FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEPTEMBER 28, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 7- 15 51 4

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 5- 00 61 0- CV-FTM -3 4- SPC VICTOR SCR OGGINS, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us MATTHEW

D. DAVIS, KENNET H W . TOW LER, OLUWASHOLA K. LAWAL, KEITH A. HARMON, JEFF REY A. BROW

N, et al ., 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 urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Sep te m be r 28 , 20 09 )Befo re CARNES, FAY an d ALARCON, Cir cu itJu dg es . * PER CURI AM: Vict or Scro gg in s ap pe al s fr om

th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t ag ai ns t al l o f th e cl ai m s ra is edinhi s 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 co m pl ai nt . Scro gg in s co nt en ds th atth e u se of f or ce t o s ub du e h im

was c on st itut io na ll y ex ces si ve invi ol at io n o f hi s Ei gh th Am en dm en t ri gh ts . The s ta nd ardwe ap pl y to th atcla im is whet he r th e fo rce was ap pl ie d “ in a go odfai th effo rt t o m ai nt ai n o r res to re d is ci pl in e” o r in st ead“ m al ic io us ly andsad is ti cal ly for the ve ry pu rp os e o f cau si ng ha rm .” Jo hn so n v . Breed en , 28 0 F .3d13 08 , 13 21 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). The ex is te nc e o f “ a m ere d is pu te ov er the reas on ab le ne ss of apa rti cu la r us e o f fo rce o r th e ex is te nc e o f arg uabl y supe rio r al te rn at iv es ” is no t en ou gh to supp ort a c la im of ex ces si ve for ce i n a n i ns ti tu ti on al set ti ng . Cam pb el l v . Sik es , 16 9 F .3d13 53 , 13 75 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9) (ci ti ng Whi tl ey v. Al be rs , 47 5 U.S. 3 12 , 32 2, 1 06 S.Ct . 10 78 , 10 86 (19 86 )). Andth e Supr em e Co urt h as in st ru ct edus th at“ we m us t g iv e a wid e ran ge of d efer en ce t o p ris on off ic ia ls act in g t o p res erv e d is ci pl in e an d s ecu rit y .” Whi tl ey , 47 5 U.S. at32 1- 22 , 10 6 S .Ct. at10 85 (19 86 ). The un di sp ut edev id en ce i s t ha t jai l o ffi ci al s re as on ab ly regar de d S cro gg in s

Honora ble Arthur L . Alarc on, United States Circuit Judg e for the Ninth Circuit, sitt ing * by designation. 2as a hi gh -ri sk , dan ge ro us in m at e, wit h ahi st ory of apri oresc ap e. Whi le be in g es co rte d fr om

hi s ce ll to a pl ace wh ere h e co ul d b e se arch edfor co nt rab an d, Scro gg in s d is ob ey eda di rectord er an d g otin vo lv edina sc uf fle with t he gu ard s, du rin g wh ic h h e m ad e anag gr es si ve m ov e to wardon e o f th em . In tho se ci rcu m st an ces , th e fo rce u se d t o s ub du e Scr og gi ns was n otex ces si ve . No reas on ab le fact fin de r co ul d fi ndth atSco gg in s’ rib s wer e b ro ke n, as he cla im s. The re i s n o e vi de nc e to co rro bo rat e h is own co nc lu so ry st at em en t t o t ha t ef

fect , an d h is fai lure t o s eekany m ed ic al tre atm en t atall aft erwar ds is in co ns is te ntwith hi s h av in g b ro ke n ri bs . See Be nn et t v . Park er, 8 98 F.2d15 30 , 15 34 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ) (d is co un ti ng pl ai nt iff’s cla im of i nju ry as “ on ly a con cl us ory

all eg at io n, un supp orte d b y

an y ph y si cal ev id en ce, m ed ic al reco rd s, o r th e co rro bo rat in g te st im on y of wi tn es se s” ). The us e o f on e b ur stof o le or es in cap si cu m (O.C.) sp ray ag ai ns t Sc ro gg in s du rin g t he alt erca ti onwas n otex ces si ve for ce. See Danl ey v. Al le n, 5 40 F.3d 12 98 , 13 03 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (“ [P]epp er s pr ay is anacce pt edno n- le th al m ean s o f co nt ro ll in g u nrul y

