FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 25, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 97 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :0 8- cv -0 00 26 -J ES-DNF CANDY DILLARD, in di vi du al ly andas m ot he r an d n ex t o f fri en d o f Reube n F ife , Jr., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt , vers us FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE, PRIS ON HEAL TH SERVICES, INC., SHERIFF KEVIN RAMBOSK, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees , COLLIER COUNTY BCC EMS FIR E RESCUE, et al ., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s.

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

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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 25 , 20 11 )Befo re EDMONDSON, CARNES an d P RYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es .

PER CURI AM: Whi le incu st od y

of t he Sh eri ff o f Co ll ie r Co un ty, Fl or id a atth e Ju ve ni le Ass es sm en t Ce nt er i n Nap le s, Fl or id a, Reube n F ife , Jr. ex pe rie nc edsei zu res an d was rus he d t o ane arb y

ho sp it al . The s ei zu res lef t h im ina se mi-v eg et at iv e st at e. 1 Can dy Dill ard , in di vi du al ly andas m ot he r an d n ex t fr ie ndof h er s on Fif e, br ou gh t su itinst at e co urt s eek in g d am ag es ag ai ns t, am on g o th ers , th e Sh eri ff i n h is of fic ia l capa ci ty und er b ot h 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 an d F lo rid a to rt l aw fo r in juri es su st ai ne d b y

Fif e whi le inth e Sh eri ff’s cu st od y . Bas edonth e § 19 83 cla im ag ai ns t h im , th e Sh eri ff rem ov edth e la wsu itto fed eral co urt u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. § 14 41 (c). Th e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t t o t he Sh eri ff o n t he § 1 98 3 an d s ta te ne gl ig en ce cl ai m s an d re m an de d the rem ai ni ng st at e la w cla im s t o s ta te co urt. Dil la rdco nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt fa il edto lo okat t he ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to he r as th e n on -m ov in g p arty an d t ha t the reco rdco nt ai ne d ev id en ce s uf

fic ie ntto crea te ge nu in e is su es of m at eri al factab ou t the de li be rat e

The district cour

t noted that “[a]pparently , Fife was suff eringfrom ac ute coc aine 1 tox icity , although there is no indication in the recor d as to the ca use of his seizures.” 2in di ffer en ce re qu ire d t o p ro ve he r § 1 98 3 c la im an d the bre ach of adu ty of care 2 requi redto pro ve he r st at e law neg li ge nc e cl ai m .

“ W e rev ie w de n ov o adi st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t.” Alv arez v. Ro y al Atl . Deve lo pe rs , Inc ., 61 0 F .3d12 53 , 12 63 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ).

“ W e wil l af

firm if, af te r co ns tru in g t he ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e no n- m ov in g p arty , we fin d t ha t n o g enui ne is su e o f m at eri al factex is ts an d t he m ov in g p arty

is en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m at te r of law.” Id . at 1 26 3– 64 . The m ov in g p arty

m us t p oi ntto th e p art ic ul ar p orti on s o f th e p le ad in gs an d t he reco rd ,

“ whi ch itbe li ev es de m on strat e th e ab se nc e o f a g enui ne is su e o f m at eri al fact .” Nor fo lkS. Ry . Co. v . Grov es , 58 6 F .3d12 73 , 12 77 (11 thCir . 20 09 ) (quo ti ng Cel ot ex Co rp . v. Cat ret t, 4 77 U.S. 31 7, 3 23 , 10 6 S .Ct. 2 54 8, 2 55 3 (1 98 6) ). Once th e m ov in g p arty

de m on st rat es anab se nc e o f m at eri al fact , th e n on -m ov in g p arty m us t s ho w th e ex is te nc e o f a g enui ne is su e o f m at eri al factto av oi d s umm ary jud gm en t. Gro ve s, 5 86 F.3dat 1 27 7. “ An i ss ue of f actis m at eri al if, u nd er the ap pl ic ab le subs ta nt iv e la w, itm ig htaffec t the ou tc om e o f th e cas e.” Hic ks on Co rp . v. N. Cro ss arm

Co .,35 7 F .3d12 56 , 12 59 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ).

