2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 1-19-2007 

# Go o dr ich v . C lint on C ty P r i son P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 04-3741

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" Goodr ich v

. C l in t on C ty P r i s on " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1764. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1764T he H onor abl e Loui s H
. Pol l ak, Seni orD i s t r i ctJ udge fort he East er n D i s t r i ctof 1 Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

__________ N o. 04- 3741
J E RV I S L AVE RN GOODR I CH , A p p e llan t,
v. C L I N T O N C O U N T Y PR I SO N ; L Y C O M I N G
- C L I N T O N “M H M R ”; L A U R A L E E , empl oy ed byM H M R , cont r act ed byC l i nt on C ount yPr i s on a s a m e n tal h e a lth c o u n se lo r; W A R D E N D U R A N , at C lin to n C o u n tyP riso n ; DE P UT Y WARDE N M OT T E R, a tCl i n t o n Co u n t yP r i s o n ; DE BR A DUF F Y, A pp el l ees.

__________ O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( 03- 1469) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Sy l vi a H i l da R ambo

A r gued N ovember 27, 2006

____________ B efor e: FU E N T E S and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges , and PO L L A K , D i s t r i ctJ udge 1

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J anuary19, 2007) C a ro lyn F . C o rw in J eff r eyH
. L er ner[A r gued] C ovi ngt on & B ur l i ng 1 2 0 1 P e n n s y l v a n i a A v e n u e , N
. W. W as hi ngt on, D
. C
. 20004

C ouns el f orAppel l antIn h is c omp la int , G oo dric h n ame d Cl int on County Priso n a s a

de fe nd ant. De fe nd ants 2 clarified, and G oodrich a gree d, that his intention was to state a ca use of a ction ag ainst Clint on C o unty. Goodrich initially listed this defendant a s “L aura L ee.”Def

endants have identified he r as 3 L a ur a le e Di ng le r, an e mpl oye e of Lyc omi ng -C linton

MH MR. 2 J os eph P. G r een L ee, G r een & R ei t er , I nc. 115 E as tH i gh St r eet P. O
. B ox 179 B el l efont e, PA 16823

C ouns el f orAppel l ees
OP I NI ON

____________________ G ar t h, C i r cui tJ udge: On Aug u s t 2 5 , 2 0 0 3 , J e r v i s La v e r n Goo d r i c h , a n i n ma t e , f i l e d a p ro se c iv il righ ts compl ai nt , pur s uantt o 42 U
. S. C
. § 1983, cl ai m i ng t hatpr i s on heal t h w or ker s and pr i s on
o f f icia ls w e re d e lib e ra telyin d if f e re n t to h is se rio u s m e d ica l n e e d s in v io latio n o f h is rig h ts
un der t he E i gh t h A m end m ent t o t he U nit ed S t at es C on st i t uti on . A pp . 24 , 27
. G oo dri ch als o
m oved forappoi nt m entof couns el
. A pp. 134. T he defenda nt s –C l i nt on C ount y ; L y comi ng- 2 C lin to n C ou nty

M en tal H e a lth a n d M e n tal R e tar d a tio n P ro g ra m (“ M H M R ” ); C lin to n C o u n ty P r i s o n ( “ CCP ” ) me n t a l h e a l t h c o u n s e l o rLa u r a l e e D i ng l e r ; CCP W a r d e n Du r a n ; CCP 3 D eput yW ar den M ot t er ; and Ly comi ng- C l i nt on C ount yM H M R D i r ect or D ebr a D uffy–fi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s underR ul e 12( b) ( 6) of t he Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e. A pp. 65. A ft erG oodr i ch fi l ed an oppos i t i on, t he D i s t r i ct C our tor der ed, on J ul y21, 2004, t hatWe c omm e nd pro b on o c ouns e l f

or the ir e ff or ts o n b e ha lf

of thea pp e lla nt. 4 3 the m o ti o n b e c o n v erted into a m o ti o n fo r sum m aryjud g m en t, in terpreting G o o d ri ch ’s oppos i t i on t o cont ai n s t at ement s cont r ar yt o al l egat i ons i n t he compl ai nt . A pp. 159. T he D istric t C o u rt a llo w e d th e p a rties 2 0 d a y s to f ile a f f id a v its o r su p p lem e n ta l d o c u m e n ts per t i nentt o t he s um m ar y j udgm ent m ot i on. Shor t l yaft erG oodr i ch fi l ed s uch document s , t he D i s t ri ct C o ur tdeni ed hi s r eques tforappoi nt m entof couns el
. A pp. 16. D efe ndant s t hen
r eques t ed, and t he D i s t r i ctC our t gr ant ed, a t en- dayext ens i on t o fi l e a s uppl ement al br i ef a nd af fid av it s. A p p . 1 6 6 , 1 7 0
. O n S ep tem b er 7 , 2 0 0 4 , the D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted s u m m ary j udgm entt o defe ndant s ( her ei naft er“appe l l ees ”)
. A pp. 7. T he par t i es t ook no di s coverypr i or to th e g ra n t o f

su m m a ryju d g m e n t. O n Sept ember 20, 2004, G oodr i ch fi l ed a t i m el y not i ce of appea l , and on D ece m ber 7, 2005, t hi s C our tappoi nt ed couns el forG oo d ri ch o n appeal
. A pp. 1, 6b. G oodr i ch 4 cont ends bot h t hatt he gr antof s um m ar yj udgm entw as er r oneous beca us e t her e w er e genui ne i s s ues of m at er i al fac ton t he i s s ue of a ppel l ees ’ d eli b era t e i ndi ffe r ence , and t hatt he gr ant
o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t w a s p re m a tu re , b e c a u se h e w a s a f f o rd e d n o m e a n in g f

u l o p p o rtu n ity t o conductdi s co v ery . H e furtherm ai nt ai ns t hatt he gr antof s um m ar yj udgm ents houl d be
vaca t ed, beca us e t he D i s t r i ctC our tabus ed it s d iscret i on i n deny i ng hi s r eques t s for
a p p o i n t me n to f

c o u n s e l
. La s t l y , Goo d r i c h a r g u e s t h a ti f t h i s Cou r tr e v e r s e s o rv a c a t e s t he gr antof s um m ar yj udgm ent , i ts houl d or dert he D i s t r i ctC our tt o appoi nt couns el on r emand. A ppel l ees ’ pos i t i on i s t hat t her e w as no er r ori n t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on t o gr ant4

