# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 38 89

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Ja m es Say lo r

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

St at e o f Neb ras ka

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t

Ran dy Kohl , M.D.; Den ni s B ak ewel l; Ro be rt Ho us to n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el la nt

s

Neb ras ka Depa rtment o f Co rrec ti on al Serv ic es ; Nat al ie Bak er, M.D.; Mo ha m m ad

Kam al , M.D.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t s

Cam ero n Whi te , PhD.; Mark W ei la ge , PhD.; Fred Bri tt en ; Kar i Pe rez, Ph D.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el la nt

s

Co rrec t Ca re So lu ti on s, LLC.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka - Lin co ln

__ __ __ __ __ __Su bm it te d: Nov em be r 17 , 20 15
Fil ed : J an ua ry

29 , 20 16

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , BEAM an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

BEAM, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Ja m es Saylor su ed th e St at e of Neb r a s k a , t he Neb ras ka Dep art m en t of

Co rrec ti on al Serv ic es (NDCS), Dr. Ran dy Koh l, Den ni s Bak ewel l, Ro be rt Hou st on , Dr. Nata li e Bak er, Dr. Mo ha m m ad Kam al , Dr . Cam ero n Whi te , Dr. Mark W ei la ge , Fred Bri tt en , Dr. Kari Pere z , a n d Co rrec t Care So lu ti on s, LLC, (co ll ect iv el y

"Def en da nt s" ) un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 al le gi ng vi ol at io ns of hi s rig ht s un de r th e Fi rs t, Eig ht h, an d Fo ur te en th Am en dm en ts of th e Uni te d St at es Co ns ti tu ti on

. Defen da nt s

fil ed a m ot io n to di sm is s, an d th e di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d Saylor' s cl ai m s ag ai ns t th e

St at e of Neb ras ka an d NDCS, as well as cl ai m s fo r m on et ary rel ie f ag ai ns t in di vi du al

de fen da nt s in th ei r o f

f i ci al cap aci ti es

. The rem ai ni ng de fen da nt s th en m ov ed fo r

su m m ary jud gm en t on th e ba si s of qu al ifi ed im m un it y

. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e

m ot io n. We reve rs e.

I. BACKGRO UND

Saylor is a Neb ras ka in m at e co nv ic te d of seco nd -d eg ree m ur de r. Dr. Koh l is

th e Med ic al Serv ic es Dire ct or fo r N D C S

. O th er m ed ic al de fen da nt s in cl ud e Dr.

W hi te

, Dr. W ei la ge , an d Dr. Pere z. The no nm ed ic al de fen da nt s in cl u d e Hou st on , 1

Dr. Nata li e Bak er, Dr. Mo ha m m ad Kam al

, an d Co rrec t Care So lu ti on s do no t 1

ap pe al th e d is tri ct co ur t's ord er.

-2

-W ard en Bri tt en , a nd W ard en Bak e w el l. In 20 02 , wh il e a pr is on er at th e Neb ras ka 2

St at e Pen it en ti ary (NSP), Sa y lo r was all eg ed ly atta ck ed

, be at en , an d rap ed by ot he r

in m at es

. In 20 05 Saylor was di ag no se d wit h Po st -Trau m at ic St res s Dis or de r (PTSD)

as a res ul t of th e 20 02 a t t a c k

, an d he be ga n se ei ng Dr. Glen Ch ris te ns en , a

ps y ch ia tri st who co nt ract ed wit h NDCS. Saylor sa w Dr. Ch ris te ns en m on th ly fo r

tre at m en t. In Apr il 20 05

, Saylor fil ed a co m pl ai nt in st at e co ur t al le gi ng th at th e St at e

of Neb ras ka an d NDCS fai le d to pr ot ect hi m fro m th e as sa ul t and fai le d to pr op erl y

tre at hi m aft er th e as sa ul t. The tri al wa s h e l d i n 20 09

, an d in 20 10 th e st at e co ur t

en te red an ord er i n fa vo r of Say lo r, fin di ng th at th e st aff was ne gl ig en t i n fa il in g t o

pr ov id e hi m wi t h r e as on ab ly ad eq ua te pr ot ect io n fro m th e 20 02 as sa ul t. The co ur t

al so fou nd th at Say lo r rec ei ve d i na de qu at e m ed ic al tre at m en t fr om Dr. Kam al fro m

20 02 to 20 05 . Say lo r was award ed $2 50 ,00 0 i n d am ag es

.

In Apr il 20 10

, Saylor ha d hi s la st m eet in g wit h Dr. Ch ris te ns en be cau se hi s

co nt ract wit h th e pr is on was en di ng in May 2 01 0. In ad di ti o n, Saylor ha d m on th ly

Men ta l St at us Rev ie ws wit h Cat hy Mo ss , a Lice ns ed Men ta l Heal th Prac ti ti on er. Sh e

in fo rm ed Saylor th at Dr. Kam al was th e on ly ps y ch ia tri st av ai la bl e to wor k wit h hi m

at NSP. In May 20 10

, Saylor st at ed th at he wou ld no t wor k wit h Dr. Kam al be cau se

Dr. Koh l ha d rem ov ed Dr. Kam al as Saylor' s ps y ch ia tri st fiv e y ears ag o. Thu s, Saylor

ag reed to fo rg o ps y ch ia tri c care bu t wan te d to co nt in ue ta ki ng hi s m ed ic at io ns

. A

m ul ti di sc ip li na ry he ari ng was he ld in 20 10 to di sc us s th e ne xt st ep fo r Saylor be cau se

Dr. Ch ris te ns en 's co nt ract e n d e d an d Saylor refu se d to wor k wit h Dr. Kam al

. Defen da nt s Dr. W ei la ge , Dr. Pere z, an d Dr. Kam al pa rti ci pa te d in th e m eet in g, al on g

wit h ot he rs no t na m ed in th e l a w s u i t

. Th e gr ou p su gg es te d th at Saylor co ul d be

tra ns ferr ed to Tecu m se h S ta te Co rrec ti on al In st it ut io n (TSCI) be cau se Dr. Bak er, a

ps y ch ia tri st pr ov id in g care at TSCI, co ul d wor k wit h Saylor. It is no rm al pr oc ed ur e

At th e ti m e of th e ev en ts le ad in g up to th is la wsu it

, Fred Bri tt en was th e 2

ward en of TSC I an d R ob ert Hou st on was t he ward en of NSP

.

