Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60994

S TE PHEN C W AL KER P l a i n ti ff - A p p ell a n t v. CO N STANC E REE SE, W a r d e n, I nd i v i d ua la nd Of f i c i a lCa p a c i t y ; SCOTT FI SH ER , Ass o c i at e W ar de n, I ndi vi dua lCapa c i t y; AN TH O N Y C H AM BE RS, C l i n i calD i rect or, I n di vi du alC ap aci t y; M A R YT H O M A S , H eal t h Servi ce Ad m i n i s t r a t o r , I n d i v i d u a lCa p a c i t y ; J OH N DOE; J ANE DOE; UNI TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA; CRA I G COI L, F o o d S e r v i c e Ad m i n i s t r a t o r ; RAYE H O LT, Reg i o nalD i r e c t o rSo ut he as t e r n Reg i o n; BO BB Y G RA I N ES, O p era ti on s L i eu ten a n t D efen da n t s - A pp el l ees

Appe alf

r o m t he U ni t e d St at e s D i s t r i c tCour to f t he S o u th e r n D is tr ic t o f M is s is s ip p i CA N o . 5 : 0 6 c v 1 5 4

- DC B- M TP

B ef ore R E AV L E Y , D AV IS, an d S T E W A R T , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * Pl ai nt i f f, St ephen W a l k er, a f or m eri nm at e a tt he Feder alC or r ec t i onal C om pl ex i n Y azo o C i t y, M i ss i ss i ppi( “ FC C Y azo o C i t y” ) , chal l enges t he di sm i ss al United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 4, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 08-60994 Document: 00511020908 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/04/2010N o. 08- 60994

2 of hi s c l ai m s on sum m ary j u dg m en trel ati n g t o t h e m edi calcare h e rec e ived wh i l e i n c a r c e r a t e d
. F o rt h e f o l l o wi n gr e a s o n s , we AF FI RM
.
I
. FACTS O n J anua r y 8, 2 00 6, W al ke rr e c e i ve d c he m i c alb ur ns w hi l e w o r ki ng i n t he F o o d S e r v ic e D e p a r tm e n t a t F C C Y a z o o C ity
. W a lk e r w a s in s tr u c t e d b y h is
s u p e r v is o rt o r in s e h is a r m s w ith co ld w a te ra n d s o a p u n til m e d ic a l s ta ff c o u ld
r e s po nd. W al ke rc l ai m s he t he n s ho w e d hi s b ur ns s e ve r al t i m e s t o D e fe nda nt C rai g C oi l , a f

orm er F ood Servi ce A dm i n i st rat or at F C C Y azoo C ity
. W a lker al l e ge s t hatC o i lknew W al ke rhad a s e r i o us m e di c alco ndi t i o n butfai l e d t o t ak e any s t eps t o a ss i sthi m i n re c ei vi ng i m m edi at e e m er genc y c ar e. Coi lave r s t hat h e di d n otbel i eve W al ker n eeded em ergency m edi calatt en t i on . A bou tt w o hou rs l a ter, a n u rse arrive d a n d ten d ed to W a l k er. Itw a s n oted tha t W a l k er h a d f i rst,
s e c o n d , a n d th ir d d e g r e e b u r n s , a n d W a lk e rw a s tr a n s p o r te d to a h o s p ita l in Y a z o o C ity , w h e r e h e re c e iv e d fu r th e rm e d ic a l a tt e n tio n . O n J a n u a r y 3 1 a n d F e b r u a r y 1 4 , W a lk e rre c e iv e d fu r th e rca r e fo rh is bu rns by D efen da n tD r. A n t h on y C h am bers, t h e C l i n i calD i rect or at F C C Y azoo C i t y. D uri ng t he eveni ngs of F ebr uary 16 and F ebr uary 21, W al kerw entt o have hi s b and ag e s c hang e d b y t he m e di c als t af f at FC C Y az o o Ci t y, b utb o t h t i m e s he
w a s u n a b l e to rece i ve i m m ed i a te car e d u e t o a l a ck of m ed i ca lstaff pr ese n t. In both i n st an ce s, W a lk e r had hi s ban da ges chan ged t h e f ol l ow i n g da y. W h en exam i ni ng W al keron Febr uary 22, D r . C ham ber s r ec om m ended t hat W al kerbe t r anspo r t ed t o a n out si de m edi c alfac i l i t y f or fur t herev al uat i on. W al kerw as schedu l ed to be t ak en to a h ospi t alon F ebru ary 24, bu tno custody st af f m em ber
w as ava i l able t o t ran sport h i m , so i n st ead , W al ker w as t ak en t o t h e hosp i t alon Februar y 28. O n M a r c h 1 4 a t 1 1 :2 0 p m , W a lk e rin fo r m e d a U n it O ffic e rth a t h is ban da ges w ere s oak ed w i t h bl ood an d f l u i d. Th e U n i tO f

f i cer noted t h at t h ere Case: 08-60994 Document: 00511020908 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/04/2010N o. 08- 60994