su m m a ryju d g m e n t a n d n o a b u se o f d isc re tio n in its d e n ial o f th e m o tio n to a p p o in t co u n se l, b u t th at i f th is C o u rtsh o u ld rev erse o r va ca te th e g ran t of su m m aryjud g m en t, this C o u rt
s houl d notor dert hatcouns el be appoi nt ed on r emand and s houl d pr ecl ude G oodr i ch fr om
ar gui ng on r emand t hathe s uffe r ed a “ phy s i cal i nj ur y ” w i t hi n t he mean ing o f the Pr i s on L itig a tio n R e f

o rm A c t. See 42 U
. S. C
. § 1997e( e)
. G oodr i ch ar gues that thi s l at t eri s s ue
s houl d be l eftfort he D i s t r i ctC our tt o deci de i n t he fi r s ti ns t ance . For t he fol l ow i ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m t he gr antof s um m ar yj udgm entand t he d e n ial o f th e m o tio n to a p p o in t co u n se l.
I Soon aft erar r i vi ng at C C P on Sept ember 11, 2002 on char ges r el at i ng t o cons pi r acy t o ma n u f

a c t u r e me t h a mp h e t a mi n e , Go o d r i c h r e q u e s t e d me n t a l h e a l t h t r e a t me n t . On S e p tem b e r 1 9 , h e m e t w ith L a u ra lee D in g ler , a C a se M a n a g e r f o r L y c o m in g -C lin to n C o u n ty M H M R , an ent i t yw hi ch pr ovi des m ent al heal t h couns eli n g t o i nm at es atC C P. A pp. 179. G oodr i ch expl ai ned t o D i ngl ert hathe s uffe r ed fr om bi pol ar di s or der and s ever e depr es s i on, and t ol d herw hatm edi cat i ons he had been t aki ng. A pp. 92. She as ked how he w as fee l i ng,
a n d G o o d ri c h in f

o rm e d h e r th a t h e w a s “ v e ry d e p re s s e d a n d . . . h a v in g ra p id m o o d s w in g s ,”
m aki ng hi m “fe el compl et el yuns t abl e. ” A pp. 92. U pon D i ngl er ’ s r eques t , G oodr i ch s i gned
a re lea se p e rm itt in g C C P to o b tain m e d ica l re c o rd s f ro m th e p syc h ia tr is t w h o tre a ted h im p rio r to h is in c a rc e ra tio n . H e a lso g a v e D in g ler th e p h o n e n u m b e r f o r B ra d f o rd C o u n ty Pr i s on, w her e he ha d pr evi ous l ybeen i ncar cer at ed, s o t hats he coul d cal l “t o ver i fy t hat[he]5

m us tr ece i ve medi cat i ons w hi l e i ncar cer at ed. ” A pp. 92. T w o day s l at er , G oodr i ch made a s econd r eques tfor m edi cat i on. H e al s o not i fi ed an uni dent i fi ed pr i s on offi cert hathe had noty etr ece i ved a r es pons e fr om D i ngl er . A pp. 92. D i ngl erm etw i t h G oodr i ch aga i n on O ct ober9. A pp. 92, 179. G oodr i ch t ol d hert hat he had be en “bounc i ng off t he w al l s of m ycel l w i t h cr azyt hought s ” and “ hi ddi ng [s i c] fr om i nm at es and s t aff

beca us e I don’ tknow how t o t ake them and [am ] w o rri ed how I m i ght
r eac t . ” A pp. 93. D i ngl er t ol d hi m t hats he had s poken w i t h hi s ps y chi at r i s t , w ho t ol d hert hat G o o d ri ch h ad b ee n self-m ed icati n g , le a d in g the p sy ch iat ri st t o d isco n ti n u e G o o d ri ch ’s pr es cr i pt i ons . A pp. 93, 190. G oodr i ch r es ponded t hathe had m iss ed dos es i n t he pas t , but t hat i t was i mpo s s i b l e t o mi s s d o s e s i n p r i s o n . Di n g l e r r e s p o n d e d t h a t h e d i d n o t need
m edi cat i on, and t hat“eve r y one w ho comes t o j ai l s uffe r s fr om s om e for m of depr es s i on or anot her
. ” A pp. 93. H e t ol d her tha t h is “ di s or der s ar e di s abl i ng, ” and thathe r ece i ved di s abi l i t ychec ks fr om t he Soci al Secur i t y A dm i ni s t r at i on beca us e of hi s m ent al i l l nes s . A pp. 9 3 . S h e sa id th a t sh e “ sp e a k [ s] w ith th e g a u r d s [ s ic ] f ro m tim e to tim e , the yk n o w w h a t to
w at ch forand not hi ngs [s i c] been s ai d abouty ou. ” A pp. 93. A m o n th o r tw o late r, G o o d ric h in f o rm e d D e p u tyW a rd e n M o tter th a t “m e n tal h e a lth i s r efus i ng t o gi ve [hi m ] t he pr operm edi cat i on. ” A pp. 94. W hen M ot t eri ns t r uct ed G oodr i ch to “p u t in a re ques tt o t he doct or , ” G oodr i ch i nfor m ed hert hathe al r eadyhad, buthad
re c e iv e d “ n o a n sw e r.” A p p . 9 4 . G o o d r ic h a ls o s a id h e h a d “ p u t in a t lea st 6 re q u e sts [ to
m en tal h ea lth ], [b u t] sh e [ D ing ler] w o n ’t an sw er an y o f t h em , an d fu rt h erm o re, sh e d o esn ’t6

do herj ob. ” A pp. 94. M ot t ert ol d G oodr i ch s he w oul d “che ck i nt o i t . ” A pp. 94. In e a rly2 0 0 3 , G o o d ric h w a s a p p o in ted a n e w d e f e n se c o u n se l in c o n n e c tio n w ith h is
cr i m i nal cas e, w hi ch had be en tran sfe r r ed fr om s t at e t o fede r al pr os ecut i on. G oodr i ch not i fi ed hi s new couns el t hat he had not been gi ven medi cat i on. A pp. 94. I n Febr uar y2003, at a h ea ri n g b ef

o re M ag istrate Ju d g e A sk ey in co n n ec ti o n w ith the crim inal ca se, G o o d ri ch ’s d e f e n se c o u n se l in f