-3

-fo r a co rrec ti on al faci li ty to tra ns fer in m at es who ne ed m en ta l he al th care be y on d th e

res ou rces av ai la bl e in th ei r faci li ty to a faci li ty whe re su ch care is av ai la bl e. W ard en

Bak ewel l m ad e th e fin al de ci si on , an d Saylor was tra ns ferr ed to TSCI in Sep te m be r

20 10

. Saylor cl ai m s th at th e tra ns fer was un ne ces sa ry , ret al ia to ry , an d cau se d h is

PTSD to wors en

.

Saylor was i n i t i a ll y cl as si fie d as an in m at e in Pro te ct iv e Cu st od y bu t was 3

pl aced in th e TSCI ho sp it al up on arri va l be cau se he at te m pt ed to ha ng hi m se lf be fo re

he was tra ns ferr ed

. W hi le in th e ho sp it al he m et wit h Dr. Bak er. Dr. Bak er want ed

to gr ad ua ll y ta ke Saylor off Sero qu el

, on e of hi s m ed ic in es

. He ag reed an d dec id ed

to co nt in ue ta ki ng Xan ax

. Thro ug ho ut hi s ti m e at TSCI, Saylor sa w Dr. Bak er ev ery

co up le of m on th s an d was su bjec te d to m on th ly Men ta l St at us Rev ie ws, bu t he of te n

refu se d to pa rti ci pa te

. Afte r a week in th e ho sp it al

, Saylor was pl aced in th e Sp eci al

Man ag em en t Uni t (SM U) fo r refu si ng to m ov e to Pro te ct iv e Cu st od y

. S M U i s th e

on ly faci li ty wit h si ng le cel ls

, an d Saylor sp eci fic al ly as ke d fo r hi s own cel l be cau se

of hi s PTSD an d fear of ro om m at es

. In earl y Octo be r 20 10

, he was m ov ed to

Pro te ct iv e Cu st od y , whi ch ho us es two in m at es pe r cel l. In la te Octo be r 20 10

, he was pl aced on im m ed ia te se gr eg at io n ag ai n an d ho us ed in SMU be cau se he fear ed fo r hi s

sa fet y

. The reaf

te r, in th e no rm al co ur se , Saylor' s clas si fic at io n was rev ie wed ev ery

fo ur m on th s pe r po li cy an d pr oc ed ur e, an d he was al lo wed to at te nd each he ari ng

. As

a res ul t of th es e r e v i e w s, TSCI co nc lu de d th at Saylor co ul d be rel eas ed in to

Pro te ct iv e Cu st od y , bu t he reject ed th at pr op os al each ti m e du e t o h i s f e ar of

Wh e n an in m at e arri ve s at TSCI, he is cl as si fie d. Cl as si fic at io ns in cl ud e 3 "[d ]em ot io n to

, co nt in ua ti on of an d pr om ot io n fro m al l cu st od y gr ad es ;" "u ni t, wor k

an d pr og ram as si gn m en t; " an d "[a ]ssi gn m en t to

, co nt in ua ti on of an d rem ov al f r o m Adm in is tra ti ve Seg reg at io n." "Ad m in is tra ti ve Seg reg at io n in cl ud es : Adm in is tra ti ve Co nf in em en t, In te ns iv e Man ag em en t, Pro te ct iv e Cu st od y , an d Tran si ti on Co nf in em en t. " Ev e r y fo ur m on th s th e pr is on co nd uc ts a rev ie w of in m at es in
Adm in is tra ti ve Seg reg at io n.

-4

-ro om m at es

. The refo re, Saylor rem ai ne d in SMU fo r th e du rat io n of hi s ti m e at TSCI.

Saylor br ou gh t su it ag ai ns t Dr. Koh l an d th e ot he r na m ed Defen da nt s un de r 42
U.S.C. § 1 98 3. He cl ai m s th at Defen da nt s re ta li at ed ag ai ns t h im in vi ol at io n o f th e

Fi rs t Am en dm en t by tra ns ferr in g hi m to TSCI an d recl as si fy in g hi m , th at th e tra ns fer

an d cl as si fic at io n rev ie w pr oc es s vi ol at ed hi s du e pr oc es s rig ht s un de r th e Fo ur te en th

Am en dm en t, a n d t h a t Defen da nt s were de li be rat el y in di ffer en t to hi s PTSD in

v i o la ti on of th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t. Defen da nt s fil ed a m ot io n to di sm is s, an d t h e

di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d th e St at e o f Neb ras ka an d NDCS fro m th e cas e, an d de ni ed

m on et ary rel ie f ag ai ns t in di vi du al de fen da nt s in t h e i r of fic ia l cap aci ti es

. The

rem ai ni ng de fen da nt s th en m ov ed fo r su mm ary jud gm en t ba se d on qu al ifi ed

im m un it y

. The di st ric t co ur t st at ed th at "[t ]h e c o n s t i t ut io na l rig ht at is su e ari se s

un de r th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t," an d th us , di d n o t di rect ly di sc us s Saylor' s Fi rs t or

Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t cl ai m s. On th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t cl ai m , ho wev er, th e co ur t

he ld

, "[T]her e are ge nu in e is su es of m at eri al fact on whe th e r t h e de fen da nt s were

de li be rat el y in di ffer en t to hi s se rio us m ed ic al ne ed s so as to vi ol a t e t h e Ei gh th

Am en dm en t." Thu s, th e co ur t he ld th at su mm ary jud gm en t was in ap pr op ria te an d

de ni e d qu al ifi ed im m

un it y

. In th is in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al Defen da nt s ch al le ng e th e

di st ric t co ur t's de ni al of s um m ary jud gm en t b as ed on qu al ifi ed im m un it y

.