in m at es . . . .”); id . at 1 30 7 (“ If the re were no th in g b efo re u s b ut th e in it ia l u se of p ep pe r sp ray . . . w e wou ldread il y co nc lu de th atth ere was no Fo urte en th Am en dm en t v io la ti on .”). Nor d idpl aci ng Scro gg in s i n fo ur -p oi nt res tra in ts forth ree h ou rs an d fi fte enm inut es am ou ntto ex ces si ve for ce. See 3W il li am s v . Burto n, 9 43 F.2d15 72 , 15 76 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ) (rejec ti ng cla im th at pu tt in g ada ng ero us in m at e in fou r-p oi ntres tra in t fo r twe nt y -ei gh t an d o ne -h al f ho ur s was ex ces si ve for ce, an d e xp la in in g “ th e co urts gi ve gre atde fere nc e to th e act io ns of p ris on off

ic ia ls inap pl y in g p ro ph y la ct ic or p rev en ta ti ve m eas ur es in te nd edto reduc e th e in ci de nc e o f ri ot s an d o th er b reac he s o f pr is on di sc ip li ne ”). Scro gg in s ar gu es th atou r Dan le y de ci si on est ab li sh es th atco nt in ui ng th e ap pl ic at io n o f fo rce a fte r th e in m at e is subdue d a m ou nt s t o t he ap pl ic at io n o f ex ces si ve for ce. Bu t Dan le y was n ota res tra in t ca se an d i t d idno t i nv ol ve a da ng ero us , hi gh ris k i nm at e. It i nv ol ve d aDUI arres te e an d t he de li be rat e de ci si on to all ow t he effe ct s o f pe pp er s pr ay to co nt inue to cau se hi m pa in an d di sc om fo rt f

orth e g ua rd s’ sad is ti c p le as ur e. See Dan le y , 54 0 F .3dat 1 30 5. Th e Co ns ti tu ti on do es no t re qu ire pri so n o ffi ci al s t o re le as e fro m res tra in t a d an ge ro us in m at e who ha s l as he d o utat t he m si m pl y be cau se he ha s s to pp edlas hi ng ou t fo r th e ti m e b ei ng . Ind eed , gi ve n tha t fo ur -p oi ntres tra in ts m ak e itdi ffi cu ltforan in m at e to en ga ge inan y

ki ndof p hysic al mis be ha vi or , Scro gg in s’ po si ti on wou ld m ean th atfou r-p oi ntres tra in ts co ul d n ev er b e co nt in ue d fo r lo ng er tha n afew m in ut es at ati m e. W e kno w fro m th e Will ia m s d eci si on th atis no t the law. Scro gg in s’ att em

ptto dra w an a na lo gy to Dan le y ba se d o n t he factth atno ne of th e d efen da nt s t rie d t o was h t he O.C. sp ray of f of hi m fai ls . The o nl y

ti m e 4Scro gg in s m en ti on edto an y on e fee li ng any di sc om fo rt f

ro m th e O.C. sp ray was whe n h e to ldth e nur se who ch eck edhi m imm ed ia te ly after h e was pu t i n fo ur po in t re st rai nt s, wh ic h was so on aft er h e h adbe ensp rayed. One wo ul d e xp ect so m e d is co m fo rt f

ro m th e sp ray so on aft er i t h adbe enadm in is te red . Scro gg in s was ch eck edev ery fif

te enm in ut es th erea fte r du rin g t he ti m e h e was res tra in edbu t ne ve r ag ai n d idhe m en ti on th e sl ig ht es t d is co m fo rt f ro m th e O.C. sp ray. He arg ue s t ha t the reas on he di d n otco m pl ai n abo utth e eff

ect s o f th e sp ray was th at he fear edret al ia ti on . There is no ev id en ce i n the reco rdth atScro gg in s h adan y reas on ab le ba si s fo r th atfear , andev enif h e d iditwou ldno t ch an ge th e fac t tha t th e d efen da nt s d idno t kno w th atScro gg in s was su ffer in g a ny con ti nu in g di sc om fo rt f

ro m th e sp ray. An i nm at e can no t k eep hi s s uf feri ng to hi m se lf a nd th enco m pl ai n abo utjail ers no t d oi ng an yth in g t o a ll ev ia te it . The factth atth e d efen da nt s i n thi s l aws ui t wer e n ev er t ol d b y th e nur se , or an y on e el se , th atScro gg in s was feel in g any pai n o r di sc om fo rt f ro m th e sp ray di st in gu is he s i t fr om

