William H. Melendez v. Robert Brown

USCA11 Case: 23-12424 Document: 103-1 Date Filed: 08/20/2024 Page: 1 of 19

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-12424

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

WILLIAM H. MELENDEZ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SECRETARY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants,

BARRY REDDISH,

Warden of Florida State Prison,

ERIC HUMMEL,

Regional Director,

JOHN PALMER,

USCA11 Case: 23-12424 Document: 103-1 Date Filed: 08/20/2024 Page: 2 of 19

2 Opinion of the Court 23-12424

Assistant Regional Director,

P. HUNTER,

Classification Officer,

KEVIN TOMLINSON,

Classification Supervisor, et al.,

Defendants-Appellants.

____________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 3:20-cv-01023-BJD-JBT

____________________

____________________

No. 23-12685

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

WILLIAM H. MELENDEZ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

WARDEN, FLORIDA STATE PRISON, et al.,

USCA11 Case: 23-12424 Document: 103-1 Date Filed: 08/20/2024 Page: 3 of 19

23-12424 Opinion of the Court 3

Defendants,

ROBERT BROWN,

WILLIAM HALL,

DANIEL PHILBERT,

Correctional Officers,

Defendants-Appellants.

____________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 3:20-cv-01023-BJD-JBT

____________________

Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal invites us to decide whether various officials em-

ployed by the Florida Department of Corrections (the “FDC”) are

entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The

FDC officials (collectively, the “Defendants”) appeal the denial of

their summary judgment motion, in which they asserted qualified

immunity as to William Melendez’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims that

they subjected him to unconstitutional conditions of confinement.

The district court denied summary judgment because it

USCA11 Case: 23-12424 Document: 103-1 Date Filed: 08/20/2024 Page: 4 of 19

4 Opinion of the Court 23-12424

determined that the record raised a genuine issue of material fact.

Because the Defendants’ appeal hinges on issues of evidentiary suf-

ficiency, which we lack interlocutory jurisdiction to review, we dis-

miss this appeal.

I. BACKGROUND

Before his release from prison in February 2024, Melendez,

now sixty-four-years-old, was an inmate of the Florida penal sys-

tem. 1 While incarcerated in 2021, he filed a second amended com-

plaint for damages and injunctive relief against the Defendants, the

FDC and other state officials. Melendez brought claims under

§ 1983, alleging violations under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth

Amendments, as well as violations of the Americans with Disabili-

ties Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

At issue in this appeal are Melendez’s Eighth Amendment

conditions-of-confinement claims against Defendants Davis, Hum-

mel, Palmer, McClellan, Reddish, Hunter and Tomlinson (the

“Managerial Defendants”); and Defendants Brown, Hall, and Phil-

bert (the “Officer Defendants”).

The conditions-of-confinement claims against the Manage-

rial and Officer Defendants have been thoroughly litigated through

preliminary injunction proceedings. A previous panel of our Court

affirmed the district court’s entry of a preliminary injunction, find-

ing that the district court did not clearly err in determining that

1 Melendez’s brief notes that he was released from prison in February 2024 but

that he remains on mandatory supervised release until September 2024.

USCA11 Case: 23-12424 Document: 103-1 Date Filed: 08/20/2024 Page: 5 of 19

23-12424 Opinion of the Court 5

Menendez was likely to succeed on the merits of his Eighth

Amendment claim. See Melendez v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 21-

13455, 2022 WL 1124753 (11th Cir. Apr. 15, 2022) (“Melendez I”).

The factual allegations that are relevant to this appeal remain

largely the same as in Melendez I.

Melendez was first placed in FDC custody in October 2011.

In his second amended complaint, Melendez claimed that, for

much of his time in prison, the Defendants classified him as “Close

Management” (“CM”), which FDC uses to isolate inmates that

FDC has determined cannot remain in the general prison popula-

tion without abusing the rights and privileges of others. See Melen-

dez I, 2022 WL 1124753, at *1. Melendez also claimed that he was

kept in “CM I,” the most restrictive level of CM. Id. He alleged

that the Defendants, through their CM-related practices and poli-

cies, subjected him “to a substantial risk of serious harm and de-

prived him of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities and

basic human dignity by exposing him to excessive periods of isola-

tion in deplorable conditions.” Id. And he alleged that the Defend-

ants knew of these deprivations but remained deliberately indiffer-

ent to them by failing to respond in a reasonable manner, in viola-

tion of the Eighth Amendment. Id.