3 w as s o m e b l o o d s e e pi ng t hr o ugh t he b and ag e s , b utt h at t he y w e r e no ts o ak e d. Th e U ni tO f

f i c erc ons ult ed w i t h D ef endant Li eut enant B obbyR ai nes by te le p h o n e . L t. R a in e s to ld th e U n it O ffic e r th a t n o m e d ic a l ca r e w a s a v a ila b le
a n d th a t W a lk e rs h o u ld h a v e h is b a n d a g e s ch a n g e d th e fo llo w in gm o r n in g . O n J une 1 2, a do c t o ra tFCC Yazoo C i t y c e r t i f i e d t hatW al ke r ’ s w o unds had he al e d. On June 1 4, W al ke rw as r e l e as e d f r o m t he Bur e au o f

Pr i s o ns ( “ B O P”) c ust ody. O n N ov em ber17, 2006, W al ker , ac t i ng pro se , f i l e d s ui ta ga i ns tt he
ca p ti on ed de fen d a n ts. In h i s com p l a i n t, W a l k er a sse rted tha t t h e d efen d a n ts vi ol at ed h i s E i ght h A m endm entr i ght s by de nyi ng and del ayi ng m edi c al t reat m en t
. W al ker al so c o m p lai n ed that t h e defen da n t s adop t ed p ol i ci es, custom s, an d p ract i ces concerni n g m edi calcare t h at vi ol ated B O P regul ati on s, fe d e r a l l a w , a n d t h e E i g h t h A me n d me n t
. Wa l k e rb r o u g h ta F e d e r a lT o r tC l a i ms Act i o n ( “ FTC A” ) aga i ns tt he U ni t e d St at e s a nd s o ugh tj udi c i alr e vi e w und e rt he A dm i n i st rat i ve P rocedure A ct ( “A P A ” )

. T h e defenda n t s m oved for sum m ary j u dg m en ton allof

W a lk e r’ s c l ai m s. W al ker m oved f or part i alsum m ary j u dg m en ton h i s B i vens cl ai m againstD r. C h am bers. AM agis t rat e Ju dg e rec om m en ded th at t h e defen da n t s’m ot i on f or sum m ary j u dg m en tbe gran t ed an d that W al ker’ s m ot i on f or par ti alsum m ary j udgm entbe deni ed. I n m aki ng t hes e r ec om m endat i ons , t he M agi st r at e J udge
s ta te d th a t D r . C h a m b e r s h a d s ta tu to r y im m u n ity u n d e r4 2 U .S .C . § 2 3 3 (a ). T h e M agis t rat e Ju dg e recom m en ded di sm i ssi n g t h e B i vens ac t i o ns a ga i ns tt he def en da n t s because W al ker di d n otdem on st rat e t h att he de f e nda nt s ’a c t i o ns a nd pol i ci es w ere “ del i beratel y i n di f ferent” t o hi s s eri ou s m edi calneed s i n vi ol ati on o f t he Ei ght h Am e ndm e nt
. The M ag i s t r at e J udg e r e c o m m e nde d d i s m i s s i ng W a lk e r ’ s F T C Acla im b e c a u s e h is inju r y o c c u r r e d d u r in gh is in c a r c e r a tio n in fede ra lpr i son , thu s h i s ex cl u sive rem ed y w a s p rov i d ed by the B O P ’ s In m a te A cci den tC om pen sati on ( “ IA C ” )

. Final l y, t h e M agis t rat e Ju dg e rec om m en ded Case: 08-60994 Document: 00511020908 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/04/2010N o. 08- 60994

The Magistrat e Judge also recommen ded th at the court fin d itla c k edper sonal 1 jurisdiction over Defendant Ray Holt, the BOP’ s Region al Directo r forth e So uth east Region
. and di s m i s s th e c l ai m a g ai n s t hi m with o ut p r ej u dic e . Th e di s tric t c o urt a d opted his recommen datio n. Walker do es not appealHolt’ s dismissal
. Walk erdidnotapp eal th e di smi ssal of hisAPA

c laim
. 2 4 d i s mi s s i n gW a l k e r ’ s AP A c l a i m a s m o o tb e c a u s e W a l k e rwa s n o l o n g e ri n B OP
c ust ody. 1 A f t era d e novo r e v ie w o f t h e p o r t io n s o f t h e M a g is t r a t e J u d g e ’s
r e c o m m e nda t i o ns t o w hi c h W al ke ro bj e c t e d, t he di s t r i c tc o ur tf o und no e r r o ra nd ad o pt e d t he M ag i s t r at e J udg e ’ s r e c o m m e nda t i o ns . W al ke r t i m e l y ap pe al e d t he d i stri ct cou rt’ s ord er g ra n ti n g th e d efen d a n ts’m oti on f or su m m a ry j u d gm en t. 2

