FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT DECEMBER 20, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1098 4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 05-00195 -CV -RL V- 4 THOMAS G. COCKRELL, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us ROBERT S. SPAR KS, Sh eri ff, Po lkCo un ty, Geo rg ia , JAIL COR PORAL KENYON BALLEW , SERGEANT HEN RY KING, III., Defen da nt s- App el le es , KEVIN REDDEN , De putySherif

f, Polk County , G eorgia, In div idu al ly

and i n hi s o f f i c i a l c ap a c i ty, Defen da nt .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( D ec em be r 20, 200 7)We will view the fac ts in the light most favora ble to Cockrell, the non- moving pa rty , as 1 we a re r equire d to do at this stage of the proc eeding s. See Shotz v. City of Plantation, Fla., 344 F.3d 1161, 1164 ( 11th Cir. 2003). We acc ept it as true that “ Deputy Kingmoved Plaintiff from ce ll 139 (the drunk tank) 2 to a dja c e nt c e ll 1 38 in o rd e r t o a c c omm od ate the inm ate wh o atte mpt e d s uic ide ” be c a us e thi s state me nt w a s in c lud e d in the de fe nd ants ’ s tate me nt o f u nd isp ute d mate ri a l f

a c ts a nd Coc kr e ll did not object to it. Under loca l rules, the district cour t considers “ eac h of the [party moving f or summary judgme nt] ’s fa cts as admitted unless the r espondent . . . dire ctly ref utes the movant’s fac t with concise re sponses supported by specific citations to evidence (includingpag e or para g raph numbe r).” N.D. Ga . R. 56.1(B) (2)( a)( 2)(i). F or that re ason, we do not acc ept as g iven Cockrell’s c ontrary

statement in his deposition. S ee Jones v. Ger wens, 874 F .2d 1534, 1537 n.3 (1 1th Cir . 1 98 9) (t

re atin ga fa c t a s c on c e de d, un de r a loc a l di str ic t c ourt

ru le , whe n th e pa

rt y 2 Be fo re BI RC H , CA RN E S an d C O X , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: T his is anappe al f

ro m the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t t o th e de fe ndant, D ep uty

H enry K ing , on T hom as Co ckre ll’ s e xc es siv e fo rc e cl ai m ag ai ns t Ki ng in hi s i nd iv idua l capa ci ty. I. O n th e ev en ing of

O ct obe r 2, 200 4, Co ckre ll w as arr es te d f or pub lic dr unke nne ss and p la ce d inthe P olk Co unty Ja il’ s “ dr unk tank. ” Whil e Co ckre ll

1 wa s there, an inm ate in another cell attem pted suicid e. Jail policy

requires that inm at es w ho atte m

pt s uic ide be put

in the dr unk tank b ec au se the re is nothin g init w ithw hic h th ey

c anhurt the m se lve s. D ep uty K ing , a t tha t t im e a supe rv iso r at the Po lk C ounty

Ja il, m ove d C oc kr el l ou t of the dr unk tank and i nto ane ighbor ing c el l to m ake room

for the other inm ate. While King wa s seeing to th e inm ate who had 2opposing summar y judgme nt failed to objec t to the fac t in the movant’s statement of undisputed materia l fac ts). 3 atte m pte d su ic ide , Co ckre ll, sti ll dr unk, be gan bangi ng o n th e door to his c el l w ith his sho e, sho uti ng f

or ade puty to le t hi m

pay f or abon d so that he c oul d be re le as ed . K ing ope ne d C oc kr el l’ s c el l do or , tol d hi m to “ shut the he ll up” and gave Co ckre ll anope n- hand s hove . C oc kr el l f el l, br oke his hip and wri st, and la ce rate d hi s e ar . K ing and D ep uty K eny on B al le w , w ho w as a lso on d uty in the j ail at the tim e, im

m ediately summ oned m edical attention for Cockrell, and he wa s ta ke n t o t he ho sp it al th atni gh t. Co ckrel l fi le d aco m