o rm e d th e c o u rt th a t G o o d ric h w a s n o t b e in g g iv e n m e d ica tio n f o r h is
m ent al i l l nes s es . I n an or derdat ed Februar y26, 2003, M agi s t r at e Jud g e A s key “recom mend [e d] t ha tt he U
. S. M a r s ha l a pp r i s e t he de t a i ni ng a ut ho r i t i e s of [Good r i c h’ s]
re p o rte d h isto ryo f

d e p re ss io n a n d b ip o lar p e rso n a lityd iso rd e r, an d e n su re th a t ap p ro p ria te
c a r e i s p r o v i d e d
. ” A p p . 1 0 3
. H e f u r t h e r “ r e c o m m e n d [ e d ] t h a t[ G o o d r i c h ] b e e v a l u a t e d b y a
m ent al heal t h pr ofes s i onal and pr ovi ded w i t h anyt r eatm entr ecomm ended byt hatm ent al heal t h pr ofes s i onal
. ” A pp. 103- 04. I n r es pons e t o t he magi s t r at e jud g e’s r ecomm endat i on, D i ngl erm etw i t h G oodr i ch agai n on M ar ch 14 and M ar ch 17, 2003. A pp. 94, 179. She conduct ed an e val uat i on i n w hi ch
s h e o b s e rv e d , in ter a lia , that G o o d ri ch “d id n o t app ea r t o ac t i n a d elus ion al or b izza re
m annernordi d h e d i s pl ayanypr es s ur ed s peec h. ” A pp. 179. D i ngl erconcl uded t hatG oodr i ch di d not “di s pl ay [] cl i ni cal s y m pt om s w hi ch w oul d w ar r anta r efe r r al t o t he Ps y chi at r i s tfor
m edi cat i ons , ” and s he “bel i eved t hat M r . G oodr i ch w as di s pl ay i ng char act er i s t i cs of ‘ dr ug
s eeki ng. ’ ” A pp. 179. G o o d ric h su b se q u e n tlya p p e a re d b e f o re D istric t Ju d g e Jo n e s in c o n n e c tio n w ith h isActually , Mag istrate Judge A skey rec ommended that Goodrich be se en by a “me ntal 5 health prof

essional.” SeeApp. 104. 7 cr i m i nal cas e, and expr es s ed hi s frus t r at i on athi s i nabi l i t yt o obt ai n m edi cat i on. A pp. 94- 95. A tt he r eques tof Judge Jone s , G oodr i ch’ s couns el comm uni cat ed w i t h t he ps y chi at r i s tw ho had t reat ed G oo dri ch p ri or t o h i s i ncarcerat i on . In a l et t er dat ed A pri l 8, 20 03 , t he p sy chiatri st confi r m ed t hathe had di agnos ed G oodr i ch as s uffe r i ng fr om bi pol arI I di s or der , forw hi ch

“ [ a ]p p ro p ria te tre a tm e n t w o u ld in c lu d e a m o o d sta b ili z in g m e d ica tio n in c o m b in a tio n w ith an ant i depr es s ant . ” A pp. 110. O n A pr i l 21, 2003, G oodr i ch’ s couns el for w ar ded t hi s l et t er t o Super vi s or yD eput yU
. S. M ar s hal J ames Cunfer , al ong w i t h a cove rl et t erexpl ai ni ng t hat M agi s t r at e J udge A s key had r eques t ed t hat “G oodr i ch be s een bya phy s i ci an [but ] [t ] hi s w as notdone. ” A pp. 109. 5 G oodr i ch made w r i t t en r eques t s “t o s ee s om eone i n m ent al heal t h aboutm edi cat i on fors ever e depr es s i on and bi pol ardi s or der ” on A pr i l 7, A pr i l 8, A pr i l 24, and A pr i l 28. A pp. 106- 107. D ur i ng t his p eriod , he expe r i ence d pr obl ems w i t h t he pr i s on s t aff and had
a lterc a tio n s w ith in m a tes , lea d in g h im to re c e iv e 6 0 d a y s “in th e h o le.” A p p . 9 5 . H e w ro te t o W ar den D ur an t o “expl ai n w hatw as happeni ng and t el l [] hi m i f I had m y m edi cat i on t hat
m ent al heal t h r efus e[s ] t o gi ve me, I w oul dn’ t be i n t he hol e or caus i ng pr obl ems. ” A pp. 95. D ur an di d notr es pond. A pp. 95. I n l at e A pr i l orear l y M ay 2 003, G oodr i ch w as t aken t o s ee a doct or . I ti s notcl ear fr om t he r ecor d w het hert hi s doct orw as a ps y chi at r i s t . A pp. 161. T he doct orpr es cr i bed Paxi l , al t hough G oodr i ch t ol d hi m t hatPaxi l w oul d nothel p. A pp. 161.8

W hen G oodr i ch t ol d hi s l aw y ert hathe had be en pl ace d o n P axi l butnoton m ood
s t a b i l i z e r s , h i s l a wy e rr e s p o n d e d t h a t “ i t [ ’ ] s t i me t o g e ty o u o u to f t h e r e , J u d g e J o n e s s a i d we can’ tpr ocee d anyfur t herw i t h y ourcas e unt i l l [s i c] y o u r [ si c] s t abl e enough t o m ake a
r at i onal deci s i ons [s i c]
. ” A pp. 96. A few day s lat er, G o odr i ch w as t r ans ferr ed t o Sny der C ount yPr i s on. A tSny derC ount yPr i s on, G oodr i ch underw enta ment al heal t h eval uat i on w her e he
w as di agnos ed w i t h at t ent i on- defi ci thyper act i vi t ydi s or derand bi pol ardi s or der, an d w as pl ace d on m edi cat i on. A pp. 96.
II W e exe r ci s e de novo re v ie w o f a d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s g ra n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. See, e. g. , Hu g h v . Bu t l e r Co u n t

y Fa mi l y YM CA , 418 F. 3d 265, 266 ( 3d C i r . 2005)
. Sum m ar yj udgm ent i s appr opr i at e onl yw here the m ovi ng par t yhas s how n t hatt her e i s no genui ne di s put e of
m a t e r i a l f

