FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DECEMBER 13, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NO T PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 28 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :0 9- cv -1 42 78 -DLG KENNET H EARL EVANS, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us ST. LUCIE COUNTY JAIL, KEN MASCARA, JANE DOE, DR. ZAMBRANO, a.k .a. Jo hn Doe, PRIS ON HEAL TH SERVICES, NURSE TABITHA, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s- App el le es .

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 13 , 20 11 ) Befo re BARKETT, MARTIN an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es .PER CURI AM:

Ken ne th Earl Ev an s, p ro ceed in g p ro se, app eal s t he di st ric t co urt’s s ua sp on te di sm is sa l o f hi s 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 co m pl ai nt , inwhi chhe all eg edcla im s o f un co ns ti tu ti on al co nd it io ns of c on fin em en t an d d el ib erat e in di ffer en ce t o s eri ou s m ed ic al ne ed s. Ev an s as se rte d the se cla im s ag ai ns t v ari ou s d efen da nt s, an d th ro ug h aser ie s o f or de rs , th e d is tri ctco urt d is m is se d t he co m pl ai ntinit s en ti rety , in cl ud in g fo r fai lure t o s ta te a cl ai m . On ap pe al , Evan s ar gu es th atth e d is tri ct co urt erredindo in g s o, ra is in g anu m be r of arg um en ts . After c aref

ul rev ie w, we affi rm . Und er 2 8 U.S.C. § 19 15 A, a di st ric t co urt i s re qu ire d t o d is m is s s uasp on te a ci vi l co m pl ai ntfil edby a pri so ne r se ek in g re dr es s fr om a go ve rn m en ta l en ti ty or a go ve rn m en ta l em

pl oyee oroff

ic er i f th e co m

pl ai nt“ fai ls to st at e a cl ai m up on whi chrel ie f can be grant ed .” 28 U.S.C. § 1 91 5A( a), (b )(1 ). W e rev ie w de n ov o su cha di sm is sa l, u si ng th e sa m e st an da rd s t ha t g ov erndi sm is sa ls un de r Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 1 2( b) (6 ). Leal v . Ga. Dep’t o f Co rr., 25 4 F .3d12 76 , 12 79 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) . Thu s, we ac cep t the all eg at io ns inth e co m pl ai ntas t ru e an d co ns tru e th em

inth e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e p la in ti ff. Tim so n v . Sam ps on , 51 8 F.3 d 8 70 , 87 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . W e as k wh ethe r th e co m pl ai ntco nt ai ns “ en ou gh fact s t o s ta te a cl ai m

to rel ie f th atis pl au si bl e o n i ts face .” Bel l At l. Co rp . v.

2Twom

bl y , 55 0 U.S. 5 44 , 57 0, 1 27 S. Ct. 1 95 5, 1 97 4 (2 00 7) . A clai m ha s “ faci 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 tha t al lo ws the 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.” Ash cro ft v . Iqb al , 12 9 S . Ct. 1 93 7, 1 94 9 (2 00 9) . W e li be ral ly con st ru e p ro se pl ead in gs . See Bro wn v . Jo hn so n, 3 87 F.3d13 44 , 13 50 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). To s ta te a cau se of a ct io n u nd er § 19 83 , a pl ai nt iff m us t al le ge th at(1) th ere was anactor o m is si on th atde pr iv edhi m of aco ns ti tu ti on al rig ht , pri vi le ge , or imm un it y an d (2 ) th e actor o m is si onwas c omm it te d b y a pe rs on act in g und er co lo r of st at e la w. Hale v . Tall ap oo saCn ty., 50 F.3d15 79 , 15 82 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ). Eva ns ass ert s cl ai m s o f un co ns ti tu ti on al co nd it io ns of c on fin em en t an d d el ib erat e in di ffer en ce t o s eri ou s m ed ic al ne ed s. Be cau se th e p ris on co nd it io ns an d t he ev en ts th atun de rli e Eva ns ’s com pl ai ntsp anhi s t im e b oth a s a p re-t ria l d et ai ne e an d a s a c on vi ct edpri so ne r, hi s cl ai m s ar is e und er the Due P ro ces s C laus e o f th e Fo urte en th Am en dm en t an d t he Eig hth Am en dm en t. See Harri s v . Cowe taCn ty., 21 F.3d38 8, 3 93 n.6 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ). W e n ot e, ho wev er, tha t “ th e st an da rdfor pr ov id in g b as ic hu m anne ed s t o t ho se in carc erat edor i n d et en ti on is th e sa m e un de r bo th [pr ov is io ns of t he Co ns ti tu ti on ]. ” Mar sh v. Bu tl er Cn ty., Ala., 2 68 F.3 d 1 01 4, 1 02 4 n .5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) (enba nc ). The Supr em e Co urt h as reco gn iz edth ata pr is on er m ay ch al le ng e a 3co nd it io n o f co nf in em en t, Rh od es v. Ch ap m an , 45 2 U.S. 3 37 , 34 7, 1 01 S. Ct. 23 92 , 23 99 (19 81 ), as well as afai lu re t o p ro vi de m ed ic al care , Est el le v. Gam bl e, 42 9 U.S. 9 7, 1 03 , 97 S. Ct. 2 85 , 29 0 (1 97 6) . “ Each of t he se cla im s re qu ire s a t wopr on g s ho win g: anob