II

. DISCUSS IO N

"Fa ced wit h an in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al fro m th e de ni al of qu al ifi ed im m un it y , we

acce pt as tru e th e d is tri ct co ur t's fin di ng s o f fac t to th e ex te nt th ey are no t 'bl at an tl y

co n t r a d i c t e d by th e reco rd ,' an d rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t's co nc lu si on s of la w de

no vo ." W al to n v. Dawso n, 75 2 F.3 d 11 09

, 11 16 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (q uo ti ng Sco tt v.

Harri s, 55 0 U.S. 37 2, 38 0 (2 00 7) ). Su m m ary jud gm en t is on ly pr op er whe n th ere is

no ge nu in e is su e of

m at eri al fact an d t he m ov an t i s en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r

of la w. Turn ey v. W at erb ur y , 37 5 F.3 d 75 6, 75 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ). Gen eral ly, su m m ary

-5

-jud gm en t ba se d on qu al ifi ed im m un it y is a le ga l qu es ti on

. Id

. at 76 0. Howev er, "[i ]f

th e di st ric t co ur t fai ls to m ak e a f a c t u a l f in di ng on an is su e rel ev an t to ou r pu rel y

le ga l rev ie w, we 'de te rm in e wha t fa ct s t he di st ric t co ur t, i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le

to th e no nm ov in g pa rty, li kel y as su m ed .'" W al to n, 75 2 F.3 d at 11 16 (q uo ti ng Jo hn so n

v

. Jo ne s, 51 5 U.S. 30 4, 31 9 (1 99 5) ). If th is is im po ss ib le

, su m

m ary jud gme n t i s

im pr op er, an d t he cas e m

us t b e rem an de d. Id . at 1 11 7.

"Go ve rn m en t of

fic ia ls pe rfo rm in g di sc ret io na ry fu nc ti on s are en ti tl ed to

qu al ifi ed im m

un it y un le ss th ey vi ol at e cl earl y es ta bl is he d st at ut or y or co ns ti tu ti on al
rig ht s of whi ch a reas on ab le pe rs on wou ld ha ve kn own ." W hi sm an v. Ri ne ha rt, 11 9

F.3 d 13 03

, 13 09 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ). As in th is cas e, qu al ifi ed im m un it y is us ua ll y rai se d

in a m ot io n for s um m ary jud gm en t as an affi rm at iv e de fen se to th e cl ai m s. Id

. "To

o v e r c o me t he de fen se of qu al ifi ed im m un it y , a pl ai nt iff m

us t sh ow: (1 ) th e fact s,

vi ewed in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e p la in ti ff, d em on st rat e th e de pr iv at io n of a

co ns ti tu ti on al or st at ut or y rig ht ; an d (2) th e rig ht was cl earl y es ta bl is he d at th e ti m e

of th e d ep riv at io n." Howard v. Kan . C it y Po li ce Dep 't, 57 0 F .3d 98 4, 9 88 (8t h C ir.

20 09 ).

W he th er th ere ha s be en a de pr iv at io n of a co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht is a fact -in te ns iv e

a n a lysis

. The m ean in g of "cl earl y es ta bl is he d," ho wev er, ha s be en li ti ga te d

ex te ns iv el y an d gi ve n a m or e de fin it e m ean in g. The Eig ht h Ci rcu it an d th e Su pr em e

Co ur t ha ve he ld th at a rig ht is cl earl y es ta bl is he d if "t he ' c o n t o u r s of th e rig ht [are ]

su ffi ci en tl y cl ear th at a reas on a b l e of fic ia l wou ld un de rs ta nd th at wha t he is do in g

vi ol at es th at rig ht .'" Bu ck le y v. Ro ge rs on , 1 3 3 F

. 3 d 11 25

, 11 28 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 )
(q uo ti ng And ers on v. Crei gh to n, 4 8 3 U

. S

. 63 5, 64 0 (1 98 7) ). Thi s is so th at an

" o f fic ia l is no t req ui red to gu es s th e di rect io n of fu tu re le ga l de ci si on s." I d

. Ess en ti al ly, th e la w m

us t be cert ai n en ou gh to gi ve a "fa ir an d cl ear warn in g." Uni te d

St at es v. Lan ie r, 52 0 U.S. 25 9, 27 1 (1 99 7)

. If a pl ai nt iff can sh ow rel ev an t cas e la w

in th e juri sd ic ti on at th e ti m e of th e in ci d e n t t h a t sh ou ld ha ve pu t th e go ve rn m en t

-6

-em

pl oyee on no t i c e , q u a l ifi ed im m un it y is im

pr op er. See Ash cro ft v. al -Kid d, 13 1

S. Ct . 20 74 , 20 86 (20 11 ) (Ken ne dy, J., con cu rri ng ).

A. Ei gh th Am endment Cla im

Saylor "al le ge s th at th e de fen da nt s were de li be rat el y in di ffer en t to hi s se rio us

m ed ic al ne ed s in fai li ng to pr op erl y tre at hi m fo r [PTSD]." Here, Saylor es se nt ia ll y

cl ai m s th at hi s le ve l of care aft er Dr. Ch ris te ns en le ft NSP was so lo w as to co ns ti tu te

cru el an d un us ua l pu ni sh m en t. The di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at Defen da nt s were no t

en ti tl ed to su m

m ary jud gm en t ba se d on qu al ifi ed im m un it y fo r th is cl ai m be cau se "[t ]here are ge nu in e di sp ut es co nc ern in g th e pr ed ic at e fact s m at eri al to th e qu al ifi ed

im m un it y is su e." Defen da nt s arg ue th at th is de ci si on was in erro r. Afte r rev ie win g

4

th e fact s det erm in ed by th e di st ric t co ur t, as well as th os e li ke ly as su m ed

, we ag ree.

