FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T NOV 24, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
No. 0 9- 14 93 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock et No. 0 6- 00 35 1- CV-3 -RV-EM T

O'DELL HALL, JR .,

Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us

SANTA ROSA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Defen da nt ,

LT. LE AVINS, J. B. J OHNSON, W . R. SUTTON, W . L. GIEL OW
, D. T. SANFORD,

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 ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (No ve m be r 24 , 20 10 )Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES and MARCUS , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

PER CURI AM:

O’ Dell Hall
, Jr ., a Fl or id a pr is on er, ap pe al s pr o se th e or de r gr an ti ng su m m ary
jud gm en t to Offi cer W .R. Su tt on , Offi cer J.B

. Jo hn so n , Lt

. Le av in s, Cap ta in W .L.

Giel ow, an d Offi cer D.T. San fo rd
, al l of who m were, at rel ev an t ti m es , pe rs on ne l at

th e San ta Ro sa C or rect io na l In st it ut io n (“ SRCI ”). Hall arg ue s th at : (1 )

un co ns ti tu ti on al erro rs oc cu rred th ro u g h o ut hi s cri m in al pr oc eed in gs ; (2 ) Su tt on ,

Jo hn so n, an d Leav in s su bjec te d hi m to un co ns ti tu ti on al ly ex ces si ve fo rce; an d (3 ) hi s

du e pr oc es s rig ht s were vi ol at ed du rin g th e he ari ng s, co nd uc te d by Giel ow an d

Sa nf or d, on th e pr is on di sc ip li na ry ch arg es of un arm ed as sa ul t an d di so be y in g or de rs

.
Afte r th or ou gh rev ie w, we affi rm

.

W e rev ie w de no vo a di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t. Mer cad o v.

Ci ty of Orla nd o, 40 7 F. 3 d 1 1 5 2
, 11 56 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ). Su m m ary jud gm en t is

ap pr op ria te whe n “ th e pl ead in gs , de po si ti on s, an swe rs to in te rro ga to rie s, an d

ad m is si on s on fil e, to ge th er wit h th e affi da vi ts , if an y , sh ow th at th ere is no ge nu in e

is su e as to an y

m at eri al fact an d t ha t t he m ov in g p art y is en ti tl ed to a jud gm en t as a

m at te r of la w.” Id

. (q uo ti ng Fed .R.Ci v.P

. 56 (c))

. W he n m ak in g th is de te rm in at io n,

we vi ew al l fa ct s i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to Hall , th e n on -m ov in g p art y . Id.

2Fi rs t, we reject H a l l ’s cl ai m th at nu m ero us un co ns ti tu ti on al erro rs oc cu rred

th ro ug ho ut hi s cri m in al pr oc eed in gs , pr io r to hi s im pr is on m en t. A pr is on er m ay no t

co ll at eral ly ch al le ng e th e co ns ti tu ti on al it y of hi s cri m in al co nv ic ti on in a ci vi l su it fo r

da m ag es un de r § 19 83

. McC l i s h v. Nug en t, 48 3 F.3 d 12 31
, 12 50 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 07 )

(ci ti ng Heck , 51 2 U.S. at 48 4- 87 ). In Hec k, t he Su pr em e Co ur t h el d t ha t,

in or de r to reco ve r d a mag es fo r [an ] al le ge dl y un co ns ti tu ti on al

co nv ic ti on or im

pr is on m en t, or fo r ot he r ha rm cau se d by act io ns who se
un la wfu ln es s wou ld ren de r a co nv ic ti on or se nt en ce in va li d
, a § 1 98 3 pl ai nt iff m

us t pr ov e th at th e co nv ic ti on or se nt en ce ha s be en rev ers ed on di rect ap pe al
, ex pu ng ed by exec ut iv e o rd er, d ecl ared in va li d by a st at e tri bu na l au th or iz ed to m ak e su ch de te rm in at io n, or cal le d in to qu es ti on by a fede ral co ur t’s i ss ua nc e o f a wri t o f ha be as co rp us

.

51 2 U.S. at 48 6- 87

.

Acco rd in gl y , bec au se a cl ai m for da m ag es ba se d o n a co nv ic ti on or s en te nc e

th at ha s no t be en in va li da te d is no t co gn iz ab le un de r § 19 83
, H a l l ’s ch al le ng es to

va rio us as pe ct s of hi s cri m in al pr oc eed in gs an d hi s se nt en ce are no t pr op erl y be fo re

us . See i d.