a c t a n d th a t it is e n title d to ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f la w . See Cel ot ex Corp. v. C a tre tt , 477 U
. S. 317, 322 ( 1986) ; Fed. R
. C i v. P. 56( c)
. “Sum m ar y j udgm ent . . . m us tnot b e g ra n ted w h e re th e re is a g e n u in e d isp u te a b o u t a m a ter ial f a c t, ‘th a t is , if th e e v id e n c e is
s uch t hata r eas onabl e j ur ycoul d r etur n a ver di ct fo r th e n o n m ovi ng par t y . ’ ” Fas ol d v. Jus t i ce , 409 F. 3d 178, 183 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng A nders on v. Li ber t y Lobby, I

nc. , 47 7 U. S. 2 4 2 , 2 4 8 (1 9 8 6 )). In d e ter m in in g w h e th e r th e re e x ists a g e n u in e d isp u te a s to a m a ter ial f a c t,
w e r es ol ve al l ambi gui t i es and dr aw al l r eas onabl e i nferen ce s in favorof t he non- m ovi ng p a rt y . See, e. g. , R egent

s of Mer cer s bur g C ol l ege v. R epubl i c Frankl i n I ns . C o. , 458 F. 3d 159,Goodrich a rgues in the alter

native that to the extent he did not present suff icient 6 e vid e nc e to s ur

viv e thesumma

ry judgme nt m oti on , it

wa s a re su lt o f t

hede nial of

his mot ion

to appoint counsel. This argument is indist inguisha ble from his cla im that the District Court’s de nial of that mo tio n w a s an a

bu seof dis c re tio n, wh ic h w e dis c us s a nd re je c t inf ra . 9 1 6 3 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 6 ). W e r e v i e w a d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n t o d e n y a p p o i n t me n t o f c o u n s e l u n d e r2 8 U. S
. C. § 1 9 1 5 (e )( 1 ) f

o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . See Tabr on v. G r ace , 6 F
. 3 d 1 4 7 , 1 5 8 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 3 ).

III G oo dri ch cl ai m s t hat t he D i st ri ct C ou rt err ed i n grant i ng sum m ary j u d g m e n t to appel l ees on hi s § 1983 cl ai m t hat appel l ees vi ol at ed hi s r i ght s undert he Ei ght h A m endment t o t he U ni t ed St at es C ons t i t ut i on. H e ar gues t hathe pr es ent ed su ffi ci entevi dence fr om 6
w h ich a rea so n ab le j u ryc o u ld co n clud e tha t D ing ler, D u ran , M o tt er, an d D u ff yw ere del i ber at el yi ndi ffe r entt o hi s s er i ous m edi cal needs and t hat C l i nt on C ount yand Ly comi ngC l i nt on C ount yM H M R had a pol i cyorcust o m o f d en y i ng pr i s oner s t r eatm entform ent al i l l nesses. A pr i s on offi ci al ’ s del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence t o an i nm at e’ s s er i ous m edi cal needs
cons t i t ut es a vi ol at i on of t he E i ght h A m endment and s t at es a caus e of ac t i on under§ 1983. See, e. g. , Este lle v . G a m b le , 429 U
. S. 97, 104- 05 ( 1976)
. T he Ei ght h A m endment cl ai m has obj ect i ve and subject i ve com po nen t s. F i rs t , t he pri soner m ust show t hat hi s m edical need i s, obj ect i vel y , “s uffi ci ent l ys er i ous . ” Far m erv. B r ennan , 511 U
. S. 825, 834 ( 1997) ( ci t at i on
o m itt e d ). S e c o n d , h e m u st e sta b lish th a t th e p riso n o f f icia l ac ted w ith su b

jec tiv e d e lib e ra te10

i ndi ffe r ence , t hati s , t hatt he off i ci al w as aw ar e of a s ubs t ant i al ri sk o f s er i ous har m t o t he p ri s o n e r b u t d is re g a rd e d th a t r is k b yf a ilin g to ta k e re a s o n a b le m e a s u re s to a b a te it. Far m er
v. B r ennan , 5 1 1 U
. S
. 8 2 5 , 8 3 7 (19 9 4 ). A m edi cal need qua l i fi es as “s er i ous ” for purpos es of Ei ght h A m endment anal y s i s i f, f o r e x a m p le , “ it is o n e th a t h a s b e e n d ia g n o s e d b ya p h y s ic ia n a s r e q u ir in g tr e a tm e n t.” Mon m ou t h C ou nty C orr. Inst i t uti on al I nm ates v. L an zaro , 834 F. 2d 326, 347 ( 3d C i r . 1987) (q u o tatio n a n d c itatio n o m itt e d ). In a d d iti o n , “if u n n e c e ss a rya n d w a n to n in f lictio n o f p a in
r es ul t s as a cons equenc e of de ni al o r d elayi n t he pr ovi s i on of ade quat e medi cal car e, t he
m edi cal need i s of t he ser i ous natur e cont empl at ed by t he ei ght h amendm ent . ” I d. ( quot at i on
a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ). A m e n ta l illn e s s m a yc o n s titu te a s e ri o u s m e d ic a l n e e d
. I nm at es of

t he A l l egheny C ount

y Jai lv. P i er ce , 61 2 F
. 2d 75 4, 76 3 (3d C ir. 19 79 ) ( “A l t ho ug h m ost chal l enges t o pr i s on m edi cal t r eatm enthave f ocus ed on t he al l eged de fi ci enci es of m edi cal tr ea tm en t fo r ph y sical i ll s, w e p erc eive n o rea so n w h yp sy ch o lo g ica l or p sy ch iat ri c c are sh o u ld n o t be h eld to the s am e stan d ard
. ”). A n i nm at e ca n s how “del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence ” w her e, for exampl e, “pr i s on aut hor i t i es d e n yre a so n a b le re q u e sts f o r m e d ica l trea tm e n t . . . an d su c h d e n ial e x p o se s th e in m a te to undue s uffe r i ng. ” L an zaro , 8 3 4 F
. 2 d a t3 4 6 ( q u o t a t i o n a n d c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d )
. A l t e r n a t i v e l y,