Following our decision in Melendez I and after extensive dis-

covery, the Managerial and Officer Defendants moved for sum-

mary judgment on all counts, arguing, among other things, that

they were entitled to qualified immunity on Melendez’s Eighth

Amendment claim. Of relevance to this appeal, the district court

USCA11 Case: 23-12424 Document: 103-1 Date Filed: 08/20/2024 Page: 6 of 19

6 Opinion of the Court 23-12424

denied the summary judgment motions on Melendez’s Eighth

Amendment claim after concluding that a reasonable jury could

find that the Managerial and Officer Defendants knowingly sub-

jected Melendez to conditions of confinement that were clearly es-

tablished to be unconstitutional.

Both sets of Defendants then filed interlocutory appeals,

which we consolidated for review.

II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

“We review de novo a district court’s denial of summary

judgment based on qualified immunity, applying the same legal

standards that governed the district court.” Feliciano v. City of Mi-

ami Beach, 707 F.3d 1244, 1247 (11th Cir. 2013). This requires us to

construe the evidence and draw all inferences in the light most fa-

vorable to the plaintiff. Id. We also review our jurisdiction de novo.

Cavalieri v. Avior Airlines C.A., 25 F.4th 843, 848 (11th Cir. 2022).

III. ANALYSIS

“We have a threshold obligation to ensure that we have ju-

risdiction to hear an appeal.” Corley v. Long-Lewis, Inc., 965 F.3d

1222, 1227 (11th Cir. 2020). When qualified immunity is denied at

summary judgment, “the type of issue involved” determines

whether we have interlocutory jurisdiction. Koch v. Rugg, 221 F.3d

1283, 1295 (11th Cir. 2000). When an appellant raises “core quali-

fied immunity” questions, which involve legal issues underlying

the analysis, we have jurisdiction over the appeal. Id. (quoting Cot-

trell v. Caldwell, 85 F.3d 1480, 1484 (11th Cir. 1996)). But we lack

jurisdiction when the “issue presented in the qualified immunity

USCA11 Case: 23-12424 Document: 103-1 Date Filed: 08/20/2024 Page: 7 of 19

23-12424 Opinion of the Court 7

context challenges only sufficiency of the evidence relative to a

‘predicate factual element of the underlying constitutional tort.’”

Id. at 1296 (quoting Dolihite v. Maughon ex rel. Videon, 74 F.3d 1027,

1033 n.3 (11th Cir. 1996)). These cases “are not immediately ap-

pealable final decisions since they involve the determination of

‘facts a party may, or may not, be able to prove at trial.’” Id. (quot-

ing Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 313 (1995)).

Our traditional framing of the two components of the qual-

ified immunity analysis illustrates how to distinguish between cog-

nizable issues on appeal and those which we lack jurisdiction to re-

view:

First, what was the official’s conduct, based on the

pleadings, depositions, and affidavits, when viewed in

the light most favorable to the non-moving party?

Second, could a reasonable public official have be-

lieved that such conduct was lawful based on clearly

established law?

Stanley v. City of Dalton, Ga., 219 F.3d 1280, 1286–87 (11th Cir. 2000)

(quoting Johnson v. Clifton, 74 F.3d 1087, 1091 (11th Cir. 1996)).

The second issue is a pure question of law, and its resolution

constitutes a final order that is immediately appealable. Id. When

such a ruling is appealed, we may also address the first issue, one

of fact, “because it is part of the core qualified immunity analysis.”

Id. (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641, (1987)). If only

the first issue is appealed, though, we have no jurisdiction to hear

the case. Id.; see also English v. City of Gainesville, 75 F.4th 1151,

1155–56 (11th Cir. 2023) (“Our precedents ‘establish only that a

USCA11 Case: 23-12424 Document: 103-1 Date Filed: 08/20/2024 Page: 8 of 19

8 Opinion of the Court 23-12424

plaintiff may not base an interlocutory appeal on the district court’s

first determination by itself. . . . When both core qualified immun-

ity issues are involved, we have jurisdiction for de novo review.’”

(alteration adopted) (quoting Koch, 221 F. 3d at 1296)).