Danl ey . In tha t ca se th e p la in ti ff s crea m edan d c rie d o utto th e jail ers , andth e li ng eri ng effe ct s o f th e p ep pe r sp ray on hi m were s o b adth at ot he r in m at es co m

pl ai ne d t o t he jail ers th atitwas c au si ng th em di sc om fo rt. Dan le y , 54 0 F .3dat 1 30 4. Scr og gi ns scr eam edwhi le be in g c arri edto a ho ld in g cel l af te r be in g s pr ay ed , bu t the re i s n o i nd ic at io n t ha t the de fen da nt s i nt erp ret ed 5th em

as s crea m s o f pa inrathe r th ande fia ntou tb ur st s. Th e p la in ti ff i n Dan le y , un li ke Scro gg in s, re pe at ed ly ple ad edform ed ic al tre atm en t dur in g ape rio d o f twel ve to th irt een ho ur s. Id . at 1 30 4– 05 . InDanl ey when th e p la in ti ff “ sc ream edan d c rie d t o t he th ree jai le rs th athe co ul d n otbre athe , andbe gg edto be letou t . . . . the jail ers lau gh edat [ hi m ] an d m ad e fu n o f hi m .” Id . at 1 30 4. Am on g o th er thi ng s, two o f th em “ he ldth ei r ha nd s to th ei r ne ck s i n a‘ m oc k- ch ok in g’ ge stur e.” Id . at 1 30 4, 1 30 9. Th atres po ns e he lp edco nv in ce u s t ha t the jail ers inDanl ey ha d a ct ed , or fa il edto act ,

“ m al ic io us ly andsad is ti cal ly for the ve ry purp os e o f cau si ng ha rm .” Id . at 1 30 9. Tha t d idno t h ap pe n i n t hi s ca se . Scro gg in s p oi nt s t o h is ev id en ce tha t wh enhe ask edwhathe ha d d on e to de se rv e b ei ng sp rayed an d p utin to fou r-p oi ntres tra in ts , th e sh eri ff rep li ed

“ Tha t’s wh aty ouge t fo r swi ng in g o n o ne of m y de pu ti es , ass ho le .” That st at em en t ca nn otreas on ab ly be v ie wedas e vi de nc e o f sa di st ic or m al ic io us pu rp os e b utin st eadis anaccu rat e d es cri pt io n o f fac t. Scr og gi ns want edto kn ow wha t h e h addo ne to jus ti fy whatwas b ei ng do ne to hi m , andth e sh eri ff t ol d h im . Nordo we th in k afact fin de r rea so nabl y co ul d i nf er a s ad is ti c p ur

po se fro m

th e factth aton ce the off

ic ers fin al ly gotScro gg in s s ub du edan d re st rai ne d, the y ch eere d a ndga ve each ot he r “ hi gh fiv es .” The o nl y reas on ab le in fere nc e fro m th at 6co nduc t was th atth ey were re li ev edto th e p oi ntof jubi lanc e atha vi ng go tt ena to ug h a ndda ng ero us tas k d on e wit ho utan y of t he m be in g h urt. InDanl ey , we no te d t ha t “ subjec ti ng a pr is on er t o s pe ci al co nf in em en t tha t cau se s h im

to su fferin crea se d e ffec ts of e nv iro nm en ta l co nd it io ns ,” su ch as pe pp er s pr ay , “ can co ns ti tu te ex ces si ve for ce.” Id . at 1 30 8. Th e p la in ti ff i n t ha t cas e was co nf

in edina sm al l, p oo rly ven ti la te d c el l af te r be in g p ep pe r sp rayed. Id . at13 04 . Unl ik e th e p la in ti ff i n Dan le y , Scro gg in s h as pro du cedno ev id en ce tha t th e h ol di ng cel l i n wh ic h h e was res tra in edaft er b ei ng sp rayed was sm al l o r po or ly ve nt il at ed . Andun li ke th e si tu at io n i n Dan le y , Scro gg in s was no t co nf in edinth e sa m e ro om

wher e th e sp raying oc cu rred . Fo r al l o f th es e rea so ns , we con cl ud e th atth e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly gran te d su m m ary jud gm en t t o the de fen da nt s o n S cro gg in s’ exc es si ve for ce cl ai m s. It ne ces sa ril y

fol lo ws tha t the gra ntof s umm ary jud gm en t o n t he rem ai ni ng cla im s, in cl ud in g t he fai lu re t o i nt erv en e cl ai m s an d the off ic ia l capa ci ty clai m s ch al le ng in g t he co ns ti tu ti on al it y of p ol ic ie s an d p ro cedur es at t he Co ll ie r Co un ty Ja il , was al so pro pe r. W e al so co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s di sc ret io n i n fa il in g t o g ran t Sc ro gg in s’ m ot io ns to am en d h is co m pl ai nt . AFFIR MED.

7