Court Opinion

ID: 9694955
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:01:43.247855+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:16:01.714803
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12644    Document: 38-1      Date Filed: 08/25/2023   Page: 1 of 12

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                    In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                           ____________________

                                 No. 22-12644
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL RICHARDSON,
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
        versus
        SHERIFF DAVID DAVIS,
        Individually and in his oﬃcial capacity as
        Sheriﬀ of Macon-Bibb County,
        MACON-BIBB COUNTY,
        A Government entity of the State of Georgia,
        MAYOR ROBERT REICHERT,
        Mayor and Chairman of Macon Bibb County
        Board of Commissioners,
        DEPUTY DERRICK STOKES,
USCA11 Case: 22-12644         Document: 38-1        Date Filed: 08/25/2023    Page: 2 of 12

        2                         Opinion of the Court                   22-12644

        DEPUTY LAWRENCE PRICHARD, et al.,

                                                             Defendants-Appellees.

                                ____________________

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Middle District of Georgia
                       D.C. Docket No. 5:20-cv-00320-MTT
                             ____________________

        Before ROSENBAUM, BRANCH, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
              Christopher Richardson appeals the district court’s grant of
        summary judgment in favor of several Defendants from the Bibb
        County Sheriff’s Office1 (collectively, “BCSO Defendants”).2
        Richardson argues that the district court erred by granting
        summary judgment on the merits of his deliberate indifference
        claims despite the BCSO Defendants only moving for summary
        judgment based on qualified immunity. Richardson also argues

        1 While the county is “Macon-Bibb County,” the sheriff’s office is simply

        referred to as the “Bibb County Sheriff’s Office.”
        2 The “BCSO Defendants” include Macon-Bibb County Sheriff David Davis as

        well as Macon-Bibb County Deputy Sheriffs Derrick Stokes, Lawrence
        Prichard, Anthony Sims, Devin Keith, Robert Perry, Adam Butcher, Elson
        Odle, Richard McClendon, Gregory Mays, and Derick Vickery.
USCA11 Case: 22-12644     Document: 38-1     Date Filed: 08/25/2023    Page: 3 of 12

        22-12644              Opinion of the Court                       3

        that the BCSO Defendants were not entitled to summary judgment
        on the merits of his deliberate indifference claims. For the
        following reasons, we affirm.
                               I.        Background
              A. Facts
              The Bibb County Sheriff’s Office (“BCSO”) operates the
        Bibb County Law Enforcement Center (“LEC”), which serves as
        the county jail and houses more than 900 individuals charged or
        convicted of misdemeanor or felony offenses. CorrectHealth Bibb
        (“CorrectHealth”) is a private corporation that is contracted to
        provide inmate healthcare services at the LEC. As such, BCSO
        employees do not treat inmates, operate the infirmary at the LEC,
        nor make medical decisions. However, BCSO employees do
        transport inmates to off-site medical appointments scheduled by
        CorrectHealth.      BCSO employees can postpone these
        appointments when a staffing shortage prevents off-site
        transportation. If an off-site appointment needs to be cancelled,
        BSCO employees notify CorrectHealth, who reschedules the
        appointment.
               On July 18, 2019, Richardson was arrested by the BCSO for
        making terroristic threats and was booked into the LEC, where he
        remained until March 10, 2020. A few weeks before he was
        arrested, Richardson injured his pinky finger in an altercation. He
        arrived to the LEC with this injury, and it was identified by a
        CorrectHealth nurse during Richardson’s initial medical screening.
        While the injury was identified during Richardson’s medical
USCA11 Case: 22-12644       Document: 38-1       Date Filed: 08/25/2023      Page: 4 of 12

        4                       Opinion of the Court                   22-12644

        screening, there is no evidence that he complained of ongoing pain
        from his injury at that time.
               Richardson first complained about his finger on August 5,
        2019, when he informed CorrectHealth employees that his finger
        was “aching and throbbing [in] pain.” Two days later, an x-ray
        revealed “displaced chip fractures” in his finger. On August 13,
        Richardson’s CorrectHealth doctor referred Richardson to an
        orthopedic surgeon.        On August 21, a CorrectHealth
        representative scheduled an appointment for Richardson to be
        evaluated on August 27 at OrthoGeorgia, an offsite orthopedic
        provider. However, Richardson was not seen at OrthoGeorgia
        until September 9. This delay in his appointment is the basis of this
        appeal.
               On September 23 OrthoGeorgia scheduled Richardson for
        surgery. On October 21, Richardson underwent surgery on his left
        pinkie finger; he returned to the LEC with a cast on his arm and no
        complaints of pain.
               B. Procedural History
               Richardson initiated suit on August 14, 2020. On October 7,
        2020, Richardson amended his complaint and alleged various
        violations of his constitutional and civil rights, as well as tort claims
        under Georgia law against numerous entities and individuals,
        including the BCSO Defendants.3 As relevant to this appeal,