I I
. S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW W e rev i ew the dis tr ic t cou rt’ s gra n t of su m m a ry j u d gm en t de no vo . Hernan d ez v. V

el asqu ez , 522 F
. 3d 556 , 560 ( 5t h C i r . 200 8)

. Sum m ar y j udg m e nt i s a ppr o pr i at e i f t he s ubm i s s i o ns s ho w t hat “ t he r e i s no g e nui ne i s s ue a s t o a ny
m a te r ia l fa c t a n d th a t t h e m o v a n t is e n tit le d to ju d g m e n t a s a m a tt e ro f la w .” F ED . R. C IV . P. 56 ( c )

. W he n de c i di ng w he t he ra fac ti s s ue e xi s t s , w e r e vi e w t he
e vi de nc e a nd t he i nfe r e nc e s dr awn f r o m i ti n t he l i ghtm o s tfav o r ab l e t o t he
n o n m o v in gp a r ty
. R eaves B rokerage Co. v. S u n bel tFruit& V eget ab l e Co. , 336 F .3 d 4 1 0 , 4 1 2 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ).

III. A N A L Y S IS W e exam i n e W al ker’ s B i vens a c t i o n s a n d F T CAc l a i m s e p a r a t e l y b e l o w. A. Bi v e ns ac t i o ns W a l k er a rg u es t h a t th e d i stri ct cou rt erred i n f i n d i n g th a t t h e d efen d a n ts
ac t i on s w ere not del i beratel y i n di f ferent t o hi s s eri ou s m edi calneed s. S p e c ific a lly , W a lk e ra r g u e s th a t D e fe n d a n ts C o il a n d R a in e s w e r e d e lib e r a te ly Case: 08-60994 Document: 00511020908 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/04/2010N o. 08- 60994

5 i n d i f fer entt o hi s m edi c alnee ds bec ause t hey di d notob t ai n i m m ediate
e m e r ge nc y m e di c alc ar e ; i ns t e ad W al ke ro n o c c as i o n ha d t o w ai ta fe w ho ur s a nd
som et i m es un t i lt h e f ol l ow i n g m orni n g t o recei ve m edi calatt en t i on . W al ker al so cl a i m s th a t D efen d a n ts W a rd en C on stan ce R ee se, A sso ci a te W a rd en S cott F i sher, D r. C h am bers, an d H eal t h Servi ce A dm i n i st rat or M ary T h om as act ed
w i t h del i berate i n di f ference t o hi s m edi cal n e e d s because the pol i ci es t h ey a d o p te d im p e d e d h is a b ility to a c c e s s a d e q u a te a n d tim e ly m e d ic a l ca r e . P ri son of

f i ci al s v i o l ate t h e E i gh t h A m en dm en t ’ s prosc ri pti on againstcr u el and unus ual puni s hm e ntw he n t he y ac tw i t h a “ de l i be r at e i ndi f fe r e nc e ” t o t he
s e r i o u s m e d ic a l n e e d s o f p r is o n e r s . Far m e rv . Br e nnan , 511 U
. S. 825, 834 (1 9 9 4 ); E ste lle v. G a m b le , 429 U
. S

. 97, 105 ( 197 6)

. Th e F arm er Cour tde f

i ne d t he te s t fo r“d e lib e r a te in d iffe r e n c e ” a s fo llo w s : [A ] p ri son off

i ci a l ca n n ot b e f

ou n d l i a b l e un d er t h e E igh th A m en dm en tf

or deny i n g an in m a t e hu m an e condit i on s of c onf i nem entunl es s t he o f f i c i alknow s of

and di sr egar ds an ex c e s sive ri sk to i n m ate heal t h or safet y; t h e of f i ci alm u st b o th b e a w are of fac t s f r om w hi c h t he i nfer enc e c oul d be dra w n t hat a su b stant i al ri sk of ser i ou s harm exi st s, an d h e m u stal so draw t h e i n ference. Id

. a t 8 3 7
. S ee als o Wi lson v. S ei t er , 5 0 1 U .S . 2 9 4 , 2 9 9

– 3 0 3 (1 9 9 1 ); Johnson v

. Tree n , 759 F. 2d 1236, 1238 ( 5t h C i r . 1985)

