A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s ti n the det erm i nat i on o f th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h is c a se is ther efor e s ubm i t t ed w i thoutor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s not bi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t ent w i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### M ay 1 , 200 8 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT GA RY R. PI ERCE ,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t , N o. 07- 7094 v. E as t ern D i s tr i ctof O kl ahoma J E R O M E A M A R A N T O , Sher i ff a nd D E N N IS C O O K , C h ie f o f P o lic e , D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees . ( D . C. N o. 05 - CV - 51 3- RA W - SPS )

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T *

B efor e TA CHA , KEL LY and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es.

A ppel l antG aryR . Pi er ce br oughtt hi s pr i s onerci vi l r i ght s act i on for i nj ur i es he al l egedl ys uffe r ed dur i ng hi s arr es tand w hi l e i n cus t odyatt he-2-

Pi t t s bur g C ountyJ ai l i n M cA l es t er , O kl ahoma. T he di s tr i ctcour tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof tw o of the defendant s and di s m i s s ed the ac t i on as f r i v o l o u s wi th r e s p e c tt o th e r e s t . M r . P i e r c e a p p e a l s , a n d we n o w a ffi r m. I . BA CKGROUND Shor t l ypas t11: 00 PM on t he ni ghtof D ece m ber17, 2003, t he pol i ce depart m entof K r ebs , O kl ahoma r ece i ved a c al l r eport i ng an i ndi vi dual s cr eami ng an d takin g h is cl o thes o ff. P atrolm an Jam es H o ll o w ayw as d ispa tche d , an d af ter a b ri ef sea rch h e fo u n d a m an iaca ll yrav ing , sh irtl ess G aryP ierce in the b ac k y ard of a r es i dence . M r . Pi er ce, a met hamphet ami ne addi ctw ho w as l i kel yundert he drug’ s i nfl uence atthe t i m e, had s m as hed the hous e’ s back doorand r ans acke d the l aundryr oom . H e i gnor ed Patr ol m an H ol l ow ay ’ s or dert o getdow n on the g rou n d , so H o ll o w aytoo k h im d o w n w ith a tec h n iqu e c all ed an arm b ar. A c c o rd in g to M r. P ier c e , P a tro lm a n H o llo w a yo r a n o th e r o ffice r a lso stru c k h im overthe hea d w i th a 14- i nch fl as hl i ght . M r . Pi er ce w as arr es t ed on cha r ges of fi r s t - degr ee bur gl ary , br eaki ng and ent er i ng, des truct i on of pr i vat e pr operty , and r e s i s t i n g a r r e s t . H e s u b s e q u e n t l y p l e a d e d g u i l ty t o t h e b u r g l a ry c h a r g e , a fe l o n y, a n d w a s s e n te n c e d to tw e n ty y e a rs ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t w ith tw e lv e y e a rs s u s p e n d e d . A ft erhi s arr es t , M r . Pi er ce w as t aken t o the Pi t t s bur g C ountyJ ai l . T her e, lo c k e d in a n o b se rv a tio n c e ll, h e fe ll t o th e flo o r tw ice : o n c e b yro lli n g o ff h is b u n k , the n a g a in w h ile s tan d in g n e a r th e d o o r. A f ter th e first fa ll, h e to ld jail-3-

s t aff m ember s B r andi C r ens haw and J ames Teafa t i l l erthathe w as fi ne. A ft ert he s econd, he s ai d he w as fi ne butw i s hed t o be t aken t o the emer gencyr oom beca us e hi s arm hur t . Patr ol m an H ol l ow ayt ook hi m t o the hos pi t al , w her e he w as b ri e fly tre a te d , p re s c ri b e d th e a n tib io tic K e fle x , a n d re le a s e d b a c k in to c u s to d y . M e d ic a l r e c o rd s s h o w th a t h e h a d a 3 -c e n tim e te r l a c e ra tio n o n h is s c a lp , a s pr ai ned el bow , and mul t i pl e abr as i ons . A ccor di ng t o M r . Pi er ce, j ai l s t aff s ubs equent l ydeni ed hi m t he ant i bi ot i c. M r . Pi er ce f