“ d e lib e ra te in d if

f e re n c e ” is sh o w n “ w h e re k n o w led g e o f th e n e e d f

o r m e d ica l ca re [ is
acc om pani ed by t he]
. . . i nt ent i onal r efus al t o pr ovi de t hat car e” orw her e “pr i s on aut hor i t i es pr eventan i nm at e fr om r ece i vi ng r ecomm ended t r eatm ent for s er i ous m edi cal needs ordeny11

acc es s t o [a] phy s i ci an ca pabl e of e val uat i ng t he nee d for s uch t r eatm ent . ” I d. at346- 47 ( quot at i ons and ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. I t i s cl ear , how ever , t hatal l egat i ons of negl i gence do not ri s e to th e le v e l o f

a c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n . Este lle , 429 U
. S. at106. Fi nal l y , “w het heror
n o t a d e f e n d a n t’s c o n d u c t a m o u n ts t o d e lib e ra te in d if f e re n c e h a s b e e n d e sc rib e d a s a c las sic i s s ue for t he fa ctfi nder
. ” A
. M
. ex. rel
. J. M
. K
. v. L uzerne C ou nty Juvenil e D et enti on C t r. , 372 F. 3d 572, 588 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( quot i ng Ni ci ni v. Morra , 212 F
. 3 d 7 9 8 , 8 1 6 ( 3d C i r . 2000) (R en d ell , J. , d issen ti n g )). W e ar e s at i s fi ed t hatG oodr i ch has pr es ent ed evi dence of a “s er i ous ” medi cal need. H is m e n tal ill n e ss e s w e re d iag n o se d b y p sy c h iatris ts a s re q u irin g tre a tm e n t, bo th p rio r to h is i ncar cer at i on atC C P and i m m edi at el yaft er hi s t r ans fer t o Sny derC ount yPr i s on. A pp. 92, 96, 110, 112- 14. I n addi t i on, G oodr i ch pr ovi ded a vi vi d des cr i pt i on of hi s s uffe r i ng dur i ng th e p e ri o d w h e n h e w a s n o t m e d ic a te d
. See, e. g. , Ap p . 2 5 , 9 2
- 9 3 , 9 5 ( c h a r a c t e r i z i n g t h i s t i me as “8 m on t hs of m ental t orture” du ri ng w hich he “feltl i ke [h e] w as l osi ng con t rol of [ his ] t hought s , ” w as “very par anoi d, ” and “compl et el y s hut dow n and [he] coul dn’ tdo any t hi ng abouti t. . . [H e] j us ts t ai r ed [s i c] forday s on end. ”)
. Fr om t hi s evi dence , a r eas onabl e fa ct fi ndercoul d concl ude t hatt he per i od w hen he w as deni ed me d icat i on r es ul t ed i n an

“ u n n e c e s s a ry a n d w a n to n in f lic tio n o f p a in ,” th u s q u a lif y in g h is m e d ic a l n e e d s a s “ s e ri o u s .” L an zaro , 8 3 4 F .2 d a t 3 4 7
. See al s o P i er ce , 612 F. 2d at763 ( not i ng t he pos s i bi l i t yt hat“t he fai l ur e t o pr ovi de nec es s ar y ps y chol ogi cal or ps y chi at r i c t r eatm ent t o i nm at es w i t h s er i ous
m ent al or emot i onal di s t urbance s w i l l r es ul t i n t he i nfl i ct i on of pai n and s uffe r i ng j us tas r eal12

as w o u ld resu ltfro m the f ail u re to treat seriou s p h y sical ail m en ts”). H ow ever , t he D i s t r i ct C our t w as cor r ect t o concl ude t hatappel l ees demonst r at ed t hat G oodr i ch had f

ai l ed t o s how a g en u ine i s s ue of mat er i al fac ton t he i s s ue of Laur al ee D i ngl er’ s “del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence . ” The undi s put ed evi dence s how s t hataft erG oodr i ch i nfo rm ed D i ngl erof hi s di agnos es att hei rfi r s tm eet i ng on Sept ember 19, 2002, s he
comm uni cat ed w i t h hi s pr e- i ncar cer at i on ps y chi at r i s tw ho t ol d hert hat he had di s cont i nued G oodr i ch’ s m edi cat i on beca us e G oodr i ch had bee n “s el f- m edi cat i ng. ” A pp. 93, 109. I n l i ght of t hi s i nfor m at i on, D i ngl ert ol d G oodr i ch on O ct ober9, 2002, t hats he had de t er m i ned t hat
m edi cat i on w as unnece s s ar y , and t hatG oodr i ch’s depr es s i on w as m er el ychar act er i s t i c of
so m eo n e f

ac ing a p eriod o f in ca rce rati o n . A p p . 9 3
. A fter th e M ag istrate Ju d g e, on F eb rua ry 2 6 , 2 0 0 3 , “ re c o m m e n d [ e d ] t h a t [ G o o d r i c h ] b e e v a lu a te d b ya m e n ta l h e a lth p ro f e s s io n a l,” D i ngl eragai n m et w i t h G oodr i ch on M ar ch 14 and M ar ch 17, 2003. A pp. 103- 04, 94, 178- 8 1
. F r o m t h e s e me e t i n g s , s h e c o n c l u d e d t h a t Go o d r i c h d i d n o t“ d i s p l a y [ ] c l i n i c a l s y mp t o ms
w hi ch w oul d w ar r anta r efe r r al t o t he Ps y ch iat r i s tform edi cat i ons ” and i ns t ead, t hat G oodr i ch w as “di s pl ay i ng char act er i s t i cs of ‘ dr ug s eeki ng. ’ ” A pp. 179. W e concl ude t hat t her e i s no di s put e aboutanym at er i al fac ts uffi ci entt o pr ecl ude a gr antof s um m ar yj udgm ent for D i ngl er . T her e i s no di s put e t hatD i ngl er , upon cons ul t at i on
w i t h G oodr i ch’ s phy s i ci an, l earned t hatG oodri ch had abus ed hi s pr es cr i pt i on bys el fm edi cat i ng. Fur t her , t her e i s no di s put e t hatD i ngl erengage d i n a good- fai t h cl i ni cal
as s es s m entof G oodr i ch’ s s y m pt om s , concl udi ng on s ever al vi s i t s t hat hi s condi t i on di d not13

w ar r antm edi cat i on. T aken t oget her , D i ngl er ’ s cons ul t at i on w i t h G oodr i ch’ s phy s i ci an and hercl i ni cal as s es s m entof G oodr i ch cl ear l y i ndi cat e an exer ci s e of m edi cal j udgm ent , r at her t han deli berat e i nd i fference to hi s m edical need s. D el i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence i s a s ubj ect i ve s t andar d, bas ed on a de fenda nt ’ s s t at e of mi nd: t he undi s put ed fa ctt hatD i ngl ert ook t he af or ement i oned s teps t o eval uat e and tr eat G oodr i ch’ s m ent al i l l nes s pr ecl udes a fi ndi ng t hat s he w i l ful l yi gnor ed a s ubs t ant i al r i s k of har m . W hi l e herul t i m at e dec i s i on m igh thave be en negl i gentorer r oneous , t her e i s no i ndi cat i on t hatD i ngl er ’ s m i nd w as s uffi ci ent l ycul pabl e t o cons t i t ut e del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence .

IV N ext , G oodr i ch a r gues t hatC C P W ar den D ur an, C C P D eput yW ar den M ot t er , and L y comi ng- C l inton C o u n tyM H M R D ir ec tor D u ff yw ere d eli b era tel yind iffe rentt o hi s s er i ous
m edi cal n ee ds
. H e fi nds l i abi l i t yher e undert hr ee di s t i nctt heor i es : ( 1) as s uper vi s or s of D i ngl er ; ( 2) t hei rper s onal i nvol vement i n deny i ng hi m t r eatm entforhi s m ent al i l l nes s es ; and ( 3) as pol i cym aker s r es pons i bl e for es t abl i s hi ng or m ai nt ai ni ng t he pol i ci es orcus t om s t hat caused a viol at i on of h i s const i t uti on al ri gh t s. Fi r s t , w h il e a su p erv i s orm aybe per s onal l yl i abl e under§ 1983 “i f he ors he par t i ci pat ed i n vi ol at i ng t he pl ai nt i ff’ s r i ght s , di r ect ed ot her s t o vi ol at e t hem, or , as t he per s on i n char ge, had know l edge of and acqui es ced i n hi s s ubor di nat es ’ vi ol at i ons , ” A
. M. , 372 F. 3d at586, as t hi s C our t has al r eady found G oodr i ch’ s al l egat i ons i ns uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h t hat14

D i ngl ervi ol at ed G oodr i ch’ s E i ght h A m endment r i ght s , t hes e s ame al l egat i o n s cannot est abli sh t hat D i ng l er’ s supervi sors viol at ed h i s r i gh t s. Secondl y , as forhi s claim of l i abi l i t ybas ed on per s onal i nvol vement , none of G o o d ri ch ’s su b m issi o n s co n tai n an yall eg ati o n s resp ec ti n g D u ff y , an d thu s su m m ary j udgm en t in D u ff

y ’ s favoron t hi s t heor yw as pr oper . I n addi t i on, t he onl yal l egat i ons
r es pect i ng D u ran an d M ot t erw er e t hatG oodr i ch comm uni cat ed t o t hem t hathe w as not gett i ng t he m edicat i on he sai d he need ed and t hat D i ng l er w as unrespon si ve to hi s r equ est s. H ow ever , as t he D i s t r i ct C our texpl ai ned, non- phy s i ci an def endant s cannotbe “c ons i der ed del i ber at el yi ndi ffe r ents i m pl ybeca us e t heyfai l ed t o r es pond di r ect l yt o t he medical compl ai nt s of a pr i s onerw ho w as al r eadybei ng t r eat ed” byt he pr i s on’ s m edi cal staff. D u rm e r v . O ’C a rr o ll , 991 F. 2d 64, 69 ( 3d C i r . 1993)
. B eca us e t he pr i s on’ s m edi ca l st af f, t hrou g h D i ngl er , w as pr ovi di ng m edi cal cons ul t at i on and eva l uat i on, D ur an and M ot t er
ca n n o t be c o n side red d eli b era tel yind iffe ren t fo r fa il ing to seco n d -gu ess t h e m ed ical st af f’s appr ai s al of t he s i t uat i on. Fi nal l y , G oodr i ch’ s cl ai m s agai ns tD uffy , D ur an, an d M o tt erbas ed on t hei rr ol e as pol i cym aker s depends on t he vi abi l i t yof G o o d ri ch’ s cl ai m s agai ns tC l i nt on C ount yand L y c o m in g -C lin to n C o u n tyM H M R . G o o d ric h a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt w a s in e rro r in dis m i ssi ng his cl ai m s agai nst C l i nton C ou ntya nd Ly c omi ng - Cl i nt on CountyM H M R becau se h e p r e s e n t e d s u f

f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t h a tCl i n t o n Co u n t ya n d L y c o mi n g - Cl i n t o n Co u n t yM HM R had a po l i cyor cust om of d el i berat e i nd i fference to pri soners’ ser i ou s m ental i l l nesses. T hese15

m uni ci pal ent i t i es m aybe l i abl e bas ed on a s ui tbr oughtpur s uantt o § 1983 onl yi f “the al l eged c ons t i t ut i onal t r ans gr es s i on i m pl ement s or exec ut es a pol i cy , r egul at i on ordeci s i on offi ci al l yadopt ed byt he governi ng bodyori nfor m al l yadopt ed bycus t om . ” B eck v. C i t y of P i t t s bur gh , 89 F. 3d 966, 971 ( 3d C i r . 1996) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)
. H er e, how ever , G oodr i ch has
n o t su f f icie n tlya lleg e d a n yc o n s ti tu ti o n a l tran sg re ss io n . W ith o u t a v io latio n o f h is
cons t i tut i on al ri g h ts, C li n ton C o u n tyan d L y co m ing -C li n ton C ountyM H M R of cour s e ca nnot be l i abl e bas ed on t he t heor yt hatt heyes t abl i s hed orm ai nt ai ned an unc ons t i t ut i onal pol i cy
or cus t om r es pons i bl e for vi ol at i ng hi s r i ght s . I tfol l ow s , t hen, t hatD uffy , D ur an, and M ot t er
cann ot be l i able as po l i cy m akers.
V G oodr i ch nextm ai nt ai ns t hatt he gr ant o f sum m ar yj udgm ents houl d be vac at ed beca us e he w as gi ven no meani ngful oppor t uni t yt o conductdi s covery . H e arg u es thatt he 2 0 d a y s t h e D i s t r i c tC o u r tg r a n t e d t h e p a r t i e s t o s u b m i tm a t e r i a l s p e r t i n e n tt o t h e n e w l yc o n v e r t e d mot i o n f