jecti ve sh owi ng of ade pr iv at io n o r in jury thatis ‘ su ffi ci en tl y se rio us ’ to co ns ti tu te a de ni al of t he ‘ m in im al civ il iz edm eas ur e o f li fe’s ne ces si ti es ’ an d asubjec ti ve sh owi ng th atth e o ffi ci al ha d a‘ su ffi ci en tl y cu lp ab le st at e o f m in d.’” Tho m as v. Bry an t, 6 14 F.3d12 88 , 13 04 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (quo ti ng Farm er v . Bren na n, 5 11 U.S. 82 5, 8 34 , 11 4 S . Ct. 1 97 0, 1 97 7 (1 99 4) ). The Supr em e Co urt h as seta hi gh ba r fo r th e o bjec ti ve co m po ne ntof a cl ai m ch al le ng in g aco nd it io n o f co nf in em en t. The Co urt h as ob se rv edth at“ th e Co ns ti tu ti on do es no t m an da te co m fo rtabl e p ris on s.” C ha nd le r v. C ro sb y , 37 9 F.3 d 1 27 8, 1 28 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) (qu ot in g Rho de s, 4 52 U.S. at 3 49 , 10 1 S . Ct. at 24 00 ). “ If p ris on co nd it io ns are m erel y ‘ res tri ct iv e an d e ve n h ars h, the y are p artof th e p en al ty tha t cr im in al off en de rs pa y

forth ei r of

fen se s ag ai ns t s oc ie ty.’ ” Id . (quo ti ng Rh od es , 45 2 U.S. at34 7, 1 01 S. Ct. at23 99 ). “ [T]o m ak e o uta cl ai m for anun co ns ti tu ti on al co nd it io n o f co nf in em en t, ‘ext rem e d ep riv at io ns ’ are requi red .” Tho m as , 61 4 F .3dat 1 30 4 (quo ti ng Hud so n v . McM il li an , 50 3 U.S. 1 , 9, 1 12 S. Ct. 9 95 , 10 00 (19 92 )). A pri so n c on di ti on is un co ns ti tu ti on al on ly if it de pr iv es th e p la in ti ff o f a h um anne ed , Jo rd anv. Do e, 38 F.3d15 59 , 15 65 (11 th 4Ci r. 19 94 ) (ci ti ng W il so n v . Sei te r, 50 1 U.S. 2 94 , 30 5, 1 11 S. Ct. 2 32 1, 2 32 7

(1 99 4) ), orothe rwis e “ ‘pos e[s ] anun reas on ab le ris k o f se rio us da m ag e to hi s fu tu re h eal th ’ orsaf

ety ,” Ch an dl er, 3 79 F.3dat 1 28 9 (quo ti ng Hell in g v . McKi nn ey , 50 9 U.S. 2 5, 3 5, 1 13 S. Ct. 2 47 5, 2 48 1 (1 99 3) ). The ob jecti ve co m

po ne ntof acla im

all eg in g i na de qu at e m ed ic al care is als o di ffi cu ltto m eet . Firs t, a p la in ti ff m us t d em on strat e “ anob

jecti ve ly seri ou s m ed ic al ne ed , on e th at , if l eftun at te nd ed , po se s a s ub st an ti al ris k o f se rio us ha rm .” Tay lo r v. Ad am s, 2 21 F.3d12 54 , 12 58 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) (quo ta ti on s o m it te d) . A se rio us m ed ic al ne edis “ on e th atha s b een di ag no se d b y a ph y si ci anas m an da ti ng tre atm en t o r on e th atis so ob vi ou s t ha t ev ena la y pe rs on wou ldeas il y

reco gn iz e th e n eces si ty for a d oc to r’s at te nt io n.” Farro w v. West , 32 0 F .3d12 35 , 12 43 (11 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . Seco nd , th e p la in ti ff m us t s ho w th atth e res po ns e