A. The district cour

t did not reac h the issue of whe ther the Sheriff’s c ustom or policy was 2 the moving f

orce behind his deputies’ a lleg edly unconstitutional conduct bec ause the court found no deliberate indiffer ence on the par t of the deputies a

nd thus no unconstituti onal conduc t. 3Dil la rdarg ue s t ha t s he ha s p oi nt edto ev id en ce tha t cr eat eda ge nu in e is su e

of m at eri al factreg ard in g d el ib erat e in di ffer en ce. Dil la rddi rect s o uratt en ti on to th e ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce s ho win g t ha t Dep uty Hick s, the de pu ty who pro ces se d Fi fe atth e juv en il e cen te r, kn ew th atFif e h adus edco cai ne be fo re b ei ng de ta in ed ; th atot he r de pu ti es who were p res en t atth e arr es t an d kne w Fife no ti cedth athi s ey es were “ hu ge ” an d h e was no t h is us ua l, o ut go in g s el f; a ndth atan ot he r juv en il e in Fif

e’s ho ld in g c el l, Will ia m

Co lb urn, i nf

orm edDepu ty H ic ks ap pr ox im at el y

45 m in ut es be fo re Fi fe’s s ei zu re ep is od e th atFif e was “ real ly sh ak in g a ndswea ti ng real ly bad ” to whi ch Hick s re sp on de d, “ Yeah , he i s al way s he re. He is us edto it .” To p ro ve de li be rat e in di ffer en ce, Dil la rdha d t o p res en t ev id en ce tha t Fi fe ha d aser io us m ed ic al ne ed , Depu ty H ic ks was d el ib erat el y in di ffer en t t o t ha t n eed , an d F ife ’s in

jury w as cau se d b y

Depu ty H ic ks ’ de li be rat e in di ffer en ce. Goe be rt v . Lee Co un ty, 51 0 F .3d13 12 , 13 26 (11 th Cir .20 07 ). To s ho w th atDepu ty H ic ks was de li be rat el y

in di ffer en t t o F ife ’s ser io us m ed ic al ne ed , Dil la rdha d t o p ro ve

“ (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 angro ss ne gl ig en ce.” To wns en d v . Jef fers on Co un ty, 60 1 F .3d11 52 , 11 58 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (al te rat io ns om it te d) (qu ot in g B oz em anv. Oru m , 42 2 F .3d12 65 , 12 72 (11 th Cir .20 05 )). 4Eve n i f we as su m e th atth e ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce tha t Di ll arddi rect s o ur

at te nt io n t o c reat edge nu in e is su es of m at eri al factab ou t Dep ut y Hick s’ subjec ti ve kn owl ed ge of s om e m ed ic al ris k a nda di sr eg ardof t ha t ri sk , Hick s’ con du ctwas no t m or e th angro ss ne gl ig en ce. Fi fe t ol d Dep uty Hick s t ha t h e o nl y

co ns um eda

“ ke y ” o f co cai ne —a s m al l am ou ntth atwou ldfitonth e en d o f a h ou se ke y or c ar ke y —ab ou t s ev enho ur s b efo re b ei ng adm it te d t o the juv en il e cen te r an d m or e th anni ne ho ur s b efo re h is sei zu res be ga n. Atno ti m e d idFif e reque stan y

m ed ic al as si st an ce fr om

Depu ty H ic ks or anyon e el se at t he juv en il e cen te r. Nor d idhe ask th e o th er juv en il es inth e h ol di ng cel l t o s eekhe lp forhi m . In fa ct , he t ol d h is cel lm at es no t t o s eekhe lp . Fife als o app eare d n orm al an d re sp on de d app ro pr ia te ly to qu es ti on s fr om

sev eral in di vi du al s. Th os e in di vi du al s i nc lu de d t he de pu ty who arre st edhi m