In light of these standards, we lack jurisdiction to entertain

this appeal. Although largely presented under the guise of a legal

challenge, the Defendants’ arguments turn entirely on a dispute of

the district court’s factual inferences, rather than on its conclusions

of law. The Managerial and Officer Defendants present similar,

though not identical, arguments. We address each group of De-

fendants in turn.

A.

To explain why this appeal involves challenges based only

on evidentiary sufficiency, we begin with a brief overview of the

relevant law. Melendez’s conditions-of-confinement claim re-

quires an objective and a subjective showing. Thomas v. Bryant, 614

F.3d 1288, 1304 (11th Cir. 2010). Under the objective prong, he

must show “a deprivation or injury that is ‘sufficiently serious’ to

constitute a denial of the ‘minimal civilized measure of life’s neces-

sities.’” Id. (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994)). As

to the subjective prong, he must demonstrate that each official had

a “sufficiently culpable state of mind.” Id. (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S.

at 834). On appeal, the Managerial Defendants argue that Melen-

dez failed to satisfy either prong.

Regarding the objective prong, the Managerial Defendants

dress their arguments in legal garb, but careful review reveals a

USCA11 Case: 23-12424 Document: 103-1 Date Filed: 08/20/2024 Page: 9 of 19

23-12424 Opinion of the Court 9

dispute of fact. For instance, they contend that Melendez’s condi-

tions of confinement did not amount to a constitutional violation

because the district court erroneously determined that CM equates

to solitary confinement—and determining what constitutes soli-

tary confinement is a legal question that grants us jurisdiction. But

this baldly mischaracterizes both Melendez’s claim and the district

court’s order.

Whether CM is properly classified as solitary confinement

or something lesser, like administrative segregation, matters not.

Indeed, neither “administrative segregation” nor “solitary confine-

ment” is independently sufficient to support a conditions-of-con-

finement claim. See Sheley v. Dugger, 833 F.2d 1420, 1428–29 (11th

Cir. 1987). But Melendez’s claim, and the district court’s denial of

qualified immunity, was not solely based on Melendez’s placement

in CM. Rather, it was based on a combination of conditions, in-

cluding the length of time that Melendez was kept in CM, the dep-

rivation of Melendez’s right to exercise, the deprivation of his right

to shower, and the impact that these deprivations had on his men-

tal illness.

The Managerial Defendants do not raise any legal argu-

ments premised on the undisputed facts, but rather dispute the dis-

trict court’s factual conclusions themselves. There is, therefore, no

question of law for us to consider as to the objective prong. See

Stanley, 219 F.3d at 1286–87.

As to the subjective prong, the Managerial Defendants’ ar-

guments fare no better. They contend that Melendez cannot show

USCA11 Case: 23-12424 Document: 103-1 Date Filed: 08/20/2024 Page: 10 of 19

10 Opinion of the Court 23-12424

“actual personal involvement or policy decisions which would jus-

tify a finding that [the Managerial Defendants] were responsible for

[Melendez’s] alleged unconstitutional conditions,” including “that

it was the decision of [the Managerial Defendants] to place [Melen-

dez] in the alleged unconstitutional conditions.” But these argu-

ments directly contradict the district court’s findings of fact.

“Whether a particular defendant has subjective knowledge

of the risk of serious harm is a question of fact.” Goebert v. Lee

County, 510 F.3d 1312, 1327 (11th Cir. 2007). It can be demon-

strated by “inference from circumstantial evidence, and a factfinder

may conclude that a prison official knew of a substantial risk from

the very fact that the risk was obvious.” Id. (quoting Farmer, 511

U.S. at 842).

Here, the district court conducted an individualized analysis

as to each Managerial Defendant and determined that all of them

were repeatedly notified of Melendez’s deprivations and how they

were affecting his mental health. For instance, Defendant Reddish,

the former Warden of Florida State Prison, signed at least three re-

sponses to grievances that Melendez sent to him. Reddish also

emailed others in response to a letter from Melendez’s counsel that

alerted him to Melendez’s prolonged isolation, his conditions

therein, and his severe mental illness. As another example, Defend-

ant Hunter, who was responsible for monitoring and reporting

signs of self-injurious behavior among prisoners, including Melen-

dez, also received a grievance notifying her of Melendez’s contin-

ued placement in CM and its deleterious effects on his mental and

USCA11 Case: 23-12424 Document: 103-1 Date Filed: 08/20/2024 Page: 11 of 19

23-12424 Opinion of the Court 11

physical health. And Defendants Reddish and Hunter were both

part of Melendez’s institutional classification team, which repeat-

edly decided to keep him on CM status.