"Th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t 'pr oh ib it s th e i n f l ic ti on of cru el an d un us ua l

pu ni sh m en ts on th os e co nv ic te d of cri m es .'" Nels on v. Co rr. Med

. Serv s., 583 F.3 d

52 2, 52 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (q uo ti ng W il so n v. Sei te r, 50 1 U.S. 29 4, 29 6- 97 (1 99 1) ). In

Alt ho ug h we do no t ha ve juri sd ic ti on "at th is jun ct ur e to de ci de whe th er 'th e 4

di st ric t co ur t's de te rm in at io n of ev id en ti ary su ffi ci en cy ' was co rrec t," W al to n, 75 2
F.3 d a t 1 11 6 (q uo ti ng Tho m as v. Tal le y , 25 1 F .3d 74 3, 7 47 (8t h C ir. 2 00 1) ),

we [d o] h av e juri sd ic ti on to de ci de , v ie win g t he fact s i n th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to [th e] pl ai nt iff [], whe th er a reas on ab le fact -fi nd er co ul d fin d

a vi ol at io n of pl ai nt iff

['s ] rig h t s , whe th er th e la w es ta bl is hi ng th e

v i o la ti on was cl earl y es ta bl is he d at th e ti m e in qu es ti on , wh a t w a s kn own to a pe rs on w h o m ig ht be sh ie ld ed by qu al ifi ed im m un it y , an d
th e rea so na bl en es s o f de fen da nt [s '] act io ns

.

S.M. v. Krig ba um , 8 08 F.3 d 33 5, 34 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ). Here, we de ci de th e "p ur el y le ga l m at te r" of whe th er "t he de ni al [o f qu al ifi ed im m un it y ] was erro ne ou s." Payne

v. Br it te n, 7 49 F.3d 69 7, 7 00 (8t h C ir. 2 01 4)

.

-7

-reg ard s to pr i s o n c o n d it io ns , co nf in em en t, an d m ed ic al care whi le in pr is on , "t he

co ns ti tu ti on al qu es ti on

. . . is whe t h e r [ D e f en da nt s] act ed wit h 'de li be rat e

in di ffer en ce.' " I d

. ( q u o ti ng W il so n, 50 1 U.S. at 30 3)

. "A pr is on of fic ia l is

de li be rat el y in di ffer en t if sh e 'kn ows of an d di sr eg ard s' a se rio us m ed ic al ne ed or a

su bs ta nt ia l ris k to an in m at e's he al th or sa fet y ." Id

. (q uo ti ng Farm er v. Bren na n, 51 1

U.S. 82 5, 8 37 (19 94 )). The de li be rat e in di ffer en ce s ta nd ard ha s b ot h o bjec ti ve an d

su bjec ti ve pr on gs

. Id

. at 52 9. The pl ai n t i f f must pr ov e "t ha t he su ffer ed fro m an

ob jecti ve ly se rio us m ed ic al ne ed " an d "t ha t [ D efen da nt s] act ua ll y kn ew of bu t

de li be rat el y

di sr eg ard ed hi s s eri ou s m ed ic al ne ed ." Sco tt v. Be ns on , 74 2 F .3d 33 5,

34 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). A m ed ic al co nd it io n is "o bjec ti ve ly se rio us " if th e pr is on er was

di ag no se d by a do c t o r o r it is so ob vi ou s th at a la y pe rs on wou ld reco gn iz e th e

m ed ic al ne ed

. Id

. It is no t co nt es t e d t h a t S a yl o r ha d a se rio us m ed ic al ne ed ; Dr.

Ch ris te ns en di ag no se d Saylor wit h PTSD in 20 05

. Here, th e su bjec ti ve pr on g is th e

m ai n is su e. Th e s u b

je c ti ve pr on g of de li be rat e in di ffer en ce is an ex tre m el y hi gh

st an da rd th at req ui res a m en ta l s ta te of " m or e

. . . th an gr os s neg li ge nc e." Fo ur te v.

Fau lk ne r Ct y ., Ark

., 74 6 F.3 d 38 4, 38 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (q uo ti ng Jo ll y v. Knu ds en , 20 5

F.3 d 10 94

, 10 96 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 )). It "re qu ire s a men t a l st at e 'ak in to cri m in al

reck le ss ne ss .'" Ja ck so n v . Buc km an , 75 6 F .3d 10 60 , 10 65 (8t h C ir. 2 00 4) (qu ot in g

Sco tt

, 74 2 F.3 d at 34 0)

. Eve n m ed ic al m al pr act ic e do es no t au to m at ic al ly co ns ti tu te

de li be rat e in di ffer en ce. Id . at 1 06 5- 66

.

Fo r Hou st on , Bri tt en , an d B a k e w el l, th e no nm ed ic al de fen da nt s in th is cas e, Saylor "m

us t al le ge an d sh ow th at th e su pe rv is or pe rs on al ly pa rti ci pa t e d i n o r ha d

di rect res po ns ib il it y fo r th e al le ge d vi ol at io ns " or "t ha t th e su pe rv is or act ua ll y kn ew

of

, an d was de li be rat el y in di ffer en t to or ta ci tl y au th or iz ed

, th e un co ns ti tu ti on al act s."

