Opinion ID: 4517132
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sherriff Sheffield and Lt. Barrentine

Text: Sheriff Lynn Sheffield has served as the elected sheriff of Dodge County since 2013. He delegates administration of the Dodge County Jail to the Jail Administrator and staff. Lt. Tommy Barrentine was serving as the interim Jail Administrator during Clark’s incarceration. His primary responsibilities as Jail Administrator were to supervise detention officers and handle administrative matters. Clark argues that Sheffield and Barrentine had a statutory duty to supply medical treatment and that both officials had specific notice of Clark’s injuries. Clark alleges that officers under Sheffield and Barrentine’s line of command heard the emergency physician recommend that he should see a specialist as soon as possible. He also says that his grievances are evidence of Sheffield’s and Barrentine’s knowledge regarding his serious medical need. Taking as true Clark’s allegations that deputies within Sheffield and Barrentine’s line of command knew Clark needed to see a specialist as soon as possible, that knowledge cannot be imputed to Sheffield or Barrentine. Both officials are only responsible for the facts they observed or heard, not for information allegedly provided to their subordinates. Burnette, 533 F.3d at 1331. Sheffield and Barrentine are not liable for the unconstitutional acts of other deputies “on the basis of respondeat superior or vicarious liability.” Hartley, 193 13 Case: 19-11230 Date Filed: 03/17/2020 Page: 14 of 16 F.3d at 1269. Supervisory liability occurs only when the supervisor personally participates in the alleged violation or when there is a causal connection between the supervisory official’s actions and the alleged deprivation. Id. The only evidence that Sheffield and Barrentine had any specific knowledge, and thus personal participation, of the delay in treating Clark’s knee injury are his two grievances. But neither Sheffield nor Barrentine are trained medical professionals, nor did they have any role in Clark’s examinations or course of treatment. It is uncontested that Clark received care from the medical professionals that Sheffield and Barrentine oversaw—he was examined by both Stewart and Dr. Wrobel before being referred to see Dr. Rosenbaum for surgery. It was reasonable for Sheffield and Barrentine to rely on the medical judgments made by medical professionals responsible for prisoner care. Clark also received timely treatment in response to his grievances. He was seen again by Stewart and given more pain medication two days after he filed his first grievance and received a pre-operative CT scan on the day he filed his second grievance. Moreover, as explained above, at most Clark’s grievances evidence a difference of opinion regarding the speed at which he should receive surgery, which is insufficient to support a deliberate indifference claim. Thigpen, 941 F.2d at 1505. 14 Case: 19-11230 Date Filed: 03/17/2020 Page: 15 of 16 A causal connection between the supervisor and the deprivation may be established (1) “when a history of widespread abuse puts the responsible supervisor on notice of the need to correct the alleged deprivation, and he fails to do so”, (2) “when a supervisor’s custom or policy results in deliberate indifference to constitutional rights”, or (3) “when facts support an inference that the supervisor directed the subordinates to act unlawfully or knew that the subordinates would act unlawfully and failed to stop them from doing so.” Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352, 1360 (11th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations and alterations omitted). The standard for demonstrating “widespread abuse” is high—the deprivations must be “obvious, flagrant, rampant and of continued duration, rather than isolated occurrences.” Brown v. Crawford, 906 F.2d 667, 671 (11th Cir. 1990). Clark has not presented evidence of continual deprivation of care, implementation of a policy of delay, or a direction by either Sheffield or Barrentine to the SCM or other subordinates to delay treatment of his knee. We conclude that the undisputed evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Clark, does not show that the defendants refused to treat Clark or were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. We affirm summary judgment in favor of Sheffield and Barrentine. 15 Case: 19-11230 Date Filed: 03/17/2020 Page: 16 of 16