In its order denying summary judgment, the district court

recounted similar evidence as to every Managerial Defendant. For

example, the district court noted that Melendez sent Hummel and

Palmer a letter in April 2019, in which he complained about staff

abuse and long-term lockdowns—totaling 761 days—with no op-

portunity for recreation or socialization.2 Likewise, Melendez’s

lawyer sent a letter to Palmer’s office in August 2020 complaining

of the “troubling pattern of ongoing abuse” that Melendez was suf-

fering, resulting in self-injurious behaviors. Davis, too, received a

letter from Melendez’s lawyer in August 2021, detailing the condi-

tions of Melendez’s confinement, including staff abuse, shower

deprivation, exercise deprivation, and his resultant physical and

mental injuries. As to McClellan, the district court noted that he

received emails from Melendez’s lawyer in July 2018 and August

2021 (the same correspondence as Davis). The July 2018 letter

stated that Melendez’s “mental health ha[d] deteriorated substan-

tially” since he was first placed in CM, and McClellan responded to

that letter confirming that the complaints “ha[d] been docu-

mented” and that Melendez would be evaluated by medical and

2 The district court noted that Hummel and Palmer both testified that they did

not remember receiving this letter. Of that, the district court concluded that

whether Hummel or Palmer had subjective knowledge was a disputed fact for

a jury to determine.

USCA11 Case: 23-12424 Document: 103-1 Date Filed: 08/20/2024 Page: 12 of 19

12 Opinion of the Court 23-12424

mental health staff. The district court also concluded that McClel-

lan “had first-hand knowledge of [Melendez’s] confinement sta-

tus,” including the length of time he had been in CM, because “he

chaired many of [Melendez’s] CM review hearings” and had au-

thorized various requests to suspend Melendez’s phone, visitation,

day room, and educational programming privileges. Finally, as to

Tomlinson, the district court determined that he was aware of

Melendez’s acts of self-harm and his refusal of several mental

health evaluations, from which a reasonable jury could conclude

Tomlinson had subjective knowledge of a substantial risk of serious

harm.

Ultimately, the court found that Melendez had produced

enough evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that each Man-

agerial Defendant was subjectively aware that Melendez faced a

substantial risk of serious harm as a result of his confinement con-

ditions. As with the objective prong, the Managerial Defendants

present no legal arguments on the subjective prong that fall within

our interlocutory appellate jurisdiction. See Koch, 221 F.3d at 1295.

On appeal, none of the Managerial Defendants’ arguments

in support of qualified immunity assert that, accepting the record

as construed by the district court, they are still entitled to qualified

immunity. There is thus no question of law for us to decide be-

cause the Managerial Defendants only challenge “the factual infer-

ences that the district court drew from a series of circumstances.”

See Hall v. Flournoy, 975 F.3d 1269, 1278 (11th Cir. 2020). Because

USCA11 Case: 23-12424 Document: 103-1 Date Filed: 08/20/2024 Page: 13 of 19

23-12424 Opinion of the Court 13

their arguments rest on factual disputes, and not legal ones, we lack

jurisdiction to consider them.

Finally, the Managerial Defendants also challenge the dis-

trict court’s decision not to consider certain evidence. We also lack

interlocutory jurisdiction over that argument since it similarly does

not concern any “core qualified immunity” issues and does not in-

volve “the application of established legal principles to a given set

of facts.” See Koch, 221 F.3d at 1296. And we may not exercise pen-

dent jurisdiction over this evidentiary determination either, be-

cause we have concluded that we lack jurisdiction over the Mana-

gerial Defendants’ underlying qualified immunity challenge. See

King v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 562 F.3d 1374, 1379–80 (11th Cir. 2009)

(finding that pendent jurisdiction can be exercised over non-appeal-

able issues when they are “inextricably intertwined” with a deci-

sion that we do have jurisdiction to review).

B.