McDo well v. J on es , 99 0 F.2 d 43 3, 43 5 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ). The y m us t ha ve al so ha d a

"s uf fic ie nt ly cu lp ab le st at e of m in d." Farm er, 51 1 U.S. at 83 4 (q uo ti ng W il so n, 50 1

U.S. a t 2 9 7 )

. S ay lo r pr ov id es no sp eci fic ev id en ce to sh ow th at an y of th e

no nm ed ic al de fen da nt s were in vo lv e d i n , or di rect ly res po ns ib le fo r, hi s al le ge dl y

-8

-i n s u f

fic ie nt m ed ic al care

. The se de fen da nt s di d no t ev en pa rti ci pa te in th e 5

m ul ti di sc ip li na ry m eet in g reg ard in g Saylor' s tra ns fer. Thu s, be cau se th ey di d no t

ha ve "a reas on to be li ev e (o r act ua l kn owl ed ge ) th at pr is on do ct or s or th ei r as si st an ts
[were ] m is tre at in g (o r no t tre at in g) [Saylor ], " th ey can no t be he ld li ab le fo r cru el an d

un us ua l pu ni sh m en t in vi ol at io n of th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t. Hay es v. Sn y de r, 54 6

F.3 d 51 6, 52 7 (7 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (q uo ti ng Sp ru il l v. Gil li s, 37 2 F.3 d 21 8, 23 6 (3 d Ci r.

20 04 )).

As fo r th e na m ed m ed ic al de fen da nt s, Dr. Ko hl , Dr. W hi te , Dr. W ei la ge , and

Dr. Pere z, no ne were tre at in g ph y si ci an s. Thu s, th es e de fen da nt s al so act ed in a

su pe rv is or y cap aci ty. " To im po se su pe rv is or y li ab il it y , ot he r m is co nd uc t [b y th e

m ed ic al de fen da nt s] m

us t be ve ry si m il ar to th e co nd uc t gi vi ng ris e to li ab i l i ty."

Liv ers v. Sch en ck

, 70 0 F.3 d 34 0, 35 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). Thi s m ean s th at th ere is no real

vi cari ou s li ab il it y

. See McDo well

, 99 0 F.2 d at 43 5. Rat he r, to be li ab le un de r § 19 83

th e m ed ic al de fen da nt s ha d to pe rs on al ly vi ol at e Saylor' s rig ht s or be res po ns ib le fo r

a syste m at ic co nd it io n th at vi ol at e s t h e C o n s ti tu ti on

. Liv ers , 70 0 F.3 d at 35 7.
Saylor' s m ai n arg um en t is th at th e tre at m en t t ha t o ccu rred aft er Dr. Ch ris te ns en lef t

NSP ris es to th e le ve l of cru el an d un us ua l pu ni sh m en t. Dr. Ch ris te ns en 's tre at m en t pl an was th ree- pa rt: reg ul ar ps y ch ot he rap y tre at m en t, m e di cat io n, an d a sa fe

en vi ro nm en t. Th e med ic al de fen da nt s at te m pt ed to pr ov id e Saylor wit h an ot he r

ps y ch ia tri st at NSP, ul ti m at el y f o un d hi m an ot he r ps y ch ia tri st at TSCI, co nt in ue d

Saylor ge ne ral ly st at e s i n h is co m pl ai nt th at "Def

en da nt s Bak ewel l, Bri tt en 5

an d Hou st on are eq ua ll y res po ns ib le pa rti ci pa nt s in th e Pl ai nt iff 's tra ns fer, an d an y red uc ti on in he al th care se rv ic es to th e Pl ai nt iff [th at ] res ul te d fro m su ch tra ns f er."

W it ho u t a n y s pe ci fic s, Saylor cl ai m s th at th e no nm ed ic al de fen da nt s "co nt in ua ll y

ex po se d [h im ] to in to le rab le

, ho rri fy in g, an d m ed ic al ly de tri m en ta l co nd it io ns whi le
he [was ] ho us ed at TSCI s i nc e 20 10 ." The se in di sc riminat e gr ie va nc es are no t

en ou gh to pr ov e th at th e y k n e w of

, pa rti ci pa te d in

, or im

pl ic it ly au th or iz ed

, th e

m is tre at m en t o r no nt reat m en t of Saylor, su ch as is ne ces sa ry to m ai nt ai n a cla im

of
de li be rat e in di ffer en ce u nd er t he Eig ht h Am en dm en t.

-9

-m ed ic at io n as th ey sa w fit wit hi n th ei r in de pe nd en t m ed ic al jud gm en t, an d ga ve hi m

hi s req ue st ed pr iv at e cel l. To th e ex te nt th ere was a n y ch an ge in Dr. Ch ris te ns en 's

tre at m en t pl an , Saylor req ue st ed so m e an d agr eed to ot he r de vi at io ns

. Sp eci fic al ly,
Saylor st at ed he wa s w i ll in g to fo rg o se ei ng a do ct or so lo ng as he co ul d co nt in ue

ta ki ng hi s m ed ic at i o n s

. Afte r th e m eet in g wit h Dr. Bak er whe rei n sh e su gg es te d

eas in g h im

off Sero qu el be cau se it di d no t se em to be he lp in g a nd was c au si ng lo w

bl oo d p res su re, Saylo r ag reed to co nt in ue tak in g Xan ax

.