        3 Richardson also alleged various claims against Macon-Bibb County and

        Robert Reichert, the Mayor and Chairman of the Macon-Bibb County Board
        of Commissioners. Macon-Bibb County and Mayor Reichert filed a motion
USCA11 Case: 22-12644        Document: 38-1        Date Filed: 08/25/2023        Page: 5 of 12

        22-12644                  Opinion of the Court                              5

        Richardson claimed that the BCSO Defendants violated the
        Fourteenth Amendment by being deliberately indifferent to his
        serious medical needs. 4 He sought damages against the BCSO
        Defendants in their official capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
               On February 4, 2022, the BCSO Defendants moved for
        summary judgment. As for Richardson’s deliberate indifference
        claims, the BCSO Defendants moved for summary judgment on
        the basis of qualified immunity, arguing that Richardson failed to
        present evidence that satisfied the first prong of the qualified
        immunity analysis—whether there was a constitutional violation.
        On July 7, 2022, the district court granted summary judgment for
        the BCSO Defendants on all claims. As for the deliberate
        indifference claims, the district court declined to grant summary
        judgment on the BCSO Defendants’ requested grounds of qualified
        immunity, instead granting summary judgment in favor of the
        BCSO Defendants on the merits of Richardson’s underlying
        constitutional claims. Richardson timely appealed.

        for summary judgment, arguing that they were not the proper parties and
        would otherwise be entitled to immunity. Richardson did not challenge this
        motion and “concede[d] his claims against [these] Defendants.” The claims
        against Macon-Bibb County and Mayor Reichert are not part of this appeal.
        4 As a pretrial detainee, deliberate indifference claims are brought under the

        Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Eighth
        Amendment. Cagle v. Sutherland, 334 F.3d 980, 985–86 (11th Cir. 2003).
        However, such claims are analyzed under the same standard. Marsh v. Butler
        Cnty., 268 F.3d 1014, 1024 n.5 (11th Cir. 2001).
USCA11 Case: 22-12644      Document: 38-1      Date Filed: 08/25/2023     Page: 6 of 12

        6                      Opinion of the Court                 22-12644

                                 II.       Discussion
               We review de novo an appeal of a district court’s grant of
        summary judgment. Scantland v. Jeffry Knight, Inc., 721 F.3d 1308,
        1310 (11th Cir. 2013). Summary judgment is proper “if the movant
        shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and
        the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. (quoting
        Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). We must view all evidence in the light most
        favorable to the nonmoving party and draw “all justifiable
        inferences” in that party’s favor, but “inferences based upon
        speculation are not reasonable.” Kernel Recs. Oy v. Mosley, 694 F.3d
        1294, 1301 (11th Cir. 2012) (quotations omitted).
                Richardson presents two primary arguments on appeal.
        First, he argues that the district court procedurally erred when it
        sua sponte granted summary judgment for the BCSO Defendants
        on the merits of their § 1983 deliberate indifference claims.
        Richardson also argues that he presented sufficient evidence of a
        Fourteenth Amendment violation to survive summary judgment.
        We address each argument in turn.
              A.     Procedural Argument
              Richardson first argues that it was error for the district court
        to grant summary judgment for the BCSO Defendants on the
        merits of his deliberate indifference claims, as the BCSO
        Defendants only moved for summary judgment on qualified
        immunity grounds. We disagree.
             “A district court possesses the power to enter summary
        judgment sua sponte provided the losing party ‘was on notice that
USCA11 Case: 22-12644         Document: 38-1          Date Filed: 08/25/2023         Page: 7 of 12