i l ed a feder al compl ai ntunder42 U . S. C . § 1983 on D ece m ber 1 6 , 2 0 0 5 , alm o st tw o y e a rs la ter . H is a lleg a tio n s a re h a rd lyc lea r, b u t ev id e n tly M r. P ierce c o m p lai n s o f e x ce ssive fo rce in the co n d u ct of h is arrest and o f fail u re t o p r o v i d e a d e q u a t e me d i c a l c a r e d u r i n g h i s s t a ya tth e P i t t s b u r g Co u n tyJ a i l . As defe ndant s , M r . Pi er ce na m ed the A t t or neyG ener al of O kl ahoma, the s her i ff a nd countycomm i s s i oner s of Pi t t s bur g C ounty , the chi ef of pol i ce of

the C i tyof K r ebs , and fourt een J ohn orJ ane D oes . T he di s tr i ctcour tdi s m i s s ed the ac t i on as t o the A t t orneyG ener al , and M r . Pi er ce nons ui t ed the comm i s s i oner s . T he re m a in in g n a m e d d e fe n d a n ts, S h e riff Je ro m e A m a ra n to a n d P o lice C h ief D e n n is C ook, m oved fors um m aryj udgm ent . W hi l e thatm ot i on w as pendi ng, M r . Pi er ce, havi ng l earned the names of s om e of the off i cer s i nvol ved i n hi s arr es tand jailin g , so u g h t to a m e n d h is c o m p lain t to su b stitu te fo r fo u r o f th e D o e d e fe n d a n ts-4-

Patr ol m an H ol l ow ay , B r andi C r ens haw , J ames Teafa t i l l er , and a J . W . Y oung, w ho appar ent l yas s i s t ed Patr ol m an H ol l ow ayi n arr es t i ng M r . Pi er ce. O n O ct ober30, 2007, t he di s tr i ctcour tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entfor Sher i ff A m ar ant o and C hi ef Cook, deni ed M r . Pi er ce’ s m ot i on t o amend, and dis m i ssed the resi du e of the act i on as fr i vo l ou s. I I . DI S CU S S I ON W e re v iew th e d istric t co u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t de novo . R os tex re l. K.C . v. S tea m b o a t S p rin gs R E -2 Sc h . D ist. , 5 1 1 F . 3 d 1 1 1 4 , 1 1 1 8 (10 th C ir . 2008) . W e r evi ew i t s deni al of M r . Pi er ce’ s m ot i on t o amend t he compl ai ntfor a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . F i elds v. O kl a. Stat e P enitenti ary , 5 1 1 F .3 d 1 1 0 9 , 1 1 1 3 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). A . Sum m ary Ju dgm ent for Sheri ffA m arant o and C hi ef C ook Jero m e A m ara n to is th e sh eriff o f P ittsbu rg C o u n ty . H e w as n o t, as M r. Pi er ce a dm i t s , i n anyw ayi nvol ved i n arr es t i ng, i nj ur i ng, orw i thhol di ng m edi cal tr eatm entfr om M r . Pi er ce. A ta depos i t i on, M r . Pi er ce t es t i fi ed thathe had s ued Sher i ff A m ar ant o s i m pl ybeca us e he w as “the bos s es ” of the off i cer s w ho al l egedl yi nj ur ed hi m . A pl ee’ s Supp. A pp. 61. T he di s tr i ctcourtgr ant ed the sh e riff ’s m o tio n fo r su m m a ryju d g m e n t, fin d in g n o e v id e n c e to su p p o rt a c o n c lu sio n th a t h e h a d p a rticip a ted in a n yo f th e inju rie s a lleg e d in th e c o m p lain t.-5-

S e c tio n 1 9 8 3 d o e s n o t cr e a te a g e n e ra l r es pondeats uper i orl i abi l i tyfor g o v e rn m e n t o ffic ia ls . P olk C ount y v. D ods on , 454 U . S. 312, 325 ( 1981) . “[T] he defe ndant ’ s r ol e mustbe more t han one of abs tr actauthor i tyoveri ndi vi dual s w ho actual l ycomm i t t ed a c ons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on. ” Fogar t y v. G al l egos , ___ F. 3d