pl ai nt ass ert in g, am on g o th er s ta te an d fe de ral cla im s, a 42 U . S. C. § 19 83 e xc es siv e fo rc e cl ai m a ga ins t the S he ri ff

of P olk Co unty and D ep uty K ev in R ed de n, w hom

he be lie ve d to be the de puty w ho s hove d hi m , in their official and ind ividu al capac ities. D uring dis covery , C ockrell rea lized that De putyKing, not Redden, had shov ed him . Cockrell then m ade a m otion , which the district court granted, to dism iss Redden and add King and Ballew as de fe ndants . T hose tw o w er e se rv ed w iththe c om

pla int , but

the f ac tua l a lle ga tio ns st at edth atRed de n p us he d C oc kr el l, m ak in g n o m en ti on of Ki ng an d B al le w. T he de fe ndants the n m ove d f or sum m ar y j udgm en t onvari ous gr ound s, inc lud ing that the c om

pla int f ai le d to state ac la im

a ga ins t D ep uty

K ing be ca

use it4

sti ll al le ge d th at

the e xc es siv e fo rc e ha d be enuse d by D ep uty Re dde n, not

by King. In response, Cockre ll m oved for leave to am end his com plaint. In that m oti on, he a lso abandon ed a ll of his c la im s a ga ins t the de fe ndants w iththe ex cep ti on of t he ex ces si ve for ce cl ai m ag ai ns t Ki ng in hi s i nd iv idua l capa ci ty. In a consolidated order, the district court denied the m otion to am end as fu til e an d gr an te d sum

m ar y j udgm en t t o th e de fe ndants . A s to a ll of the defendants except De putyKing, the district court ruled that Cockrell had ab an done d hi s c la im s. T he c ourt gr an te d sum m ar y j udgm en t t o K ing in his indiv idual capacity

on the excessive force c laim (the only claim Cockrell w anted to a sse rt a ga ins t hi m ) be ca

use the c om

pla int m ad e no a lle ga tio ns a ga ins t hi m , and, in the a lte rn at ive , be ca

use sho vin g “ a be lli ge re nt, dr unk, y el lin g in m at e w hil e al so try ing to see that a prisoner who had just attem pted suicid e w as placed in a m ore se cu re en vi ro nm en t” di d n ot vi ol at e th e Co ns ti tu ti on . Co ckre ll co nte sts onl y

the de nia l of

his m oti on t o am en d and the gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t i nsof

ar a s th ey inv olv e his int en de d c la im a ga ins t K ing in his i n d i v i du a l c ap a c i ty o nth e e x c e s s i v e f o r c e c l a i m. II. W e fi rs t a ddr es s whe the r the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in de ny ing a s f

uti le Co ckre ll’ s m oti on t o am en d hi s c om pla int to nam e D ep uty

K ing ins te ad

of D ep uty5

Re dde n. A lth oughw e re vie wadis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of am oti on t o am en d on ly fo r ab use of

dis cr et ion , w e re vie wde nov o ade ci sio n th at apart ic ular am en dm en t to the c om

pla int w oul d be f

uti le . H ar

ri s v. I va x C or

p. , 182 F . 3d 7 99, 802 ( 11th Cir. 1999 ). L eave to am end a com plaint is futi le w hen the com plaint as am ended w oul d st ill be pr ope rl y

dis m iss ed

or be im m ed ia te ly sub j ec t t o sum

m ar y j udgm en t fo r the de fe ndant. S ee H al l v. U nit ed I ns. Co . of

A m . , 367 F . 3d 1 255, 126 3 ( 11th Ci r. 200 4) . C oc kr el l’ s m oti on t o am en d w as f uti le , and the re fo re pr ope rl y de nie d, onl y if K ing w oul d be e nti tle d to sum m ar y j udgm en t onthe m er its of the c la im if the am endm ent wer e allowe d. Be cause w e conclude below that K ing would b e entitled to su m