“ was po or

en ou gh to co ns ti tu te anun ne ces sa ry an d wan to n i nf

li ct io n o f pa in .” Tay lo r, 22 1 F .3dat 1 25 8 (quo ta ti on om it te d) . The l ev el of c are e xe rci se d b y th e of fic ia l m us t b e wor se th anm ere “ acci de nt al in ad equa cy , neg li ge nc e in di ag no si s ortre atm en t, o r ev enm ed ic al m al pr act ic e act io nabl e und er s ta te law.” Id . (quo ta ti on s o m it te d) . As s etou t ab ov e, th e subjec ti ve co m po ne ntof b ot h t y

pe s o f cl ai m s re qu ire s th at“ th e o ffi ci al ha d a‘ su ffi ci en tl y cu lp ab le st at e o f m in d.’” Tho m as , 61 4 F .3dat 513 04 (qu ot in g F arm er, 5 11 U.S. at 8 34 , 11 4 S . Ct. at19 77 ). Mo re s pe ci fic al ly, “ in

bo th pri so n c on di ti on s an d m ed ic al ne ed s ca se s, the rel ev an t s ta te of m in d i s de li be rat e in di ffer en ce.” Id . (ci ti ng W il so n, 5 01 U.S. at 3 03 , 11 1 S . Ct. at23 27 ). Thi s h as th ree c om

po ne nt s: “ (1 ) subjec ti ve kn owl ed ge of aris k o f se rio us ha rm ; (2 ) di sr eg ardof t ha t ri sk ; (3 ) by con du ctth atis m or e th anm ere n eg li ge nc e.” Farr ow, 3 20 F.3dat 1 24 5 (quo ta ti on s o m it te d) . The Supr em e Co urt h as em ph as iz edth atth e o ffi ci al m us t h av e b een actua ll y

aware o f th e ri skof h arm :

“ th e o ffi ci al m

us t b ot h b e aware of f

act s fr om whi chth e in fere nc e co ul d b e drawn th ata subs ta nt ia l ri skof s eri ou s h arm ex is ts , andhe m

us t al so dra w th e in fere nc e.” Farm er, 5 11 U.S. at 8 37 , 11 4 S . Ct. at19 79 . Fi na ll y , “ [i]t i s wel l es tabl is he d i n t hi s C irc ui t tha t s up erv is ory off ic ia ls are no t l iabl e und er § 19 83 forth e unc on st itut io na l ac ts of t he ir s ub or di na te s o n t he ba si s o f res po nd eatsupe rio r or vi cari ou s l iabi li ty.” Cot to ne v. J en ne , 32 6 F .3d 13 52 , 13 60 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . “ In st ead , supe rv is ory li ab il it y un de r § 1 98 3 o ccu rs eithe r whe n t he supe rv is orpe rs on al ly part ic ip at es inth e al le ge d u nc on st itut io na l co nduc t o r whe n t he re i s a c au sa l co nn ect io n b etweenth e act io ns of asupe 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.” Id. The cau sa l co nn ect io n m ay be est ab li sh edby sho win g t ha t (1 ) th e supe rv is orha d no ti ce o f a h is to ry

of wi de sp readab us e, whi chhe ne gl ect edto co rrec t; (2) th e 6supe rv is orim pl em en te d acu st om

or p ol ic y th atres ul te d i n d el ib erat e in di ffer en ce to co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s; or ( 3) th e fac ts supp ort an “ in fere nc e th atth e supe rv is or di rect edth e subo rd in at es to actun la wfu ll y or kne w th atth e subo rd in at es wou ld actun la wfu ll y

an d fa il edto st op th em

fro m do in g s o.” Id. (quo ta ti on s o mit te d) . Rev ie win g Ev an s’s co m

pl ai ntinli gh t o f th es e p rin ci pl es , we con cl ud e th at Eva ns ha s fa il edto st at e a cl ai m of u nc on st itut io na l co nd it io n o f co nf in em en t. Eva ns ’s cla im

res ts on th e al le ga ti on th aton Marc h 2 0, 2 00 8—whe n t wo ad di ti on al in m at es were p la cedinhi s ce ll su chth atitwas a t d oubl e cap aci ty—two m at tre ss es were al so pu t o n t he flo orof t he cel l. Evan s, wh o was no t re qu ire d t o 1 sl eep on a m at tre ss , st at es th aton th e fo ll owi ng da y , as h e was go in g t o b reak fas t, he tri pp edon on e o f th e m at tre ss es an d h urt h is ba ck . W e rec og ni ze tha t p ut ti ng m at tre ss es on th e fl oo r of anov ercr owd edpri so n c el l m ay gi ve ris e in ci de nt s t ha t cau se in jury, su chas t he on e th atEvan s h as all eg ed . Howev er, the pl acement o f m at tre ss es inanov ercr owd edcel l i s n ot , inan d o f it se lf, a n “ ex tre m e” co nd it io n th atpo se s “ anun reas on ab le ris k o f se rio us da m ag e.” Ch an dl er, 3 79 F.3dat 1 28 9 (quo ta ti onom it te d) . The Supr em e Co urt h as reject edth e n ot io n t ha t “ do ub le
Evans also states in his complaint that his bed wa s “direc tly in front of the toilet” a