o r s u mma r y j udgm ent w a s a n in su f f icie n t am o u n t o f

tim e f o r h im to engage i n m eani ngful di s covery . H ow ever , G oodr i ch di d notr ai s e t hi s i s s ue i n t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt, an d a lth o u g h w e h a v e d isc re tio n to a d d re ss iss u e s n o t ra ise d b e lo w , w e d o so o n ly “w hen pr om pt ed byexce pt i onal ci r cumst ance s . ” Tabron , 6 F. 3d at153 n. 2 ( quot at i ons and
c itatio n o m itt e d ). W e f in d n o e x c e p tio n a l circ u m sta n c e s h e re a n d d e c lin e to a d d re ss th is i s s ue.16 VI L as t l y , G oodr i ch ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on t o appoi nt
c o u n se l w a s in e rro r. W h ile th e re is no c o n stitu tio n a l o r statu to ry rig h t to c o u n se l in a c iv il
c a s e , s ee e . g. , P ar ham v. Johns on , 1 2 6 F
. 3 d 4 5 4 , 4 5 6 -57 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 7 ) (co ll ec ti n g ca ses), t he cour t“mayr eques tan at t or neyt o rep r es entanyper s on unabl e t o aff or d couns el
. ” 28 U
. S. C
. § 1915( e) ( 1)
. Such appoi nt m enti s a di s cr et i onar y deci s i on, and as s uch w e r evi ew t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al o f G o odr i ch’ s m ot i on t o appoi ntcouns el forabus e of di s cr et i on. Tabron , 6 F. 3d at 157- 58 ( “W e emphasi ze t hatappoi nt m entof couns el r emai ns a mat t erof di s cr et i on; s ect i on [1915( e) ( 1) ] gi ves di s t r i ct cour t s br oad di s cr et i on t o det er m i ne w het her app oint m ent of cou nsel i s w arr anted, and t he d et erm i nati on m ust be m ade o n a case-by -cas e b asis. ”). I n Tabron , w e id e n tifie d a n u m b e r o f f a c to r s a d istric t co u rt sh o u ld c o n sid e r in d e ter m in in g w h e th e r to a p p o in t co u n se l. F irst, th e c o u r t sh o u ld m a k e a th re sh o ld det er m i nat i on of w het her “t he pl ai nt i ff’ s cl ai m has ar guabl e m er i ti n fac tand l aw . ” Tabron , 6 F. 3d at155. I f t he ca s e has ar guabl e mer i t , t he cour ts houl d p roc ee d to cons i der( i ) t he pl ai nt i ff’ s ab il i t yt o pr es enthi s ow n cas e; ( i i ) t he compl exi t yof t he l egal i s s ues ; ( i i i ) t he d e g re e to w h ich f

a c tu a l in v e st ig a tio n w ill b e n e c e ss a rya n d th e a b ili tyo f th e p lain tiff

to p u rsu e su c h in v e stig a tio n ; (iv ) th e e x ten t to w h ich a c a se is lik e lyto tu rn o n c re d ib ili ty d e ter m in a tio n s; (v ) w h e th e r th e c a se w il l re q u ire tes tim o n yo f e x p e rt w itn e ss e s; a n d (v i)
w h e th e r t h e p la in tif

f c a n a f f o rd a n d a tta in c o u n s e l o n h is o w n . See Parham , 126 F. 3d at457-17

58 ( ci t i ng Tabron , 6 F. 3d at155- 56, 157 n. 5)
. T hi s l i s tof fa ct or s i s notexhaus t i ve. H ere , af ter assu m ing “so lel yfo r t h e p u rpo se o f d ec iding this m o ti o n , that [G o o d ri ch ’s cl ai m ] has ar guabl e mer i t , ” t he D i s t r i ctC our tpr ocee ded t o fi nd t hatt he Tabron fa ctors
w ei ghed agai ns t appoi nt m ent . A pp. 18. T he D i s t r i ctC our texpl ai ned t hatbeca us e G oodr i ch had demonst r at ed t hathe w as cap ab le o f “pr es ent i ng compre hens i bl e ar gum ent s , ” and beca us e t h e “lega l i s s ues ar e r el at i vel yuncompl i cat ed, ” G oodr i ch w oul d not“s uffe r pr ej udi ce i f he i s for ced t o pr os ecut e t hi s cas e on hi s ow n. ” A pp. 18. W e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s anal y s i s and conc l us i on, and w e t hus hol d t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on her e.
CO NC L US I ON For t he for egoi ng r eas ons , bot h t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s or dergr ant i ng s um m ar yj udgm ent and t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derdeny i ng t he mot i on t o appoi ntcouns el w i l l be af fi r m ed.

### 18

POLLAK , D istri c t Judg e , diss e nti ngin p art : Iagreewith the court that the D istrict Court’s grant of summary judgme nt in favor of defe ndant-a

ppellees Clinton County , Lycoming -Clinton C ounty Mental He alth and Menta l Re tard atio n Progra

m ( MH MR) , M HM R di re c tor Debr a Du ff y , Cl int on County Priso n ( CCP) Warden Duran, and CCP Deputy Warden Motter should be a ffirme d—although, as explained be low , I c ometo t his c on c lus ion

fo r re a so ns so me wh at di ff e rent f ro m th os e state d b y

thec ourt . Se einf ra no te2. Ia lso a gre e that th e Di stric t Co ur t’ s d e nial of

plaint if f- a pp e lla nt Je rv is Goodrich’ s motion t o appoint counsel did not constitute an abuseof discre tion. See infra note 1. Howeve r, I

respe ctfully

dissent from the cour

t’s conclusion that the District Court’s grant of summary judgme nt in favor of

defe ndant-a

ppellee L aura

L ee D ingle r should be af firmed. I am of thevie w that G oo dric h, throu gh h is pro s eeff orts, has prof

fered enough evidenc e to cr eatea g enuine issue of

fac t as to whether

Ding ler a cted with deliberate indiffe renc e to his serious
me dic a l ne e ds
. The c ourt’s dete rmination that the rec ord reveals no e videnceof deliberate indiffe renc e by Ding ler re sts on the court’s c onclusion that “Ding ler’s c onsulation with Goodrich’s physician and her clinical asse ssment of Goodrich c learly indicate a

n exercise of

medical judgment, rathe r than deliberate indiffe renc e to his medical ne eds.” an teat --- --- --- -. Ipart wa ys with my

colleagues bec ause I

do not perc eive Goodrich’s suit to be predic ated on a theor y that Ding ler c arried out a “c linical assessment” a nd “an e x erc ise of medical judgment”that she knewto be marke dly inadequate to meet Goodrich’s serious nee ds. Rather, a

ppellant’s theor

y of liability

is that, during G oodrich’s se veral months as
an inmateat CCP, Di ng le r— wh o w a s n ot a

me dic a l prof

e ssi on a l—e ff

e c tiv e ly and de lib e rate ly

### 19

d e n i e d h i ma c c e s s t o m e d i c a l car e. 

