si m pl y be cau se a de ath oc cu rredin anov ercr owd edjail . Howev er, Pl ai nt iff ha s al le ge d p laus ib le fact s in di cat in g tha t Pa rk er m ettwo of the Vald es fact or s. Id . In m at e-o n- in m at e as saul ts in crea se d rapi dl y at the jail , fro m

24 4 i n 2 00 2, t o 36 8 i n 2 00 6, t o o ve r 40 0 i n 2 00 7. In 20 08 , Ju dg e Ch arl es Edel st ei n, wh om Pl ai nt iff all eg es is anexpe rt o n jai l o ve rcro wdi ng , is su eda rep ort ab ou t t he cau se s of po or co nd it io ns at t he jail , andth e rep ort was de li ve redto Park er. The rep ort al le ge dl y co nc lu de d tha t “ [t]he he artof asaf e jail is it s cl as si fic at io n s y st em an d th e b ed s t o s up po rt i t. Mi xi ng in m at es who sh ou ldno t b e h ou se d t og ethe r be cau se of fun ct io na l o ve rcro wdi ng is a reci pe fordi sa st er. Cl as si fic at io n s y st em s ar e de si gn edto li m itco nf

li ct , enh an ce co nt ro l an d p ro vi de gre at er s afet y forin m at es an d s ta ff.” Pl ai nt iff

all eg edth atPark er i ns ti tu te d apo li cy of d oubl e-ce ll in g in m at es who were i n d is ci pl in ary oradm in is tra ti ve ho ld in g. Here , du e to Park er’s do ub le -cel li ng po li cy , Evan s was no t al lo wedto be qu art eredby him se lf, a ndth is ul ti m at el y

res ul te d i n M cCre ary–who ha d n oty etbe enco nv ic te d o f an y cri m e– be in g c el le d wi th anin m at e who ha d t hr eat en edto cau se ser io us in jury to 7an y

y ou ng bl ackm enwho were qua rte redwit h h im . Pl ai nt iff als o a ll eg es th atPark er h adpubl ic al ly adm it te d tha t t he jail was da ng ero us du e to th e o ve rcro wdi ng . Park er h adrece iv edanin m at e Sel f Rep ort Su rv ey th atin di cat edda ng ero us co nd it io ns , bu t Pl ai nt iff all eg es th atPark er’s res po ns e was m erel y

to co m pl ai n abo utin m at es be in g a ll owe d t o p art ic ip at e in a su rv ey . Plai nt iff

als o a ll eg edth atPark er h im se lf h adbe enin fo rm edby inm at es th atst aff m em

be rs were p la ci ng cert ai n i nm at es to ge th er i n o rd er t o i nc reas e th e li ke li ho odof v io le nc e–th e sa m e th in g tha t Pl ai nt iff all eg es happ en edto McC reary . Giv enPark er’s al le ge d kno wled ge of t he in crea si ng freque nc y of i nm at e-o nin m at e v io le nc e, Ju dg e Ede ls te in ’s rep ort, an d a ll eg at io ns th atin m at es ha d rep eat ed ly com

pl ai ne d t o P ark er ab ou t b ei ng qu art eredwit h d an ge ro us in m at es an d P ark er’s fai lu re t o c orrectsame no twi th st an di ng hi s ab il it y to do so , as wel l as th e o pe rat io n o f Park er’s o wn p ol ic y of d oubl e-ce ll in g i n t he face of t he se ci rcu m st an ces , Pla in ti ff h as pl ead edsu ffi ci en t fa ct s t o s ta te a cl ai m ag ai ns t Park er th atis pl au si bl e o n i ts face . Vald es , 45 0 F .3dat 1 23 7. As d is cu ss edab ov e, th ere i s n o d oubtth atsu ch a vi ol at io n wo ul d b e o f a cl earl y est ab li sh edrig ht . As far b ackas 1 97 4, t hi s co urt he ldth atim pr op er 3 Fifth Circuit opinions issued prior to October 1, 1981, are binding pr ece dent on 3 this court. Bonne r v. City of Prichar d, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc). 8supe rv is io n o f in m at es , ov ercr owd in g, an d fr eque ntin m at e-o n- in m at e at ta ck s

co ul d ri se to th e le ve l o f po si ng a se rio us ris k o f ha rm to anin m at e, th us im pl ic at in g t he Co ns ti tu ti on . Gates v. Co ll ie r, 50 1 F .2d12 91 , 13 09 (5t h C ir. 19 74 ). AFFIR MED. 4

Def endants’ r equest for

oral a rgument is DENI ED. 4 9