nd 1 that he wa s “subjecte d to havingother inmates usingthe toilet prac tically in his face .” In the absenc e of a

ny further alleg ations sugg estingthat basic sanitation wa s adver sely aff ecte d, this does not rise to the leve l of a c onstitut ional violation. 7cel li ng ”—p ut ti ng twi ce the nu m be r of pri so ne rs ina cel l— is un co ns ti tu ti on al , Rh od es , 45 2 U.S. at34 7, an d we h av e h el d t ha t i n a n o ve rcro wde d fa ci li ty, of fic ia ls m ay

requi re i nm at es to sl eep on m at tre ss es , at l eas t t em po rari ly. Ham

m v. DeKal b C ou nt y , 77 4 F .2d15 67 , 15 75 (11 th Cir . 19 85 ); s ee al so Bro wn v . Crawf or d, 9 06 F.2d66 7, 6 68 , 67 2 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 0) . 2 Neit he r is Evan s’s as se rti on th atth e m attre ss es co ns ti tu te d afir e h azar d su ffi ci en t t o s ta te a cl ai m . Eve n i f we were t o c on cl ud e th atth e m at tre ss es ’ lo cat io n i n t he cel l p os ed“ anun reas on ab le ris k o f se rio us da m ag e” i n c as e o f a fir e, Ch an dl er, 3 79 F.3dat 1 28 9 (quo ta ti on om it te d) , we do no t fi ndsu ffi ci en t factua l al le ga ti on s i n t he co m pl ai ntto sh ow tha t tho se who pl acedth e m at tre ss es , orot he rwis e d ire ct edth atth e m at tre ss es be pu t i n t he cel l, h ada “ su ffi ci en tl y cu lp ab le st at e o f m in d.” Farm er, 5 11 U.S. at 8 34 , 11 4 S . Ct. at19 77 . Und er the se ci rcu m st an ces , we can no t s ay th atEvan s h as st at eda cl ai m of u nc on st itut io na l co nd it io n o f co nf

in em en t. 3

Evans states that he was moved to a nother c orre ctional fa cility on May 25, 2008. Thus, 2 he wa s in the cell with the mattresse s for roughly 60 day s. Cf. Be ll v. W olfish, 441 U.S. 520, 543, 99 S. Ct . 1861, 1876 (1979) ( reje ctingthe ar gument that requiringa deta inee to shar e a small sleepingspace for 60 da y s violates the Constitut ion). To the extent that we must taken into acc ount “obvious alternative explanation[ s]” in 3 deter mining whe ther a

claim has be en stated, I qbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1951 (quotation omit ted), we note that Evans’ s fac tual alleg ations equally support the possibilit y

that the offic ials were simply neg lige nt. 8Eva ns ’s cla im of i na de qu at e m ed ic al care ha s two as pe ct s. Fi rs t, h e al le ge s a d el ay inrece iv in g m ed ic al att en ti on . Evan s av ers th ataft er the in ci de nt , he subm it te d t hr ee i nt ern al reque st s fo r a d oc to r’s vi si t, ea chof wh ic h wer e ig no red . Eva ns st at es th athe di d n otsee a do ct orun ti l M ay 13 , 20 08 , aft er h e se nta co m pl ai ntto th e Exe cu ti ve Offic e o f th e Gov ern or . Seco nd , he a ve rs th atth e do ct orth athe di d s ee fa il edto pro vi de anap pr op ria te di ag no si s an d a de qu at e tre atm en t. Eva ns st at es th atth e d oc to r “ act edin di ffer en t an d u nc ari ng .” Acco rd in g t o Ev an s, the do ct orsi m pl y ask edhi m

to do “ a se rie s o f be nd s” an d th enpro vi de d h im

with ash eetof p ap er d es cri bi ng vario us ex erci se s fo r lo wer ba ckpa in . Onc e ag ai n, the se all eg at io ns do no t s ta te a cl ai m of u nc on st itut io na l co nduc t. As we ha ve no te d, a p la in ti ff m us t al le ge “ anob