___ , N o . 0 6 -2 2 3 8 , 2 0 0 8 W L 1 7 6 5 0 1 8 , a t * 1 2 (1 0 th C ir . A p r. 1 8 , 2 0 0 8 ). Super vi s oryl i abi l i tyw i l l l i e onl y“w her e an a ffi r m at i ve l i nk exi s t s betw een the c o n stitu tio n a l d e p riv a tio n a n d e ith e r th e su p e rv iso r’s p e rso n a l p a rticip a tio n , h is exer ci s e of c ontr ol ordi r ect i on, orhi s fai l ur e t o s upervi s e. ” Id. ( i nt ernal q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). O n ap peal, M r. P i erce urges that “[t ]he affi rm at i ve li nk do exis t s [ sic ] betw een the s t atut oryand cons t i tut i onal depr i vat i ons and D efe ndantA m ar ant o, forfai l ur e t o s upervi s e the j ohn does and j ane doe s , j ai l er s , ” and that“Sher i ff A m a ra n to , is re sp o n sib le fo r th e a c ts o f th e Ja ilers , . . . fo r th e w ro n g f u l ac ts attr i but ed t o them w hi l e ac t i ng w i thi n the l i m i t s of thei roffi ci al author i ty . ” A pl t ’ s B r . 2, 3. H e al s o ar gues , though w i thouts peci fi c r efe r ence t o Sher i ff A m arant o, that “[a] [m ]as t er orpri ncipal i s l i able for the tor tuo us [ sic ] act s of theirservan t ’s / agen t s [ sic ] . ” Id. at5. T o the ext entM r . Pi er ce a s s er t s naked r es pondeats uper i orl i abi l i ty , hi s cl ai m i s cl ear l ydefi ci ent . T o the ext enthe ar gues Sher i ff A m ar ant o’ s fai l ur e t o s upervi s e, he has notm ethi s bur den on s um m aryj udgm entof put t i ng forw ar d evi dence t o s uppor thi s as s er t i ons . I ti s not-6-

enough forM r . Pi er ce t o s how thatj ai l s t aff i nj ur ed hi m and thatSher i ff A m a ra n to w a s th e ir su p e rv iso r: su p e rv iso ryliab ili tyh e re re q u ire s “ d e lib e ra te i ndi ffe r ence ” t o a know n and exc es s i ve r i s k, and “e ven i f a pr i s on offi ci al has k n o w led g e o f

a su b sta n tial risk o f

se rio u s h a rm to in m a tes , h e is n o t d e lib e ra tely in d iffe re n t to th a t risk u n les s h e is a w a re o f a n d fa ils to tak e re a so n a b le s tep s to al l evi at e thatr i s k. ” Taf oya v. Sal az ar , 5 1 6 F .3 d 9 1 2 , 9 1 6 , 9 2 2 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). M r . Pi er ce offer s no evi dence

— noteven hypothes i s orconj ectur e, as s ubs t i tut es forevi dence

— t o s uppor tanyof thi s . A s ked athi s depos i t i on w hetherhe s ued S h eriff A m ara n to “ju st be ca u se h e’s a su p erv isor, ” M r. P ierce re p li ed , “I figu re s i nce he ’ s t he s upervi s orof [the j ai l ] and he di dn’ t