        22-12644                   Opinion of the Court                                 7

        she had to come forward with all of her evidence.’” Burton v. City
        of Belle Glade, 178 F.3d 1175, 1203 (11th Cir. 1999) (quoting Celotex
        Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 326 (1986)). Importantly, however,
        formal notice is not required as long as “a legal issue has been fully
        developed, and the evidentiary record is complete.” Artistic Ent.,
        Inc. v. City of Warner Robins, 331 F.3d 1196, 1201–02 (11th Cir. 2003).
               In Burton, a voting rights case, we considered whether it was
        error for the district court to sua sponte grant summary judgment
        on a plaintiff’s § 1983 constitutional claims even though the
        defendant only moved for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s
        Title VI claims. 178 F.3d at 1186. While we acknowledged that the
        claims were technically different, we noted that, because both
        claims required the plaintiffs to establish the requisite
        discriminatory intent to avoid summary judgment, the plaintiffs
        had “more than the reasonable opportunity to marshal the same
        evidence of intent [that they did for their § 1983 claims] in support
        of their Title VI claim as well.” Id. at 1204.
                Here, the district court did not err in sua sponte granting
        summary judgment in favor of the BCSO Defendants. While the
        BCSO Defendants only moved for summary judgment on the
        grounds of qualified immunity, their argument focused entirely on
        the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis 5—whether or not

        5 A plaintiff can demonstrate that qualified immunity does not apply by

        showing (1) that a defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) that the
        constitutional “right at issue was clearly established at the time” of the alleged
        violation. Crocker v. Beatty, 886 F.3d 1132, 1135 (11th Cir. 2018).
USCA11 Case: 22-12644      Document: 38-1      Date Filed: 08/25/2023     Page: 8 of 12

        8                      Opinion of the Court                 22-12644

        a constitutional violation occurred. In other words, the BCSO
        Defendants argued that they had not been deliberately indifferent
        to Richardson’s serious medical needs. And while the first prong
        of the qualified immunity analysis is technically different than the
        underlying merits determination, it requires the same thing—for
        the plaintiff to prove that a constitutional violation occurred.
        Thus, like in Burton, because Richardson was “on notice” that he
        had to come forward with all of his evidence to combat the
        constitutional prong of the qualified immunity argument—which,
        again, is the very same evidence required to prove the merits of his
        deliberate indifference claims—the district court did not err in sua
        sponte granting summary judgment for the BCSO Defendants. 178
        F.3d at 1186, 1204.
              B.     Substantive Argument
               Richardson also argues that it was error for the district court
        to grant summary judgment on the merits of his deliberate
        indifference claims. We disagree.
               A detainee’s Fourteenth Amendment right against cruel and
        unusual punishment includes the right to be free from “deliberate
        indifference to serious medical needs” by jail officials. Estelle v.
        Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). “To show that a prison official
        acted with deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, a
        plaintiff must satisfy both an objective and a subjective inquiry.”
        Farrow v. West, 320 F.3d 1235, 1243 (11th Cir. 2003). Under the
        objective inquiry, a detainee must show an “objectively serious
        medical need” that “poses a substantial risk of serious harm.”
USCA11 Case: 22-12644      Document: 38-1     Date Filed: 08/25/2023     Page: 9 of 12

        22-12644               Opinion of the Court                        9

        Taylor v. Adams, 221 F.3d 1254, 1258 (11th Cir. 2000) (quotations
        omitted and alterations adopted). And, under the subjective
        inquiry, a detainee can only survive summary judgment if he
        produces evidence of, among other things, “(1) subjective
        knowledge of a risk of serious harm” and “(2) disregard of that
        risk.” McElligott v. Foley, 182 F.3d 1248, 1255 (11th Cir. 1999).
               Here, Richardson argues that the BCSO Defendants were
        deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of
        the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, he argues that the BCSO
        defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical
        needs when they allegedly ignored the injury to his pinky finger
        and then delayed providing him with transportation to his original
        OrthoGeorgia appointment, thereby causing his medical treatment
        to be delayed even further.
               Even assuming that Richardson has satisfied the objective
        prong and established that the injury to his pinkie finger was an
        “objectively serious medical need” that “pose[d] a substantial risk
        of serious harm” to him, Taylor, 221 F.3d at 1258, he has not
        presented the requisite evidence to avoid summary judgment on
        the subjective prong. First, Richardson presents no evidence that
        the BCSO Defendants were subjectively aware of his serious
        medical needs. While Richardson points to the medical records
        which documented the pain he incurred during his medical
        appointments, the existence of these records is not evidence that
        the BCSO Defendants, the individuals subjected to his § 1983 suit,
        had any personal knowledge of Richardson’s injury, as the BCSO
USCA11 Case: 22-12644     Document: 38-1     Date Filed: 08/25/2023   Page: 10 of 12