. Th i s s t andard “ i s an ext r em el y hi gh stan d a rd to m ee t. ” G o b er t v. Ca ld w ell , 463 F
. 3d 339, 346 ( 5t h C i r . 2006) (cita tion om itted ). T h e defen da n t s di d n otactw i t h del i berate i n di f ference. T h ou gh W al ker
m ay have notr ec ei ved at t ent i on as pr om pt l y as he de si r ed, orper haps eve n as p rom p tl y a s w ou l d be i d ea l , an y su b stan d a rd care as a l l eg ed do es n ot a m ou n t t o del i berate i n di f

ference as def

i n ed by the abov e cases. T o t h e contr ary, t h e rec ord i s r epl et e w i t h d et ai l s of the defenda n t s p rovi di n g m edi calcare t o W al ker. E very t i m e W al ker soug h tm edi calcare, i t w as provi ded t o hi m ei t h er i m m edi atel y or w i t h i n a m att er of

hou rs. W h en t h e st af f at F C C Y azoo C i t y t h ou gh tW al ker Case: 08-60994 Document: 00511020908 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/04/2010N o. 08- 60994

Therear e a dditio nalrea sons why Walker’s cl aims again st Dr. C hamb ers must fall. 3 Dr. Ch ambe rs h as stat ut or y immunity pursuant to 4 2 U .S.C. § 2 33(a). As even Walker ackno wledges in his brief, § 233 (a) pr eempts a Bivens clai m an d provi des th at a pl aintiff’s so le re me dyi s ac laimb ro u ght u n de r th e FT CA

. See Carlso n v. Green , 44 6 U .S. 14 , 20(19 80) (noting§ 233 (a) a s anexample of C ongre s s explicitlystating th at the FT CA

is a pl aintiff’s exclu sive re me dy); Sch ra de rv. Sandoval , 19 99 WL 123 523 4, at *2(5th Cir. 1 999) (u npub li sh ed); Mo n toya- Ort iz v . B ro wn , 1 5 4F
. App ’x

. 4 3 7 , 4 3 9( 5 th C ir
. 2 0 0 5) (u npub li sh ed). Th erefo re, Walker cannot maintaina Bivens actio na g ain stDr
. C h a mb er s. Walk er als o argues , in the alt erna tive, thatt h es t a t utory imm unity pr ovide d by § 233 (a) shoul d not applyto Dr. Ch ambe rs be cau se h e was actingoutside of t he scope of his em pl oyme nt. No n e of Walk er’sf

a ctu al all egation s an d noth ing inth e re co rdsupp ortsa findingth at Dr. Ch ambe rs was actin g outsi de of th e sco pe of hi s employment. 6 n e e d e d o u ts id e e v a lu a tio n o f h is b u r n s , W a lk e rw a s t a k e n to a h o s p ita l. Acc e pt i ng t he e vi de nc e i n t he l i ghtm o s t fav o r ab l e t o W al ke r , i ti s c l e art hatt he def endant s d i d n otac tw i t h del i ber at e i ndi f fer enc e o radoptpol i c i es t hat precl u ded W al ker f

rom rec ei vi n g ad equ ate c are. 3 B
. FTC A cla im W al ke ra r gue s t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur te r r e d i n f i ndi ng hi s e xc l us i ve r e m e dy ag ai ns tt he G o ve r nm e ntw as pr o vi de d b y t he BO P’ s I nm at e Ac c i de nt C o m p e n s a tio n (“I A C ”) p r o c e d u r e s s e t fo r th in 2 8 C .F .R . § 3 0 1 .1 0 1 , e ts e q. , a nd t hus di s m i s s i ng hi s FTC A c l ai m . But as W al ke rpoi nt s outi n hi s b r i e f, t he U
. S. S u p r e m e Co u r t a n d Fi f t h Ci r c u i t h a v e r e p e a t e d l y p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e BOP’ s I AC syst em i s t h e excl u si ve m ean s of rec overy f

or pri son-em pl oyee’ s w ork- rel a t ed inju r ie s . Uni t e d S t at e s v. D e m ko , 38 5 U
. S

. 14 9 ( 1 9 6 6 ); Th o mp so n v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 4 9 5 F .2 d 1 9 2 (5 th C ir . 1 9 7 4 ); W oot en v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 4 3 7 F
. 2 d 79 ( 5 th Ci r . 1 97 1)

. Bec aus e t he I AC s ys t e m i s W al ke r ’ s excl us i ve r e m e dya ga i ns tt he G o v e r n me n t , t h e c o u r tl a c k s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o a dj u d i c a t e h i s F T C Ac l a i m.
I V. C ONC L US I ON F or t h e above reason s w e A F F IR M t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ssalof W a lk e r ’s s u it. AF F I RMED. Case: 08-60994 Document: 00511020908 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/04/2010