### I n Inma tes of Allegheny Co un tyJail v. Pierce , 612 F.2d75 4, 76 3 (3dCir. 19 79 ), th is co urt o b serv edth at, w h enassessin g a p riso n er’s d elib erate in d if f eren ce claim s,

“ c o n s i d e r ab l e l at i t

u d e [ s h o u l db e g i v e n ] t o p r i s o nme d i c a lauth o r i t i e s ” l e s t c o urt s c o me to “seco n d -g u ess th e p ro p riety o r ad equ acy

o f a p articu lar co urse o f

treatm en t . . . (w h ich ) rem ain s a qu estio no f so un dp ro f

essio n al j u d g m en t.” T h e co urt w en t o nto
e xpl a i n that

“ [i ]m pl i c i t i n thi s de fe r e nc e t o pr i s on m e di c a lauthor i t i e s i s the a s s um pt i on that
. . . an inf

orm ed ju dg m ent has , i n f ac t, been m ade. ” I

d. Bu t when an inf

orm ed ju dg m ent has no t bee n m ade—wh er e, fo r e xam ple, the pri son o ff

ic ia l i n quest ion d oes not have m e di c a ltr a i ni ng—c onc e rns about s e c ond- gue s s i ng pr ofe s s i ona lde t e rm i nat i ons ar e s im ply no t at i ss ue. Nothing in the r ec ord sug gest s that Dingler had any m edic al tr ai ning wh at soever

—certa inly

no tr ai ning of

a s ort quali fying h er

to diagno se and tre at
m e nt a li l l ne s s . Nor

doe s Di ngl e r

s o c ont e nd. Ac c or di ngl y , Goodr i c h’ s c l a i m s houl d not be e va l uat e d unde r

the de fe r e nt i a ls t andar d that thi s c ourt

r e s e rve s for

r e vi e w of d eterm in atio n s b y

p riso nm ed ical au th o rities. R ath er, w e sh o u ldco n sid er h is claim in l i ght of thi s c ourt ’ s obs e rvat i on that , whe n “ pr i s on author i t i e s pr e ve nt an i nm at e fr om re ce iving rec omm ended tre atm ent for se ri ou s m edic alneeds or deny ac ce ss to a phy si ci an c a pa bl e of e va l uat i ng the ne e d f

or s uc h tr e atm e nt , the c on s t i t ut i on a ls t and ar d o f E

stelle [ v. G a m b le, 42 9 U .S. 97 (19 76 )] has been violat ed.” I d. Goodr i c h ha s offe r e d undi s put e d e vi de nc e that Di ngl e r kne w Goodr i c h ha d a

### 20

Ihave note d that Goodrich procee ded pro se in d e ve lop ingthee vid e nc e wh ic h, in my 7 judgme nt, is sufficient to defe at summary judgme nt in favor of

Ding ler. Ha d Goodrich be en represente d by

counsel in the District Court, it may well be that c ounsel would havedevelope d additional evidenc e. None theless, I do not question the District Court’s denial of Goodrich’s mot ion fo r t hea pp ointme nt o f c ouns e l at th e tim e theDi stric t Co ur t r ule d. Th at r

uli ng , a s my c oll e a gue s e xpla in, wa s gro un de d in fa c tor s th at prop e rly

inf or me d th e Di stric t Co ur

t’ s e xer c ise of its discretionar

y authority . Howeve r, I

take it for grante d that, if my colleagues we re to a gree with my view that summary

judgme nt should not have bee n grante d in favor of Ding ler, on rema nd for f urther procee dings theDistrict Court would undertaketo appoint counsel for Goodrich. SeeApp. 18 (District Court orde r statingthat Goodrich’ s motion for appointment of counsel “ will be denied”but that “[i] n the eve nt . . . that future procee dings de monstrate the ne ed for c ounsel, the matter ma y be re considere d either by the cour t, on its own ini tiative, or upon a motion properly

filed by [Goodrich]”). 

### diagno se d m enta l i ll ness . App . 93. In additi on , the re cord es ta blis hes that ( 1) federal Magistrate Judg e W il li am H. Askey , by

order dat ed February

25 , 200 3, re comm ended that Goodr i c h “ be e va l uat e d by am e nt a lhe a l th pr ofe s s i ona land pr ovi de d wi th any tr e atm e nt r e c omm e nde d by

that pr ofe s s i ona l ; ” and, ( 2) Di ngl e r , i n Mar c h of 2003, de c l i ne d t o c om

pl y wi th that r e c omm e ndat i on ba s e d on he r own non- e xpe rt

a s s e s s m e nt that “no referr alto [a] p sychiatris t was warr ante d.” SeeAp p . 1 7 9 (D in g ler af f id av it); se e
a lso id
. at 1 0 3 -0 4 (o rd er o f M ag istrate Ju d g e A sk ey); i d. at 18 0 (no te s from

Ding le r’ s Marc h 1 7, 20 03 m ee ti ng with Go odri ch, m enti on ing “re ferr alby federalju dg e” ). Thus , i t s e e m s t o m e that

Goodr i c h, by

hi s own una i de d e ffort s , ha s br ought f o rw ardev id en ce o nth e b asis o f w h icha f

act-f in d er co u ldratio n ally

co n clu d e th at, w h ile Goodr i c h wa s an i nm at e at CCP, Di ngl e r

“ de n[i e d hi m ] a c c e s s t o aphy s i c i an c a pabl e of evaluati ng the nee d f

or . . . tre atm ent” of

his “ se ri ou s m edic alneeds. ” Pierce , 612 F.2dat 7 6 3
. A cco rd in g ly , I w o u ldv acate th e D istrict C o urt’s g ran t o f summ ary j u d g m en t in 7

### 21

My agree ment with the District Court’s grant of summar y judgme nt in favor of

the other 8 appellee s is predicated on the fa ct that Goodric h has off ere d no evidenc e tendingto establish that Ding ler’s c onduct was in a ny signific ant sense a ffe cted by an ac t or omission of any other appellee
. 

### f av o r o f D in g ler an drem an dth is m atter f o r f urth er p ro ceed in g s. 8