an d b ro ug hthi m

to th e juv en il e cen te r, an d Dep ut y Hick s wh o adm it te d F ife to th e juv en il e cen te r, an d anurs e who in te rv ie wedhi m at the juv en il e cen te r, an d a no th er d ep ut y who tes te d F ife for

dru gs at t he juv en il e cen te r an d kne w hi m

pe rs on al ly. Fif

e al so ap pe aredno rm al to th ree o th er juv en il es inth e ho ld in g c el l, i nc lu di ng W il li am Co lb urn, u nt il ab ou t 4 5 m in ut es be fo re h is se iz ur es be ga n. Dep ut y Hick s, atth e ti m e Co lb urn t ol d h im ab ou t Fi fe’s s haki ng an d swe at in g, o nl y

kn ew th atFif

e h adus eda sm al l am ou ntof c oc ai ne ne arl y ni ne 5ho ur s b efo re an d h adbe enact in g n orm al up to th atpo in t. Giv enth atin fo rm at io n,

no t ac ti ng on Co lb urn’s i so la te d c omm en t tha t Fi fe was “ real ly sha ki ng an d swe at in g re al ly bad ” was no t m or e th angro ss ne gl ig en ce. Dep uty Hick s d idno t de li be rat el y

ig no re re pe at edreque st s fr om Fif e o r hi s ce ll m at es for

m ed ic al as si st an ce. No r eque st s wer e m ad e. Dep ut y Hick s al so di d n otde li be rat el y ig no re p at en tl y

ob vi ou s ri sk s t o Fi fe’s h eal th . Noton ly is the re n o e vi de nc e th atDepu ty H ic ks was a ware tha t Fi fe ha d i ng es te d a n a m ou ntof c oc ai ne lar ge en ou gh to pu t h im at s eri ou s ri skof h arm , bu t Fi fe’s o wn s ta te m en ts gave Hick s ev ery reas on to be li ev e th athe ha d o nl y co ns um eda sm al l am ou ntan d e ve n t ha t h adbe enni ne ho ur s b efo re. See Bu rn et te v. Taylor , 53 3 F .3d13 25 , 13 33 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (“ The Co ns ti tu ti on do es no t requi re an arre st in g p ol ic e o ffi cer o r jail off ic ia l t o s eekm ed ic al att en ti onfor ev ery arre st ee o r in m at e who ap pe ars to be affe ct edby dru gs or a lc oh ol .”). Infact , on ce Fi fe b eg anha vi ng sei zu res an d t he ris k o f se rio us ha rm be cam e o bv io us , Dep uty Hick s an d o th ers at t he juv en il e cen te r res po nd edby con ta ct in g e m erg en cy m ed ic al servi ces an d p ro vi di ng care to Fif e u nt il th e tr ai ne d m ed ic al he lp arri ve d. Dep uty Hick s’ in act io n i n t he sh ort t im e aft er Co lb urn’s i so la te d c omm en t an d be fo re the sei zu res be ga n was no t the type o f co ns ci ou s d is reg ardth atgi ve s ri se to anin fere nc e o f de li be rat e in di ffer en ce. See Goeb ert , 51 0 F .3dat 1 32 7– 28 (11 th 6Ci r. 20 07 ) (fi nd in g d el ib erat e in di ffer en ce wh ere apri so ne r’s nu m ero us pe rs on al

co m pl ai nt s o f se rio us m ed ic al ne edov er the co ur se of n earl y a weekan d t he jail do ct or ’s reco m

m en da ti on to see k o ut si de m ed ic al he lp were i gn or edby a pri so n of fic ia l ); see als o To wns en d, 6 01 F.3dat 1 15 8– 59 (fi nd in g n o d el ib erat e in di ffer en ce d es pi te th e p ris on er’s rep eat edco m pl ai nt s o f he r m ed ic al ne ed s be cau se th e d ep ut ie s d idno t kno w itwas e m erg en cy ). B. Fo r th e st at e to rt c la im , th e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t be cau se Dil la rddi d n ot“po in t t o a ny spe ci fic fact s” inhe r res po ns e to th e Sh eri ff’s m ot io n, an d the di st ric t co urt s ta te d t ha t i t i s n otrequi red“ to m in e a su m m ary jud gm en t re co rdsea rch in g fo r nu gg et s o f fac tu al di sp ut e.” Dil la rdm ad e a m or e th or ou gheffo rt i n t hi s C ou rt a ndinhe r br ie f di rect s u s t o t he same spe ci fic fact s fo r he r st at e la w neg li ge nc e cl ai m th atwe ha ve alr eady