        10                    Opinion of the Court                22-12644

        Defendants were not the same individuals who diagnosed,
        evaluated, and eventually treated his injury. In fact, Richardson
        does not argue and does not present any evidence that any of the
        BCSO Defendants had knowledge of his finger injury, as the
        subjective prong requires.
               Further, Richardson also presents no evidence that the
        BCSO Defendants even engaged in the conduct he is now accusing
        them of—cancelling Richardson’s August 27 OrthoGeorgia
        appointment. While two BCSO representatives testified that the
        BCSO would have the ability to reschedule an inmate’s medical
        appointment in the instance of a staffing shortage or safety issue,
        Richardson presents no evidence that the BCSO Defendants did so
        in this case. Instead, he simply points to the medical records
        indicating that “CorrectHealth scheduled an appointment for
        Richardson with OrthoGeorgia for August 27, 2019” before noting
        that “Richardson’s appointment was then rescheduled for
        September 9, 2019.” In order to complete his argument, it would
        be logical for Richardson to bring forward some evidence that the
        BCSO Defendants rescheduled his August 27 appointment for
        September 9. Richardson does not do so, and instead chooses to
        simply point to the fact that the appointment was rescheduled. We
        note that while we must draw justifiable inferences in Richardson’s
        favor at this stage, we need not draw unreasonable inferences based
        on pure speculation. Kernel Recs. Oy, 694 F.3d at 1301.
              To the extent that Richardson is alleging that the district
        court mischaracterized certain pieces of evidence, his arguments
USCA11 Case: 22-12644     Document: 38-1      Date Filed: 08/25/2023    Page: 11 of 12

        22-12644               Opinion of the Court                       11

        are unsupported by the record evidence. First, Richardson takes
        issue with the district court’s finding that he “raised no complaints
        [during initial medical screening at the LEC] about his finger.” But
        the medical records showed that while Richardson identified his
        finger injury during his LEC intake screening, he did not complain
        about any ongoing pain until his August 5 appointment. Next,
        Richardson asserts that, “[w]hile the underlying reasons may [be]
        unclear, it was evident that Richardson missed his appointment
        because Defendants failed to transport him there.” As explained
        above, this is pure speculation. Richardson does not point to any
        evidence that backs up this naked assertion. Finally, Richardson
        asserts that the district court was incorrect in asserting that the
        delay in medical treatment was only thirteen days. It appears that
        Richardson is basing this assertion on his initial intake screening,
        which occurred on July 18, 2019. Again, however, there is no
        evidence that Richardson complained about any pain in his finger
        during this screening. Once Richardson did alert CorrectHealth
        officials to his ongoing pain, he was able to schedule a consultation
        for August 27 at OrthoGeorgia, which was then delayed to
        September 9, thirteen days later.
               Ultimately, Richardson’s entire deliberate indifference claim
        is based on the naked assertion that: “by failing to ensure that
        Richardson got the medical attention that he needed . . . ,
        Defendants should be liable for their deliberate indifference to Mr.
        Richardson’s medi[c]al needs.” Unfortunately for Richardson,
        without any evidence that the BCSO Defendants (1) had subjective
        knowledge of his serious medical need, and (2) actually engaged in
USCA11 Case: 22-12644         Document: 38-1         Date Filed: 08/25/2023         Page: 12 of 12

        12                         Opinion of the Court                        22-12644

        conduct that disregarded his serious medical need, his deliberate
        indifference claims cannot survive summary judgment.6
                                 III.            Conclusion
               Because the BCSO Defendants moved for summary
        judgment and presented arguments on the constitutional prong of
        the qualified immunity analysis, and because that prong requires
        Richardson to present the same evidence as he would be required
        to present to avoid summary judgment on the merits, the district
        court did not err in sua sponte granting summary judgment on the
        merits of Richardson’s deliberate indifference claims. And because
        Richardson does not present the requisite evidence necessary to
        avoid summary judgment on the merits of his deliberate
        indifference claims, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary
        judgment.
                AFFIRMED.

        6 Richardson also spends part of his initial brief appearing to argue that Sheriff

        Davis, one of the BCSO Defendants, had supervisory liability over the alleged
        constitutional violations of other BCSO employees due to his “failure to
        supervise, and his failure to train with regard to[] Richardson’s claim for
        deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.” We need not evaluate
        this claim, as Richardson is unable to present any evidence to avoid summary
        judgment on the merits of his underlying Fourteenth Amendment claim. See
        Beshers v. Harrison, 495 F.3d 1260, 1264 n.7 (11th Cir. 2007) (“We need not
        address the Appellant’s claims of . . . supervisory liability since we conclude no
        constitutional violation occurred.)