— w as n’ tnot i fi ed, how w as he t o know ?” D i s t . D kt . D oc. 77, E xh. 7, at46. Sum m aryj udgm entforthe s her i ff w as appr opr i at e. D enni s C ook i s C hi ef of Pol i ce i n K r ebs . T he di s tr i ctcour tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n hi s favoron m uch the s ame gr ounds as forSher i ff A m a ra n to . M r. P ier c e d o e s n o t m e n tio n C h ief C o o k a t all o n a p p e a l, ex c e p t to s aythathe s entC hi ef Cook i nt err ogat or i es and a r eques tforpr oduct i on of d o c u m e n t s a n d t h a tC o o k p r o d u c e d th e j a i l ’ s r e c o r d o f h i s i nj u r i e s . We acc or di ngl ys ur m i s e thatM r . Pi er ce ha s abandone d hi s s ui tagai ns tC hi ef Cook. B. M ot i on t o Am e ndT he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons on a § 1983 cl ai m i s t he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons 2 p ro v id e d b ys ta te la w fo r o rd in a ry p e rs o n a l inju ry c la im s . Wilso n v . G a rc ia , 471 U .S . 2 6 1 , 2 6 9 (1 9 8 5 ); Mondr agón v. Thomps on , 5 1 9 F . 3 d 1 0 7 8 , 1 0 8 2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). In O k lah o m a , this is tw o y e a rs. O k la. S tat. tit . 1 2 , § 9 5 (A )(3 ); s ee Kri pp v. Lut on , 4 6 6 F . 3 d 1 1 7 1 , 1 1 7 4 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). A n am end m ent t o “ch ang e[] the p artyor the n am i ng of the partyagainst 3 w hom a cl ai m i s as s ert ed” w i l l notr el at e bac k unl es s , w i thi n the t i m e al l ow ed for s ervi ng t he s um m ons and compl ai nt , t he new party“( I ) r ece i ved s uch not i ce of the ac t i on thati tw i l l notbe pr ej udi ced i n defe ndi ng on the mer i t s ; and ( i i ) knew ors houl d have know n t hatthe ac t i on w oul d have be en br oughtagai ns t[hi m ] , but fo r a m ist ak e c o n ce rnin g the p rop er p arty ’s i d en ti ty . ” F ed . R . C iv. P. 15 (c)(1)(C ); s ee G ar r et tv. F l em i ng , 3 6 2 F .3 d 6 9 2 , 6 9 6

– 9 7 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). -7- M r. P ierce’s c o m p lai n t nam ed fo u rt ee n Jo h n an d Jan e D o es w h o w ere a lleg e d lyth e o ffice rs in v o lv e d in a rre stin g h im a n d d e n y in g h im m e d ica l ca re in jail. H e d id n o t se rv e a n yo f th e m w ith p ro c e ss w h e n h e filed th e c o m p lain t, h o w e v e r, an d tw e n ty -o n e m o n th s w e n t b yb e fo re h e so u g h t to a m e n d h is compl ai ntt o name Pat r ol m an H ol l ow ay , J . W . Y oung, B r andi C r ens haw , and J a me s Te a fa t i l l e r . Byt h i s t i me , th e two - y e a rs t a tu t e o f l i mi t a t i o n s o n h i s c l a i ms w as l i kew i s e tw enty - one m onths pas t . T he di s tr i ctcourthel d thatt hi s att empt ed 2 amendm ent“amount [ed] t o addi ng a new party ” out s i de the l i m i t at i on per i od and th a t itfa iled th e re q u ire m e n ts s e t fo rth in R u le 1 5 (c ) o f th e F e d e ra l R u les o f

C iv il P roc ed u re fo r relat ion b ac k to the fil ing o f th e c o m p lai n t. R . , D o c. 94 , at 8. It 3 a c c o rd in g lyd e n ied th e m o tio n a n d d ism iss e d w h a tev e r w a s le f t o f th e su it. A ccor di ng t o M r . Pi er ce, hi s amendm ents houl d have be en perm i t t ed ei t her beca us e R ul e 15( b) , not15( c) , contr ol l ed; orbeca us e of the l i ber al cons truct i on-8-

thatcourt s s houl d affor d t o pr o s e pl eadi ngs . H ow ever , R ul e 15( b) governs is s ues , n o t par t i es , th a t w e re n o t r a is e d in th e p le a d in g s , a n d s o is in a p p lic a b le . A n d w h i l e i ti s t ru e th a tc o u r t s c o n s tru e a p r o s e p l a i n t i ff ’ s fi l i n g s l i b e r a l l y,