m ary j udgm ent on the m erits, the district court correctly held that Cockrell’ s m otion to am end was f utile. III . We r e v i e wad i s tr i c tc o u rt ’s g r an to f s u mmary j u d g me n tu s i n g th e s a me le ga l s ta nd ard s t ha t t he di st ric t co ur t was req ui redto ap pl y in it s d eci si on . Lancaster v. Monroe County , A la., 116 F.3d 1419 , 1424 (11th Cir. 1997). G ove rn m en t a ct ion , inc lud ing the use of f or ce by pr iso n gu ar ds, w ill onl y vio la te sub stanti ve due pr oc es s r igh ts unde r the F ourte en th A m en dm en t whe n it is so e gr eg iou s th at

it sho ck s th e co nsc ie nc e. S ee Carr v. T at an ge lo, 338 F . 3d 1 259, 1271 (11th Cir. 2003). In both Fourteenth and Eighth Am endm ent excessive force6

cl ai m s, w he the r the use of f or ce vio la te s an in m at e’ s c onst itu tio na l r igh ts

“ ult im at el y

tur ns o n ‘ w he the r fo rc e w as appl ie d inagoo d f ai th e ff ort t o m ai nta in or r es tor e dis ci pli ne or

m al ic iou sly

and s ad ist ic al ly

f or the ve ry pur pose of c au sin g harm . ’ ” Whit le y

v. A lbe rs , 475 U . S. 312 , 320 –21, 106 S . Ct . 107 8, 108 5 ( 1986 ) (quot ing Joh nsonv. G lic k, 481 F . 2d 1 028, 103 3 ( 2d C ir . 197 3) ) (e sta bli shi ng the s t an d ar df o r anE i g h th A me n d me n te x c e s s i v e f o r c e c l a i m) ; s e e B o z e manv . O r u m, 422 F. 3d 1 265, 127 1 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) ( ap ply ing the Whit le y te st i n aF ourte en th A m en dm en t e xc es siv e fo rc e ca se ). I f fo rc e is u se d “ m al ic iou sly and s ad ist ic al ly fo r th e v ery pu rp os e o f cau si ng ha rm ,” th en itne ces sa ril y sh oc ks th e co ns ci en ce. Se e Br ow n v. S m ith , 813 F . 2d 1 187, 118 8 ( 11th C ir . 198 7) ( statin g th at the E igh th an d F ou rte en th Am en dm en ts gi ve equi va le nt pro te ct io ns ag ai ns t ex ces si ve for ce). If n ot , th en itdo es no t. U nde r thi s st an dard , w e loo k a t “ the ne ed f or the appl ic at ionof

f or ce ; the re la tio nshi p be tw ee n th e ne ed and the a m ount

of f or ce that w as use d; and the extent of the injury

inflicted upon the prisoner.” Id. (citing Whitley , 475 U. S. at 321, 106 S . Ct . a t 10 85) . A ddi tio na lly , w e co nsi de r “ the e xte nt o f the thr eat t o th e sa fe ty of sta ff and i nm at es , a s r ea sona

bly pe rc ei ve d by

the r es pons ibl e of

fi ci al s on the ba sis of

the f ac ts k nown to the m , and any

e ff orts m ad e to t em

pe r the se ve ri ty of af or ce fu l r es pons e. ” Whit le y , 475 U . S. a t 32 1, 106 S . Ct . a t 10 85. N ot o nly7

that, but w e m ust a lso giv e a “ w ide r an ge of de fe re nc e to p ri son of

fi ci al s a ct ing to preserve discipline and security ,” includin g when considering “ [d] ecisions m ade at the scene of a distu rbance. ” Be nnett v. Par ker, 898 F.2d 1530 , 1533 (11th Cir. 19 90 ). Appl y ing that l aw , w e co nc lud e that, a lth oughit is a cl ose que sti on, D ep uty K ing is en tit le d to sum

m ar y j udgm en t onthe m er its . C oc kr el l w as c re at ing a distu rbance, and, given the need to relocate the inm ate who had attem pted suicid e, K ing le git im at el y

ne ed ed to qui et Co ckre ll. I t w as not

unr ea sona

ble f or him to use som e fo rc e to d o th at . A s w e sa id i n B enne tt, “ [t ] he ne ed f or the use of