Nex t, we fin d no m eri t in Hall ’s cl a i m th at Offi cers Su tt on , Jo hn so n, an d

Leav in s s ub

jecte d hi m to ex ces si ve fo rce on Ja nu ary 2 4, 20 06 , wh il e h e was in ful l

res tra in ts , an d fo rced hi m to carr y hi s pr op ert y to hi s do rm it or y aft er he ha d in fo rm ed

th e m ed ic al pe rs on ne l th at he ha d a no -li fti ng pa ss

. A pa rty who a ss ert s a c la im fo r

rel ie f un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 m us t pr ov e th at (1 ) th e pl ai nt iff was de pr iv ed of a rig ht

3se cu red by th e Co ns ti tu ti on or l a w s o f t h e Uni te d St at es , an d (2 ) th e pe rs on who

de pr iv ed hi m of th at rig ht act ed un de r co lo r of st at e la w. Am

. Mfr s. Mu t. In s. Co

. v.

Su ll iv an , 52 6 U.S. 40
, 49 -5 0 (1 99 9)

. The Eig ht h Am en dm en t pr oh ib it s th e in fli ct io n

of cru el an d un us ua l pu ni sh m en t. U.S. Co ns t. am en d. VIII. The Eig ht h

Am en dm en t’s ba r ag ai ns t cru el an d un us ua l pu ni sh m en t go ve rn s pr is on of fic ia ls ’ us e

of fo rc e a g a i ns t co nv ic te d in m at es

. Cam pb el l v. Si ke s, 16 9 F.3 d 13 53
, 13 74 (1 1t h

Ci r. 19 99 ).

“ The Eig ht h Am en dm en t’s pr oh ib it io n of ‘cruel an d un us ua l’ pu ni sh m en ts

ne ces sa ril y ex cl ud es fro m co ns ti tu ti on al reco gn it io n de m in im i s u s e s of ph y si cal

fo rce, pr ov id ed th at th e us e of fo rce is no t of a so rt ‘repu gn an t to th e co ns ci en ce of

m an ki nd .’ ” Hud so n v. M c Mi ll ia n, 50 3 U.S. 1, 9- 10 (1 99 2) (q uo ti ng W hi tl ey v.

Alb ers , 47 5 U.S. 31 2, 32 7 (1 98 6) ). In de te rm in in g whe th er th e am ou nt of fo rce us ed

ag ai ns t an in m at e was de m in im is
, a co ur t m ay co ns id er th e ex t e n t o f t h e in juri es

su ffer ed by th e in m at e. Sk rti ch v. Tho rn to n, 28 0 F.3 d 12 95
, 13 02 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 02 ).

The Su pr em e Co ur t re cen tl y ha s cl ari fie d, h owe ve r, th at th e co re jud ic ia l in qu iry i s

“ no t whe th er a cert ai n qu an tu m of in jury was su st ai ne d, bu t rat he r ‘w he th er fo rce was

ap pl ie d in a go od -fai th effo rt to m ai nt ai n or res to re di sc ip li ne , o r m al ic io us ly an d

sa di st ic al ly to cau se ha rm .’ ” W il ki ns v. Gad dy, 13 0 S.Ct

. 11 75 , 11 78 (2 01 0) (q uo ti ng

Hud so n, 50 3 U

. S. at 7)

. The Co ur t ex pl ai ne d th at in jury an d fo rce are “ on ly

4im

pe rfec tl y co rrel at e d
, a n d i t is th e la tt er th at ul ti m at el y co un ts

. An in m at e who is

gr at ui to us ly b eat en by g ua rd s do es no t lo se hi s ab il it y to pu rs ue an ex c e s s i v e fo rce

cl ai m m erel y be cau se he ha s th e go od fo rtu ne to es cap e wit ho ut se rio us in jury.” Id

.

at 17 78 -7 9.

The fiv e fact or s rel ev an t to as cert ai ni ng whe th er fo rce was us ed “ m al ic io us ly

an d s ad is ti cal ly for t he ve ry pu rp os e of cau si ng ha rm ” in cl ud e: (1 ) th e ex te nt of t he

in jury, (2 ) th e n eed for ap pl ic at io n o f fo rce, (3 ) th e ex te nt of th e th reat to th e sa fet y

of st aff an d in m at es , as reas on ab ly pe rcei ve d by th e res po ns ib le of fic ia ls on th e ba si s

of fact s kn own to th em , (4 ) th e rel at io ns hi p be twee n th e ne ed an d th e am ou nt of fo rce

us ed
, an d (5 ) an y effo rts m ad e t o t e mp e r t h e se ve rit y of a fo rcef ul res po ns e.