“‘ [t ] hi s courthas r epea t edl yi ns i s t ed thatpr o s e part i es fol l ow the s ame rul es of pr ocedur e thatgovern ot herl i t i gant s . ’ ” G ar r et tv. Selby C onnorMadduz& J aner , 425 F. 3d 836, 840 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng Ni els en v. P r i ce , 17 F. 3d 1276, 1277 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 )); s ee als o Mur r ay v. C i t y of Tahl equah , 3 1 2 F .3 d 1 1 9 6 , 1 1 9 9 n .3 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). R u le 1 5 (c ), w h ich e x ists to p ro tec t d e fe n d a n ts f ro m u n fa ir prej ud i ce cau sed bya plai nti ff’s t ardi ness i n n am i ng them , app l i es t o p ro se compl ai nt s as t o anyother s . D eni al of amendm entw as notan abus e of the di s t r i ct court ’ s di s cr et i on. C . O t her I s s ues N ext , M r . Pi er ce s t at es thats um m aryj udgm entw as i nappr opr i at e under F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (c ), w h ich sp e c ifies th a t a “ m o tio n [ fo r su m m a ryju d g m e n t] m us tbe s erved atl eas t10 day s befor e the days etfort he hea r i ng, ” and pr ovi des that“[a ] n oppos i ng partym ays erve oppos i ng aff i davi t s befor e the hea r i ng day . ” A s b e st w e c a n tell, M r. P ier c e is a rg u in g th a t h e d id n o t h a v e a n o p p o rtu n ityto r es pond befor e s um m aryj udgm entw as gr ant ed, w i thouta hea r i ng, on O ct ober30, 2007. B utthe r ecor d r efl ect s thatSher i ff A m ar ant o’ s and C hi ef Cook’s m ot i ons t o di s m i s s w er e both m ai l ed t o M r . Pi er ce on the pr ece di ng Sept ember7, s even-9-

w e e k s p rio r. H e e lec ted to re sp o n d w ith a “ M o tio n fo r O bjec tio n a n d B rie f in O p p o s itio n to M o tio n fo r S u m m a ry Ju d g m e n t,” w h ic h w a s file d o n S e p te m b e r 2 4 , and he di d notr eques taddi t i onal t i m e forfi l i ng aff i davi t s orforanyother purpos e. Fi na l l y , M r . Pi e r c e a r gu e s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ou r tvi ol a t e d Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 3 0 (e), g o v ern ing d ep o sit ion s, w h ich p rov ides : “O n req u est b ythe d ep o n en t or a p a r ty b e fo r e th e d e p o s i t i o n i s c o m p l e t e d , th e d e p o n e n tm u s tb e a l l o w e d 3 0 d a ys a f ter b e in g n o tifie d b yth e o ffice r th a t th e tra n sc rip t o r re c o rd in g is a v a ilab le in w h ich : (A ) to re v iew th e tra n sc rip t o r re c o rd in g ; an d (B ) if th e re a re c h a n g e s in form ors ubs t ance , t o s i gn a s t at ementl i s t i ng t he cha nges and the r eas ons for m aki ng them. ” M r . Pi er ce r efe r s us t o hi s “M ot i on i n R efut e of D i s pos i t i on [ sic ] and R eques tforC orr ect i on t o be Ent er ed I nt o R ecor d, ” R . , D oc. 80, i n w hi ch he r eques t ed, w i thoutexpl anat i on, t o s tr i ke a hundr ed ors o s catt er ed l i nes of t ext f ro m h is d e p o s itio n ta k e n J u ly 2 4 , 2 0 0 7 . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d e n ie d th e m o tio n . E v en if R u le 30 (e) w ere a p rop er b asis fo r ap p ea li n g a su m m aryjud g m en t, M r. Pi er ce’ s M ot i on i n R efut e di d not“l i s t [] . . . the r eas ons form aki ng” anychange s to the d ep o sit ion , an d d en ial w as p rop er. I I I . CO NC L US I ON T he j udgm entof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfort he East ern D i s tr i ctof O klahom a i s AFF I RM ED . A p p e llan t’s “ M o tio n o f O bjec tio n a n d B rie f

in-10-

O p p o s itio n ” is n o t p ro p e rl ya m o tio n a n d is th e re fo re c o n s tru e d a s a re p ly b ri e f. A p p ell ee D en n is C o o k ’s m o ti o n to stri k e the rep lyb ri ef, an d A p p ell an t’ s co u n term ot i on t o s tr i ke A ppel l ee’ s m ot i on t o s tr i ke, ar e DENI ED a s m o o t. A p p e llan t is r emi nded thathe mustcont i nue maki ng par t i al paym ent s unt i l t he ent i r e bal ance of hi s fi l i ng fee has been pa i d. E n te re d fo r t h e C o u rt , M ich a e l W . M c C o n n e ll C i r cui tJ udge