di sc us se d fo r he r § 19 83 cla im . Und er Fl or id a la w, “ co rrec ti on s o ffi cers ha ve a du ty to u se reas on ab le care to in su re the saf

ety of i nm at es du rin g t he ir i nc arce rat io n.” Ferg us on v. Pe rry , 59 3 So . 2d27 3, 2 77 (Fl a. DCA 5t h 1 99 2) . Thatdu ty ent ai ls pro vi di ng fir staidto de ta in ees wher e th e co rrec ti on s o ffi cer “ kn ows or h as reas on to kn ow t ha t the y are il l o r in jure d, an d t o c are f

orth em un ti l the y

canbe care d fo r by oth ers .” Id . But 7Fl or id a la w do es no t re qu ire th e o ffi cer “ to tak e an y act io n u nt il he kn ows or h as reas onto kn ow tha t the pl ai nt iff is en dang ered , or i s i ll or i nju red .” Id . at 2 77 n.5 . The reco rdco ns tru edina li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to pl ai nt iff crea te s a que st io n of factab ou t wh ethe r Dep ut y Hick s h adreas on to kn ow tha t Fi fe was il l o r in jure d. Dep uty

Hick s, kno win g t ha t Fi fe h adus edco cai ne earl ie r in th e d ay , al le ge dl y bru sh edasi de an d d idno t re sp on d t o C ol bu rn ’s pu rp orte d s ta te m en t tha t Fi fe was “ real ly sha ki ng an d s weat in g re al ly bad .” Whi le ig no rin g t ha t i so la te d co m m en t d oe s n otris e to th e d el ib erat e in di ffer en ce n eces sa ry to su st ai n a§ 1 98 3 cl ai m , itdo es crea te ge nu in e is su es of m at eri al factab ou t wh ethe r Co lb urn m ad e th e co m m en t, wh ethe r Dep ut y

Hick s h eardan d i gn or edit , andwhet he r Dep ut y Hick s ac te d re as on ab ly und er the cir cu m st an ces by notch eck in g o n F ife be fo re h is se iz ur es be ga n. Sum

m ary jud gm en t was th us im pr op erl y gra nt edon th e Fl or id a 3 st at e la w neg li ge nc e cl ai m ag ai ns t the Sh eri ff. Of co ur se , rev ers al of the di st ric t co urt’s jud gm en t o n t hi s s ta te law cl ai m do es no t en ti tl e Dil la rdto jud gm en t o n t ha t cl ai m . Uns et tl edis su es of f actrem ai n to be de ci de d. In ad di ti on , th e d is tri ctco urt h as di sc ret io n o n re m an d t o d eci de

Unlike § 1983, Florida state lawappea rs to provide a

limit ed wa iver of sove reign 3 immunit y and per mit actions for vica

rious liability

for a g overnme nt employ ee’ s neg lige nce ag ainst the employing g overnme nt ag ency or subdivision. S ee F la. Stat. § 768.28(1); Cook ex rel. Estate of Tessier

v. Sheriff of

Monroe County , 402 F.3d 1092, 1119 n.12 ( 11th Cir. 2005).

8whe th er t o re m an d thi s s ta te law cl ai m to st at e co urt wi th th e o th er o ne s. See 28 U.S.C. § 1 36 7( c)(3 ) (“ The di st ric t co urts m ay de cl in e to ex erci se supp le m en ta l juri sd ic ti on ov er a cl ai m

. . . if . . . th e d is tri ctco urt h as di sm is se d a ll cla im s o ve r whi chitha s o rig in al juri sd ic ti on .”). AFFIRMED I N PART AND REVERSED I N PART.

9