jecti ve ly seri ou s m ed ic al ne ed , on e th at , if l eftun atte nd ed , po se s a s ub st an ti al ris k o f se rio us ha rm .” Tay lo r, 22 1 F .3dat 1 25 8. Ev an s’s co m pl ai ntin di cat es th atEvan s h urt h is ba ck , bu t i t do es no t o th erwi se st at e th atdu rin g t he rel ev an t t im e p eri od—fr om Marc h 2 1, 20 08 to May 13, 2 00 8—th e co nd it io n c au se d h im si gn ifi can t p ai n o r ot he rwis e li mit edhi s m ov em en t i n a ny way . Evan s’s co m pl ai ntis th us de vo idof t he “ factua l en ha nc em en t,” I qb al , 12 9 S . Ct. at19 49 (qu ot at io n o m it te d) , th atwou ld reas on ab ly sup po rt the in fere nc e th at“ ev ena la y pe rs onwou ld[ha ve ] eas il y 9reco gn iz e[d ] th e n eces si ty for a d oc to r’s at te nt io n.” Farro w, 32 0 F .3dat 1 24 3.

Sep arat el y , we als o n ot e th atth e co m pl ai ntdo es no t al le ge su ffi ci en t fa ct s to sh ow tha t the lev el of c are e xe rci se d b y th os e were i n c ha rg e o f pr oc es si ng m ed ic al reque st s, an d b y

th e d oc to r who saw Ev an s, was wors e th an“ acci de nt al in ad equa cy , neg li ge nc e . . . or ev enm ed ic al m al pr act ic e act io nabl e und er s ta te la w.” Tay lo r, 22 1 F .3dat 1 25 8. As su m in g, as we m us t, tha t Ev an s’s al le ga ti on s are t ru e, we read il y

ackno wled ge th atth e d el ay inarra ng in g am ed ic al vi si t an d t he do ct or ’s con du ctdu rin g tha t v is itlea ve m uc h t o b e d es ire d. Th is is no t en ou gh , ho wev er, t o s up po rt acla im of u nc on st itut io na l co nduc t. See id . Bec au se Evan s h as no t al le ge d m is co nduc t o f a co ns ti tu ti on al m ag ni tu de , we co nc lu de th atitwas p ro pe r fo r th e d is tri ctco urt t o d is m is s h is co m pl ai nt , and we do no t re ach Evan s’s re m ai ni ng arg um en ts . See Am . Dent al Ass ’n v. Ci gn a Co rp ., 60 5 F .3d12 83 , 12 93 n.3 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (n ot in g t ha t a d is tri ctco urt’s de ci si on m ay

be affi rm edon an y

gro un d tha t fi nd s s up po rt i n the reco rd ). Forth e 4 We take this opportunity , howeve r, to make two obse rvations. Fir st, Evans states on 4 appea l that the district court fa iled to consider his cla ims as asserte d ag ainst Prison Health Service s. We note that while the mag istrate judg e’s r eport a nd rec ommendation (R&R) a nd the district court’s orde r adoptingthe R&R did not discuss those claims, Evans did identify this iss ue in a motion for re consideration, which the district court de nied. We arethere fore satisfied that the district court did g ive consider ation to those particular claims. Second, the mag istrate judg e re commended, a nd the district court orde red, tha t Evans’s claims ag ainst Nurse Ta

bitha and Dr . Z ambra

no be dismissed for fa ilure to serve proce ss beca use Evans could not provide the cur rent a ddresse s of these two individuals. The ma g istrate judg e noted that both had lef

t their employ

ment at the St. Lucie County J ail. We have r ece ntly 10reas on s s etforth ab ov e, we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on to di sm is s Ev an s’s co m pl ai nt . AFFIRMED.

indicated that in such a

situation, a complaint should not be dismi ssed unless the district cour t finds that the cour

t-appointed a g ent has made a re asonableeff ort to identify

the location of the defe ndant. Richardson v. Johnson, 598 F.3d 734, 739–40 (11th Cir. 2010). The re cord in this case does not indicate tha t the district court made such a f inding. Under these c ircumstance s, it mi ght be appr opriate to va cate the dismissal of Evans’s cla ims ag ainst Tabitha and Z ambra no and re mand the ca se for further proce eding s. See id. Howe ver, beca use Evans ha s failed to state a claim of c onstitut ional violation, a rema nd would be a pur ely aca demic exerc ise. The principle that a district cour t’s decision may

be af firmed on a

ny ground that is supported by

the re cord a llows us to relieve the district c ourt of the ne ed to under take this exercise. See Am. Dental Ass’ n, 605 F.3d at 1293 n.3. 11