Thro ug ho ut hi s t i m e of in carc erat io n, th e reco rd sh ows th at Defen da nt s m et

S a yl o r ' s m ed ic al ne ed s be y on d th e m in im um st an da rd req ui red

. Defen da nt s were

aware of hi s m ed ic al ne ed s an d to ok st ep s to m eet th os e n e e d s

. B e cau se Saylor

c a nn ot sh ow th at Defen da nt s act ed wit h de li be rat e in di ffer en ce, th ere was n o

de pr iv at io n of hi s Eig ht h Am en dm en t rig ht s, an d th us , Defen da nt s are en ti tl ed to

qu al ifi ed im m

un it y

.

B. Firs t an d Fou rtee nth Amendm ent Cl ai m s

Defen da nt s c l a i m th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by fai li ng to fu ll y di sc us s th e

de ni al of su m

m ary jud gm en t ba se d on qu al ifi ed im m un it y wit h reg ard to th es e cl ai m s.

"It is 'cert ai n, and th e cas e la w is cl ear, th at [th e of fic ia ls ] are ent it le d to a th or ou gh

de te rmi na ti on of th ei r cl ai m [s ] of qu a l i f i ed im m un it y if th at im m

un it y is to m ean

an y th in g at al l.'" Payne, 74 9 F.3 d at 70 1 (fi rs t an d th ird al te rat io n in or ig in al )
(em ph as is ad de d) (q uo ti ng O'Neil v. Ci ty of Io wa Ci ty, Io wa, 49 6 F.3 d 91 5, 91 7 (8 th

Ci r. 20 07 )). A th or ou gh de te rm in at io n di sc us se s al l of th e cl ai m s li ti ga te d. Here, th e

co ur t de ni ed qu al ifi e d i m m un it y by ge ne ral ly de nyin g Defen da nt s' m ot io n fo r

su m m ary jud gm en t bu t on ly an al y zed th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t cl ai m

. Non et he le ss , a

rev ie w of th e fact s det erm in ed by th e di st ric t co ur t, as well as th os e li ke ly as su m ed

,

rev ea l s n o vi ol at io n of ei th er th e Fi rs t or Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t, an d th us , we

rev ers e an d d is m is s t he se cla im s as well

.

-1 0-Saylor cl ai m s th at in ret al ia ti on ag ai ns t hi m fo r fil in g th e st at e to rt cas e an d in

vi ol at io n of th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t, Defen da nt s (1 ) te rm in at ed Dr. Ch ris te ns en so th at Saylor no lo ng er rece iv ed ad eq ua te ps y ch ia tri c care , (2 ) di sc on ti nu ed hi s m ed ic in es , (3 ) refu se d to pr ov id e hi m wit h ps y ch ot he rap y , (4 ) tra ns ferr ed hi m to a ne w faci li ty,

an d (5 ) ke pt hi m is ol at ed in Adm in is tra ti ve Seg reg at io n with ou t re vi ew. Sim il arl y , Saylor' s Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t su bs ta nt iv e du e pr oc es s cl ai m ari se s du e to hi s

tra ns fer t o TSC I an d h is su bs eq ue nt co nf in em en t i n S MU.

In or de r to su ccee d on a Fi rs t Am en dm en t ret al ia ti on cl ai m Saylor m us t sh ow

th at "(1 ) he en ga ge d in a pr ot ect ed act iv it y , (2 ) th e go ve rn m en t of fic ia l to ok ad ve rs e

act io n ag ai ns t hi m th at wou ld ch il l a pe rs on of or di na ry fir m ne ss fro m co nt in ui ng in

th e act iv it y , an d (3 ) th e ad ve rs e act io n was m ot iv at ed at le as t in pa rt by th e ex erci se

of th e pr ot ect ed act iv it y ." Rev el s v. Vin cen z, 38 2 F.3 d 87 0, 87 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ). The

re as on fo r th e go ve rn m en t of fic ia l's act io n m

us t h a v e be en to pr ev en t th e pl ai nt iff

fro m en ga gi ng in th e p ro te ct ed act iv it y . Id.

Fi rs t, "i nm at es ha ve no co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht to rece iv e a pa rti cu la r or req ue st ed

co ur s e o f t r eat m en t, an d pr is on do ct or s rem ai n free to ex erci se th ei r in de pe nd en t

m ed ic al jud gm en t." Meu ir v. Green e Ct y

. Ja il Em ps ., 48 7 F.3 d 11 15

, 11 18 (8 th Ci r.

20 07 ) (q uo ti ng Dul an y v. Carn ah an , 13 2 F.3 d 12 34

, 12 39 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 )). As su ch

, Defen da nt s vi ol at ed no co ns ti tu tio na l ri ght by as sig nin g Say lo r to an ot he r ps y ch ia tri st

wh e n Dr. Ch ris te ns en 's co nt ract wit h NDCS en de d or by ch an gi ng Saylor' s

m ed ic at io n at th e di rect io n of a do ct or

. Seco nd

, "a pr is on er en joy s no co ns ti tu ti on al
rig ht to rem ai n in a pa rti cu la r in st it ut io n." Gof f v. Bu rto n, 7 F.3 d 73 4, 73 7 (8 th Ci r.

1 99 3) (q uo ti ng Mu rp hy v . M o. Dep 't of Co rr., 76 9 F.2 d 50 2, 50 3 (8 th C i r

. 1 9 8 5 ) )

. In fact

, "p ris on of

fic ia ls 'm ay tra ns fer a pr is on er fo r wha te ve r reas on or fo r no reas on

a t a l l

. ' " Id

. (q uo ti ng Oli m v. W ak in ek on a, 46 1 U.S. 23 8, 25 0 (1 98 3) ). Howe v e r ,
ret al ia ti on ag ai ns t a pr is on er can no t be th e m ot iv at io n be hi nd th e tra ns fer. Id

. Here,

th e cl earl y st at ed

, no nr et al ia to ry reas on fo r th e tra ns fer was t o p r o v id e Saylor wit h

-1 1-ne ces sa ry ps y ch ia tri c care

. He refu se d to se e Dr. Kam al at NSP, an d Dr. Bak er was

av ai l a b l e t o w o rk wit h Saylor at TSCI. Fi na ll y , Saylor was ke pt in Adm in is tra ti ve Seg reg at io n, sp eci fic al ly SMU, be cau se he req ue st ed hi s own cel l du e to hi s PTSD.

