Opinion ID: 3046227
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: application and discussion

Text: Smith concedes that tooth #18 seems to have been satisfactorily repaired. There is therefore no live controversy involving tooth #18, and the issue is moot. 9 Case: 14-13848 Date Filed: 02/12/2015 Page: 10 of 12 Fla. Ass’n of Rehab. Facilities, 225 F.3d at 1217. Although Smith argues that the district court should have required the Secretary to prove that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to return, he never contended that the FDC would resume its extraction policy toward tooth #18, nor that the FDC had taken harmful action toward any of his other teeth. The district court also determined that Smith lacked standing to bring a claim based on possible future injuries to other teeth. The record supports the district court’s conclusion. Smith alleged that although Dr. Greenberg had told him at the time it was done that the amalgam restoration was not expected to work, the restoration has so far not failed. Smith believed that this comment meant that the restoration could be expected to fail “at any time.” Smith, however, provided no evidence to support his belief that the restoration would fail within some fixed period of time. Indeed, Smith’s complaint makes clear that this was merely Smith’s conjecture. 4 Because Smith’s alleged future harm is indeterminate, rather than immediate, the district court correctly held that he lacked standing. See Fla. State Conference of N.A.A.C.P., 522 F.3d at 1161. 4 “Fortunately, the amalgam restoration that Dr. Greenberg provided at that time saved plaintiff’s tooth at issue to date, but that tooth, too, is at issue in this complaint for that repair was not given an expectation by the dentist to even work at that time and plaintiff believes that it is a tribute to Dr. Greenberg’s skill that it has held to date, but that a crown should be provided by the FDC when this amalgam restoration finally does fail as it is expected to do at any time.” Dr. Greenberg’s skepticism about the initial likelihood of success of the repair does not imply an opinion that it is likely to fail in the future. 10 Case: 14-13848 Date Filed: 02/12/2015 Page: 11 of 12 Smith’s complaint did allege a written policy or custom of the FDC under which the FDC extracted teeth that could otherwise be saved. Smith later acknowledged that he had been made aware of the FDC regulation allowing use of a crown if an adequate restoration could not be done, but he still maintained that the FDC unnecessarily extracts repairable teeth. An allegation of a policy or custom does make it more likely that a future injury will occur. 31 Foster Children, 329 F.3d at 1266. However, Smith’s claim is too conjectural to confer standing, because the future injury he apprehends would only arise if (1) Smith’s tooth restoration would fail, despite having worked for years without problems; (2) the FDC would order the prison dentists to extract teeth unnecessarily, in contradiction to the FDC regulation; (3) the dentist would extract the tooth, rather than repairing it; and (4) the extraction would be unnecessary under the circumstances. Cf. Fla. State Conference of N.A.A.C.P., 522 F.3d at 1162. This makes Smith’s claim too speculative to confer standing. See id.; see also City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 97–98, 111 (1983) (plaintiff who had been placed in a chokehold during a traffic stop by police lacked standing to seek injunctive relief to prevent future chokeholds because “there is no showing of any real or immediate threat that the plaintiff will be wronged again . . .”); Malowney v. Fed. Collection Deposit Grp., 193 F.3d 1342, 1347 (11th Cir. 1999) (plaintiffs denied declaratory relief because they could not show that their bank account funds 11 Case: 14-13848 Date Filed: 02/12/2015 Page: 12 of 12 would likely be subject to garnishment in the future under allegedly unconstitutional garnishment statute). For these same reasons, Smith has no ripe claims. His teeth have not been pulled, nor have his restorations failed. Even if the FDC’s policy were contrary to the Eighth Amendment, Smith has sustained no injury from it and faces no immediate danger of injury from it. As Smith has no teeth in immediate danger of being extracted, he faces no hardship in the withholding of consideration of his claim, and his claims are therefore unripe. See Nat’l Adver. Co., 402 F.3d at 1339.