f or ce is es tabl is he d b y

th e und is pu te d e vi de nc e th at[th e in m at e] creat eda di st urba nc e. . . . Pr iso n gu ar ds m ay

use f or ce w he n ne ce ssary

to re sto re or de r an d ne ed not w ai t unt il dis tur

banc es r ea chdange ro us p ro portio ns b ef or e re spon din g. ” I d. T he am ount of f or ce c onve y ed

by an op en -h an de d pu sh o r shov e is a s ne ar to the m ini m um a m ount a s an of fi ce r can e m

plo y , and i t i s no t di spr opor tio na te to the ne ed to re sto re or de r w he n de al ing w ithadr unk an d bo ist er ous inm at e. I n th e Be nne tt ca se w e he ld tha t gr ab bin g an in m at e by the thr oa t and p ushi ng h im ag ai nst the bars of

his c el l duri ng an in m at e co unt w as not dis pr opor

tio na te to the ne ed to sto p th e inm at e fr om

sho uti ng and d em an din g to be le t ou t. I d. a t 15 31, 15 34 . The fo rce u se d h ere a ndth e o ccas io n fo r itare s im il ar t o t ho se in th atcas e.8

A lth oughin thi s c as e the e xte nt o f the inj ur y w as r el at ive ly

e xte nsi ve , thi s fa ct or a lon e is n ot d isp osi tiv e. T he re is no w ay that D ep uty

K ing c oul d have fo re se enthat a

sim ple pus h w oul d r es ult

in as m uc h in j ur y a s C oc kr el l unfortunately

suffere d. T hat the severity of the injur

y could no t have been re as ona bly anti ci pa te d m ak es it

le ss l ike ly

that K ing a ct ed

“ m al ic iou sly

and sa dis tic al ly

f or the ve ry pur pose of c au sin g harm . ” Whit le y , 475 U . S. a t 32 0–21 , 106 S. Ct. at 1085 (quo tation om itted). T hat the m inim al force d was used to quiet Co ckre ll to c ar e fo r an oth er inm at e in n ee d of

m ed ic al a tte nti on, ins te ad of f or som e oth er

r ea son, a lso w ei ghs ag ai nst af ind ing of e xc es siv e fo rc e. F ina lly , the fa ct that K ing and B al le wim m ed ia te ly sum m one d m ed ic al a ssi stanc e fo r Co ckre ll,

“ te m pe r[ ed ] the se ve ri ty

of [ the ] f or ce fu l r es pons e, ” id. , and m ak es it le ss l ike ly th ateit he r of

th em was a ct in g s ad is ti cal ly ins te adof i n g oo d fa it h. Although threatening com m ents are c ircum stantial evidence of m ental state that can be considered in determ ining the intent un derly ing th e use of forc e, Bo ze m an , 422 F . 3d at 12 72, the f ac t tha t D ep uty

K ing tol d C oc kr el l t o “ shut the he ll up ” ev id en ces a de si re t o re st or e o rd er, n ot a wis h t o s ad is ti cal ly caus e h arm . A ft er c ar ef ull y c onsi de ri ng a ll of

the c ir cum stanc es , a s w e ar e re qui re d to do, w e conclude that the unfortun ate extent of Cockre ll’ s injuries, which re sulted from a push or sho ve by

De putyKing, are not th e re sult of force applied9

m aliciouslyand sadistically for the purpose of causing harm , but instead resulted fr om f or ce appl ie d inagoo d f

ai th e ff ort t o m ai nta in o r re sto re dis ci pli ne in a d i ff i cu l ts i tu at i o n . Whi t l ey, 4 7 5 U.S . a t3 2 0

– 2 1 , 1 0 6 S. Ct . a t1 0 8 5 . Ki n g ’s actions therefore do not shock th e conscience. For that r eason, the district court did not e rr in de ny ing Co ckre ll’ s m oti on t o am en d a s f uti le be ca use K ing w oul d have be ene nti tle d to sum m ar y j udgm en t onthe c la im

a ga ins t hi m

if the am en dm en t wer e al lo wed . AFFIRMED.