Cam pb el l, 16 9 F.3 d at 13 75 (ci ti ng W hi tl ey , 47 5 U.S. at 32 1; Hud so n, 50 3 U.S. at 7)

. App lying th e Cam

pb el l fact or s, we he ld in Sk rti ch th at th e of fic ers ’ us e of an

el ect ro ni c sh ie ld to sh oc k an d in cap aci ta te th e pr is on er, aft er th e pr is on er refu se d to

be ha nd cu ffe d d u r in g a se arch of hi s cel l, an d th e of fic ers ’ su bs eq ue nt pu nc hi ng ,

ki ck in g, an d be at in g th e pr is on er to su ch an ex te nt th at he ha d to be ai rli fte d fro m th e

pr is on to a ho sp it al w h e r e h e rem ai ne d fo r ni ne da y s, co ns ti tu te d an Eig ht h

Am en dm en t vi ol at io n. Sk rti ch
, 28 0 F.3 d at 12 99 -1 30 0. Co nc ed in g th at so m e de gr ee

of fo rce was la wfu l in li gh t of th e pr is on er’s no n- co m pl ia nc e wit h th e of

fic ers ’ or de r

t o s u b mit to ha nd cu ffi ng , th e pr is on er ch al le ng ed as ex ces si ve th e as sa ul t th at

5oc cu rred aft er he ha d be en in cap aci ta te d by th e sh oc k of th e el ect ro ni c sh ie ld

. Id

. at

13 01 -0 2. W e he ld th at , al th ou gh th e of fic er m ay ha ve be en jus ti fie d in ta ki ng ex tra

pr ecau ti on s in pe rfo rm in g th e ce l l e x tra ct io n be cau se of th e pr is on er’s st at us as a

“ di sc ip li na ry pr ob le m ,” th e of fic ers act ed m al ic io us ly an d sa di st ic al ly whe n th ey be at

th e pr is on er aft er he ha d be en sh oc ke d wit h th e sh ie ld

. I d

. a t 13 02

. Si m il arl y , in

Bo zem an v. Oru m , 4 2 2 F

. 3d 12 65
, 12 71 -7 2 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ), we he ld th at th e

co rrec ti on al of

fic ers act ed m al ic io us ly an d sa di st ic al ly be cau se , on ce th e of fic ers ha d

su bd ue d th e pr is on er, th ey he ld hi m face -d own , s ta te d, “ Oh, we do n’t t hi nk y ou ’ve

ha d en ou gh ,” an d fo rced hi s he ad in to a m at tre ss un ti l he was u n c o n s c i o u s

. Id

.

Fu rth er, ev en th ou gh th e pr is on er was cl earl y un co n s ci ou s, th e of fic ers wait ed 14

m in ut es to cal l fo r m ed ic al ass is ta nc e. Id . at 1 27 3.

Viewi ng th e fact s in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to Hall
, th ere is no ge nu in e is su e

of m at eri al fact th at Su tt on an d J o h n s o n d i d no t “ m al ic io us ly an d sa di st ic al ly” us e

fo rce fo r th e ve ry pu rp os e of cau si ng ha rm

. As th e reco rd sh ows , Hall rece iv ed on ly

fiv e m in ut es of m ed ic al care fo r hi s in juri es ; ha s no t al le ge d th at he ha s su ffer ed an y

lo ng -te rm , pr ol on ge d in

jury; was su bjec te d to th e al le ge d fo rce, du rin g wh i c h h i s

ha nd was fo rced be hi nd hi s ba ck an d ha nd cu ffed
, aft er he ha d br ok en hi s h a nd

res tra in ts , be cam e co m

ba ti ve , an d refu se d to su bm it to ha nd res tra in ts up on Su tt on ’s

or de rs , gi vi ng th e of

fic ers a le gi ti m at e ne ed to us e fo rce; was no t rep eat ed ly su bjec te d

6to ha rm no r ren de red un co ns ci ou s; an d rece iv ed p ro m pt m ed ic al at te nt io n fo r hi s

al le ge d in juri es

. Bec au se Su tt on an d Jo hn so n di d no t us e un co ns ti tu ti on al ex ces si ve

fo rce, no co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n oc cu rred

. Mo reo ve r, to th e ex te nt th at Leav in s was

p r e s e n t d ur in g th e al le ge d us e of fo rce an d fai le d to in te rv en e, no co ns ti tu ti on al

vi ol at io n by Leav in s oc cu rred si nc e Su tt on an d Jo hn so n di d no t us e ex ces si ve fo rce.

The di st ric t co ur t, th eref or e, di d no t err in gr an ti ng s u mm ary jud gm en t to Su tt on ,

Jo hn so n, an d Lea vi ns

.