Like the Managerial Defendants, the Officer Defendants ar-

gue only that there is no objective violation based on a dispute of

the record—in other words, they raise factual challenges, not legal

ones. For instance, they contend that Melendez’s summary chart

documenting his showers was not entirely accurate and that

Melendez had no outdoor recreation because he had a pattern of

behavior in which he refused it. As the district court noted, though,

the parties’ disagreement “over the reason” that Melendez did not

receive showers or outdoor recreation presents questions for the

jury. The district court found that Melendez’s evidence showed

USCA11 Case: 23-12424 Document: 103-1 Date Filed: 08/20/2024 Page: 14 of 19

14 Opinion of the Court 23-12424

that he was repeatedly denied showers and that he had no outdoor

recreation during the four years that he was held in restrictive CM.

The Officer Defendants make no argument that, on those facts,

Melendez fails to show a deprivation that is sufficiently serious to

violate the Eighth Amendment.

As to the subjective prong, the Officer Defendants present a

closer call, but their challenges still turn on the sufficiency of the

evidence rather than abstract questions of law.

As an initial matter, Melendez acknowledges that the Officer

Defendants never personally denied him outdoor recreation or

showers. Rather, he claims that the Officer Defendants were re-

sponsible for supervising his wing and documenting or reviewing

his housing logs, which recorded any time that he left his cell, and

that they failed to stop subordinates from acting unlawfully.

The district court determined that the evidence showed that

Officers Brown, Hall, and Philbert worked exclusively or often

with CM inmates and all recognized that they were responsible for

documenting or reviewing inmate movement on housing logs. In

addition, each Officer Defendant worked a significant number of

shifts during which the deprivations of Melendez’s rights to out-

door recreation and regular showers occurred. From this, the dis-

trict court found that Melendez produced enough evidence to cre-

ate a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Officer De-

fendants, in their supervisory roles, subjectively knew of the risk of

serious harm and failed to respond in a reasonable manner.

USCA11 Case: 23-12424 Document: 103-1 Date Filed: 08/20/2024 Page: 15 of 19

23-12424 Opinion of the Court 15

The Officer Defendants claim that the district court “errone-

ously determined that there is a ‘reasonable inference’ that [they]

were deliberately indifferent under the subjective prong.” To chal-

lenge the court’s conclusion, however, they contest the sufficiency

of the evidence, arguing that “the record does not show that [they]

actually knew about a risk of serious harm or disregarded that risk.”

Similarly, they suggest that there is “no evidence” that Sergeants

Philbert or Hall “ever denied Melendez showers or had knowledge

that [Melendez] was allegedly being denied.” In essence, the Of-

ficer Defendants ask us to review whether the district court cor-

rectly found that there was a genuine dispute about whether they

knew of Melendez’s conditions, and whether a reasonable jury

could believe Melendez’s story. This is precisely the type of chal-

lenge that we lack jurisdiction to review at this stage. See Flournoy,

975 F.3d at 1277.

To be sure, the Officer Defendants cast some of their evi-

dentiary challenges as issues of law. The closest the Officer De-

fendants get to a legal argument is their contention that the district

court never conducted an individualized analysis as to each defend-

ant’s independent causal connection to the constitutional harm, as

they contend is required under Saunders v. Sheriff of Brevard County,

735 F. App’x 559 (11th Cir. 2018). But this, again, is a factual argu-

ment repackaged as a legal one, because what the Officer Defend-

ants actually dispute is whether “evidence in the record exists that

[the Officer Defendants] directed anyone to act unlawfully or not

provide showers or recreation” or whether “there was a custom or

policy instituted by [the Officer Defendants] that resulted in

USCA11 Case: 23-12424 Document: 103-1 Date Filed: 08/20/2024 Page: 16 of 19

16 Opinion of the Court 23-12424

deliberate indifference to Melendez’s constitutional rights.” But

the Officer Defendants had to pivot to this factual argument be-

cause the district court’s order shows that it did, in fact, consider

the time that each individual Officer Defendant spent supervising

Melendez’s wing during weeks where Melendez was deprived of

showers or outdoor recreation. The district court also reviewed

the depositions of each individual defendant and determined that

each Officer Defendant recognized that: (1) inmates have rights,

and not merely privileges, to regular showers and outdoor recrea-

tion; and (2) they were responsible for documenting or reviewing

Melendez’s housing logs which recorded any time Melendez left

his cell to exercise or shower. We therefore conclude that, as to

causation, the Officer Defendants failed to raise a legal question

sufficient to invoke our interlocutory jurisdiction.