Thi s is th e on ly area wit h si ng le pr is on er cel ls

. Alt ho ug h he w a s cl eare d to be

rel eas ed in to Pro te ct iv e Cu st od y , he wou ld ha ve ha d to sh are a cel l wit h a ro om m at e,

whi ch he refu se d to do

. It is bl at an tl y co nt rad ic to ry to req ue st a pr iv at e cel l wit h no

ro om m at es an d th en co m pl ai n ab ou t is ol at io n. Bec au se no ne of Saylor ' s a c t iv it ie s

were pr ot ect ed an d no ne of Defen da nt s' act io ns were ret al ia to ry , Saylor ha s no Fi rs t

Am en dm en t cl ai m

.

"Th e Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t's Due Pro ces s C la us e pr ot ect s pe rs on s ag ai ns t

d e p r i v a t io ns of li fe, li be rty, or pr op ert y ." W il ki ns on v. Aus ti n, 54 5 U.S. 20 9, 22 1
(2 00 5)

. To st at e a cl ai m un de r th e Due Pr o c e s s C l a u s e , so m e in te res t m us t fir st be

vi ol at ed

. See Si ng le to n v. Cec il

, 17 6 F.3 d 41 9, 4 2 4 ( 8 t h Ci r. 19 99 ). "A li be rty

in te res t m ay ari se fro m th e Co ns ti tu ti on it se lf, by reas on of gu aran te es im pl ic it in th e

wor d 'li be rty,' or it m ay ari se fro m an ex pe ct at io n or in te res t crea te d by st at e la ws or

po li ci es ." W il ki ns o n , 5 4 5 U.S. at 22 1. In m os t cas es , su bs ta nt iv e du e pr oc es s

vi ol at io ns in vo lv e "m arri ag e, fam il y , pr oc reat io n, and th e ri gh t t o b od il y in te gr it y ."

Si ng le to n, 17 6 F.3 d at 42 5 (q uo ti ng Alb rig ht v. Oli ve r, 51 0 U.S. 26 6, 27 2 (1 99 4) ).

Mo re ge ne ral ly, th e Su pr em e Co u rt ha s he ld th at su bs ta nt iv e du e pr oc es s "p ro te ct s

th os e fu nd am en ta l rig ht s an d li be rti es whi ch are, ob jecti ve ly, ' d e e p l y r oo te d in th is

Nati on 's hi st or y an d tra di ti on ,' an d 'im pl ic it in th e co nc ep t of or de r e d li be rty.'" Id

. (q uo ti ng W as hi ng to n v . Glu ck sb erg , 52 1 U.S. 7 02 , 72 1 (1 99 7) ).

In reg ard s t o S ay lo r's tra ns fer fr om NSP to TSCI:

th e Due Pro ces s Cl au se in an d of it se lf [d oe s no t ] p r o t ect a du ly

co nvi ct ed pr is on er ag ai ns t tra ns fer fro m on e in st it ut io n to an other w ith in
th e st at e pr is on syste m

. Co nf in em en t in an y of th e St at e's in st it ut io ns is

-1 2-wit hi n th e no rm al li m it s o r r a ng e of cu st od y whi ch th e co nv ic ti on ha s

au th or iz ed th e St at e to im po se

.

Mea ch um v. Fan o, 42 7 U.S. 21 5, 22 5 (1 97 6)

. Here, Saylor was tra ns ferr ed to a

co m pa rab le pr is on fo r th e so le pu rp os e of ob ta in in g ps y ch ia tri c care

. Thi s do es no t

vi ol at e th e Due Pro ces s Cl au se of th e Fo ur te e n t h A mend m en t, an d ne it he r do es Saylor' s co nf

in em en t in SMU on ce he arri ve d at TSCI. Saylor on ly ha s a cl ai m un de r

th e Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t if th e act io n by th e go ve rn men t o f fic ia ls "i m

po se [d ]

at y pi cal an d si gn ifi can t ha rd sh ip on [ hi m ] in rel at io n to th e or di na ry in ci de nt s of

pr is on li fe." San di n v. Co nn er, 51 5 U.S. 47 2, 48 4 (1 99 5)

. S e g r e g a t i o n du e to a

pr is on er's req ue st to be ke pt in a s i n g l e p ris on er cel l be cau se of PTSD is no t an

at y pi cal or a si gn ifi can t ha rd sh ip

. Rat he r, TSCI m ad e sp eci al acco m m od at io ns fo r Saylor. Acco rd in gl y , th ere ha s be en no co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n, an d th us , Saylor ha s

no co gn iz ab le Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t cl ai m

. Defen da nt s are en ti tl ed t o q u al ifi ed

im m un it y on th es e two is su es

.

II I. CONCLUSI ON

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s re ve rs ed , and th e cas e is di sm is se d.

KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e, di ss en ti ng

.

The di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at th e ev id en ce in th is cas e, vi ewed in th e li gh t m os t

fav or ab le to Saylor, de m on st rat ed a ge nu i n e d is pu te as to th e fact s rel ev an t to

qu al ifi ed im m

un it y

. I ag ree wit h t h e d i s t r i ct co ur t th at th e ev id en ce pr es en te d by
Saylor, th ou gh no t di sp os it iv e as to th e m eri ts of hi s cl ai m , pr ecl u d es su m m ary jud gm en t o n t he ba si s o f qu al ifi ed im m un it y

.