Fi na ll y , we are un pe rs ua de d by Hal l’s c l a i m t ha t hi s du e pr oc es s rig ht s were

vi ol at ed du rin g th e he ari ng s on th e pr is on di sc ip li na ry ch arg es of un arm ed as sa ul t an d

di so be y in g or de rs , in th at he was no t al lo wed to pr es en t wit ne ss es at th e he ari ng s an d

hi s req ue st th at a us e

- o f

- f o rce vi de ot ap e be pl ay ed was im pr op erl y de ni ed

. The

Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t pr oh ib it s an y st at e fro m de pr iv in g a pe r s o n of li fe, li be rty,

or pr op ert y wit h o u t d u e p r oc es s of la w. See U.S. Co ns t. am en d. XIV, se c. 1. A

di sc ip li na ry pr oc eed in g, who se ou tc o me wil l “ im po se [] at y

pi cal an d si gn ifi can t

ha rd sh ip on th e in m at e” m us t en su re th e fo l l o w i n g du e pr oc es s rig ht s: (1 ) ad va nc e

writ te n no ti ce of th e cl ai m ed vi ol at io n, (2 ) a writ te n st at em en t by th e fact fin de rs as

to th e ev id en ce rel ie d up on an d th e reas on s fo r th e di sc ip li na ry act io n ta ke n, an d (3 )

an op po rtu ni ty t o cal l wit ne ss es an d pr es en t do cu m en ta ry ev id en c e i n h i s d efen se

.

7Bas s v. Perr in
, 17 0 F.3 d 13 12
, 13 18 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 03 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d) ; se e W ol ff

v. M cDo nn el l, 4 18 U.S. 53 9, 5 63 -6 7 (1 97 4)

.

“ A m in im

um req ui rem en t of du e pr oc es s is th at co n c lu si on s of pr is on

di sc ip li na ry bo di es be su p p o r t e d by so m e ev id en ce in th e reco rd .” W il li am s v.

Fo un ta in
, 77 F.3 d 37 2, 37 5 (1 1t h Ci r

. 19 96 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. “ Asc ert ai ni ng

whe th er th is st an da rd is sa ti sf ie d do es no t req ui re a rev ie win g co ur t’s ex am in at io n of

th e en ti re reco rd
, in de pe nd en t as se ss m en t of th e cred ib il it y of wit ne ss es , or weig hi ng

th e ev id en ce. In st ead th e rel ev an t q u e s ti on is whe th er th ere is an y ev id en ce in th e

reco rd th at co ul d s u p p or t th e co nc lu si on reac he d by th e di sc ip li na ry bo ard .” Id

. (q uo t a t i o n an d br ack et s om it te d)

. The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s id en ti fie d “ in st it ut io na l

se cu rit y ” an d th e pr es erv at io n of “ in te rn al or de r” as le gi ti m at e co rrec ti on al go al s th at

m us t be ba la nc ed ag ai ns t th e du e pr oc es s rig ht s of in m at es

. See Bel l v. W ol fis h, 44 1

U.S. 52 0, 5 46 (19 79 ).

As th e reco rd sh ows , th e de ci si on no t to al lo w Hall to cal l in m at e wit ne ss es

was no t un co ns ti tu ti on al
, si nc e Hall do es no t arg ue th at he ha d sh own su ffi ci en t cau se

to ov erco m e th e no te d co nc ern s of di sr up ti on th at wou ld jus ti fy cal li ng li ve te st im on y

of in m at e wit ne ss es or jus ti fy po st po ning the dis cipl in ary he ari ng to ob ta in st at em en ts

f r o m in m at es th at he di d no t earl ie r req ue st

. Nor was th e de ni al of hi s re q u e s t t o

pr es en t th e us e-o f-fo rce vi de o un co ns ti tu ti on al
, as a po st -h eari ng in ve st ig at io n of th e

8in ci de nt sh owe d th at th ere was no vi de o of th e act ua l i nc id en t b ecau se vi de ot ap in g

di d no t be gi n un ti l aft er th e fo rce was us ed

. Fi na ll y , Su tt on ’s st at em e n t t h a t Hall

be cam e co m

ba ti ve aft er he fel l on th e gr ou nd an d at te m pt ed to st rik e hi m wit h hi s

el bo w, co ns ti tu te s su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to su pp or t th e di sc ip li na ry de ci si on

. See

W il li am s, 77 F.3 d at 37 5. In su m , t h e e v i d e nc e pr es en te d by Giel ow an d San fo rd

ne ga te d Hall ’s co nt e nt io n th at hi s du e pr oc es s rig ht s were de ni ed du rin g th e

di sc ip li na ry pr oc eed in gs , an d Hall fai le d to res po nd to Giel ow’s an d S a n fo rd ’s

su bm is si on s wit h ev id en ce crea ti ng a ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact . Th ere f o r e , th e

di st ric t co ur t p ro pe rly gran te d su m m ary jud gm en t to Giel ow an d S an fo rd on Hall ’s

du e p ro ces s cl ai m s.

AFFIRMED.

9