Unlike the Officer Defendants here, the defendant in Saun-

ders accepted the facts as construed in the plaintiff’s favor and ar-

gued that the conduct still did not amount to deliberate indiffer-

ence as a matter of law. 3 See 735 F.3d at 569. The Officer Defend-

ants, in contrast, never accept the facts in the light most favorable

to Melendez. Instead, they directly challenge the factual inferences

that the district court drew from the evidence. For example, they

contend that there is no causal connection because none of them

3 We note, too, that Saunders is an unpublished case that does not bind us in

any event. See Ray v. McCullough Payne & Haan, LLC, 838 F.3d 1107, 1109 (11th

Cir. 2016) (“In this Court, unpublished decisions, with or without opinion, are

not precedential and they bind no one.”).

USCA11 Case: 23-12424 Document: 103-1 Date Filed: 08/20/2024 Page: 17 of 19

23-12424 Opinion of the Court 17

directly dealt with Melendez and his recreation or exercise, and

they were not aware of any grievance or complaint related to his

recreation. This is different from arguing that reasonable public

officials could have believed that their conduct, as construed by the

district court, was lawful based on clearly established law. See

Flournoy, 975 F.3d at 1278 (finding that we lack interlocutory juris-

diction when appellants merely claim that they “didn’t do” the con-

duct at issue).

Like the Managerial Defendants, the Officer Defendants

never argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity even if we

accept that they repeatedly reviewed Melendez’s housing logs

which showed that he was deprived of outdoor recreation and reg-

ular showers. If that was their argument, then we would have ju-

risdiction. Instead, they argue that Officer Hall did not review daily

housing logs, that Officer Brown never dealt with recreation while

working on Melendez’s wing, and that Officer Philbert had very

few time periods in which he oversaw Melendez’s wing. As in

Flournoy, these arguments equate to the appellants claiming that

they “didn’t do it,” which precludes appellate review. 975 F.3d at

1278 (quoting Johnson, 515 U.S. at 316).

C.

In sum, both the Managerial and Officer Defendants fail to

argue that the district court erred in denying qualified immunity

when the facts are construed in Melendez’s favor. But at this inter-

locutory juncture, we only have jurisdiction if we accept the factual

inferences that the district court drew from the evidence. See id.

USCA11 Case: 23-12424 Document: 103-1 Date Filed: 08/20/2024 Page: 18 of 19

18 Opinion of the Court 23-12424

(“[T]o review that [factual] determination now would amount to

nothing more than weighing the evidence supporting the district

court’s summary judgment determination, which is precisely what

the Supreme Court has said we cannot do at this interlocutory

stage.”).

In its order denying summary judgment, the district court

properly resolved the disputed facts in Melendez’s favor, and then

explained how the disputed facts and evidence could allow a rea-

sonable jury to find that both Managerial and Officer Defendants

violated Melendez’s Eighth Amendment rights. Specifically, the

court found that the evidence showed Melendez had been confined

in restrictive CM for the vast majority of a five-year period, re-

ceived little to no outdoor recreation time for years, and often was

denied the three showers per week required under Florida Admin-

istrative Code. On appeal, Defendants do not accept the facts as

construed by the district court and argue that those facts still do not

amount to a violation of a clearly established right. Rather, they

dispute the district court’s findings as to the conditions of Melen-

dez’s confinement. For instance, they argue that extended time in

CM is not alone a constitutional violation. But this fails to address

that the district court’s order was based on its finding of a combi-

nation of conditions. They also argue that there is no evidence that

they were responsible for Melendez’s conditions, either because

they didn’t know or because they appropriately addressed his con-

cerns such that they did not violate clearly established law. But the

district court concluded that there was sufficient evidence of their

knowledge and responsibility. And the district court determined

USCA11 Case: 23-12424 Document: 103-1 Date Filed: 08/20/2024 Page: 19 of 19

23-12424 Opinion of the Court 19

that the parties’ disagreement “over the reason” that Melendez was

deprived of the showers and outdoor exercise to which he was en-

titled are questions for the jury. We agree.

IV. CONCLUSION

Because the Defendants have attacked only the “evidentiary

sufficiency” supporting Melendez’s claims and the Defendants’ en-

titlement to qualified immunity, see English, 75 F.4th at 1156, we

dismiss this appeal for want of appellate jurisdiction.

DISMISSED.