In Saylor’s pr ev io us st at e to rt la wsu it

, th e st at e co ur t fo un d th at th e Dep art m en t

of Co rrec ti on s ha d ne gl ig en tl y fai le d to p r o vi de ad eq ua te care fo r Saylor’s PTSD

-1 3-be twee n Ju ne 11

, 20 02

, an d Nov em be r 22

, 20 05

. A s t h e di st ric t co ur t no te d, th e

de fen da nt s pr es en te d no ev id en ce su gg es ti ng th at th ey were un aware of th e pr io r st at e

co ur t jud gm en t. Fo r th e pu rp os es of th e su m m ary jud gm en t an al y si s, th ere is no

ge nu in e di sp ut e th at al l th e de fen da nt s were act ua ll y aware of Saylor’s se rio us

m ed ic al ne ed s an d th e ris k of ha rm if he were de ni ed ad eq ua te care

. The di st ric t co ur t

fo un d th at Saylor ha d pr od uc ed ev id en c e—i nc lu di ng hi s tre at m en t reco rd s, hi s

co m m un ic at io ns wit h pr is on st aff, reco rd s of hi s tra ns fe r a n d ad m in is tra ti ve

se gr eg at io n, th e a f

f i d a v i t of Dr. Ch ris te ns en , a nd hi s own affi da vi t— to su pp or t hi s

co nt en ti on th at th e Dep art m en t of Co rrec ti on s ha d rev ert ed to pr ov id in g in ad eq ua te

m ed ic al tre at m en t as th ey ha d pr ev io us ly. Thi s ev id en ce, vi e w e d in th e li gh t m os t

fav or ab le to Saylor, te nd s to sh ow th at sh or tl y aft er th e jud gm en t in hi s st at e to rt cas e, Saylor’s tre at m en t by Dr. Ch ris te ns en was ab ru pt ly di sc on ti nu ed ; hi s tre at m en t pl an , in cl ud in g hi s dr ug th erap y , was in te rru pt ed ; th e res po ns ib le Dep art m en t of

Co rrec t i o n s of

fic ia ls fai le d to de ve lo p an ap pr op ria te al te rn at iv e tre at m en t pl an ;

pr is on st aff ret ur ne d to th ei r pr io r pr act ic e of fai li ng to res po nd or res po nd in g

in ad eq ua te ly to Saylor’s co m m un ic at io ns ; an d Saylor was tra ns ferr ed an d pl aced on

th e m os t res tri ct iv e co nf

in em en t cl as si fic at io n po ss ib le

, de sp it e th at cl as si fic at io n’s

in co m pa ti bi li ty wit h hi s he al th ne ed s. The ev id en ce do es no t es ta b l i s h th at Saylor

cau se d or co ns en te d to th e ch an ge s to hi s t r e a t men t, or th at Saylor’s tra ns fer an d
pl acement in th e Sp eci al Man ag em en t U n i t w e r e ne ces sa ry an d co ns is te nt wit h an

ad eq ua te tre at m en t pl an

. Mo reo ve r, th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at th ere was su ffi ci en t

ev id en ce of each de fen da nt ’s in vo lv em en t in Saylor’s care to es ta bl is h th at th ey m ay

ha ve be en pe rs on al ly aware of or in vo lv ed in th is al le ge d l y un co ns ti tu ti on al

tre at m en t.

The di st ric t cou rt’s fact ua l fin di ng s, rat he r th an be in g “ bl at an tl y co nt rad ic te d
by th e reco rd ,” a r e w e l l su pp or te d an d refl ect care fu l co ns id erat io n of th e reco rd

ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to Saylor. W al to n, 75 2 F.3 d at 11 16

. Bas ed on

th es e fin di ng s, it wou ld be po ss ib le to co nc lu de th at th e de fen da nt s “ act ua ll y kn ew

-1 4-o f

, an d [were ] de li be rat el y in di ffer en t to or ta ci tl y au th or iz ed ” co ns ti tu ti on al l y

de fic ie nt m ed ic al care fo r Saylor. McDo well

, 99 0 F.2 d at 43 5. The fact s rel ev an t to

qu al ifi ed im m

u n i t y are ge nu in el y di sp ut ed

, pr ecl ud in g su m m ary jud gm en t on th is

ba si s. I wou ld th eref

or e affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of su m m ary jud gm en t as to Saylor’s Ei gh th Am en dm en t d el ib erat e in di ffer en ce cl ai m

.

W it h reg ard t o S a y lo r’s Fi rs t an d Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t cl ai m s, th e di st ric t

co ur t di d no t m ak e an y fact ua l de te rm in at io ns or co nd uc t t h e r e qu ire d “ th or ou gh

de te rm in at io n” of th e de fen da nt s’ en ti tl em en t to qu al ifi ed im m un it y

. See Payne, 74 9

F.3 d at 70 1 (q uo ti ng O’ Neil

, 49 6 F.3 d at 91 8)

. W it ho ut th e di st ric t co ur t’s f a ct ua l

fin di ng s, we ha ve no ba si s fo r ou r rev ie w of th e gr an t or de ni al of qu al ifi ed im m un it y

. The refo re, whe n th e di st ric t co ur t fai ls or refu se s to ru le on qu al ifi ed im m un it y , “ ou r

co ur t on ly ex erci se s it s juri sd ic ti on to co m pe l th e di st ric t co ur t to de ci de th e qu al ifi ed

im m un it y qu es ti on .” Id

. I wou ld rem an d Saylor’s Fi rs t an d Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t

cl ai m s to th e di st ric t co ur t fo r it to pr op erl y co nd uc t th e qu al ifi ed im m un it y an al y si s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 5-