The opinion
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-11861 AUGUST 14, 2007
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________ CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 03-00337-CV-WDO-5
VALENCIA GARY,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
ANNIE PEARL REED,
Plaintiff,
versus
JERRY MODENA, Individually and as
Sheriff of Bibb County, GA., et al.,
Defendants,
JACK CLEVELAND, Individually and in his official
capacity as Deputy Sheriff of Bibb County, GA.,
HARRY LAWRENCE, Individually and in his official
capacity as Deputy Sheriff of Bibb County, GA.,
SANDRA K. WHITE, Individually and in her official
capacity as agent or employee of Prison Health Services,
Inc., and/or Bibb County Sheriff’s Office,
ANTONIO DRISKELL, JERRY MINTON,
Defendants-Appellants.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
_________________________
(August 14, 2007)
Before TJOFLAT, HULL and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from the denial of a motion for summary judgment based
upon qualified immunity. This appeal arises from our opinion in Gary v. Modena,
No. 05-16973 (11th Cir. Nov. 21, 2006) (J. Pryor concurring in part and dissenting
in part), wherein we affirmed a summary judgment in favor of multiple defendants
but reversed the summary judgment in favor of these appellants and remanded for
trial as to them. The contention being made in this appeal is that the court in its
earlier ruling did not specifically consider whether or not these appellants’ actions
could be found to have violated clearly established law and a violation of the
plaintiffs constitutional rights. We find no merit in this argument.
Clearly, the majority opinion of the court addresses the evidence that could
be the basis for a jury finding of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.
In the Discussion portion of the opinion we set forth both the legal test and the
clearly established law. We stated in part:
III. DISCUSSION
A. Deliberate Indifference Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
2
Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) provides that:
"Every person who, under color of any
statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or
usage, of any State or Territory or the
District of Columbia, subjects or causes to
be subjected, any citizen of the United
States or other person within the jurisdiction
thereof to the deprivation of any right,
privileges or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the
party injured in an action at law, suit in
equity or other proper proceeding for
redress."
Gary alleges that the defendants, who served as public
officials of Bibb County, the Bibb County Sheriff's
Office and / or PHS, violated Jerry Butts' Eighth and / or
Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying him access to
necessary medications and by failing to complete a
medical screening of him when he presented obvious
signs of a serious medical condition. Since Butts was a
pre-trial detainee at the time of alleged violations, Gary's
deliberate indifference claims fall under the due process
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and not the cruel
and unusual punishment prohibition of the Eight
3
Amendment. Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 671
n.40, 97 S.Ct. 1401, 1412, 51 L.Ed.2d 711, 730 (1977);
McDowell v. Brown, 392 F.3d 1283, 1290 n.8 (11th Cir.
2004), Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352, 1357 (11th Cir.
2003).
Nevertheless, due process requires that prison
officials provide all persons in state custody such basic
human needs as medical care, regardless of whether the
persons have been incarcerated or are being held in
detention. See Hamm v. DeKalb County, 774 F.2d 1567,
1574 (11th Cir. 1985) (holding that "in regard to
providing pretrial detainees with such basic necessities
as ... medical care[,] the minimum standard allowed by
the due process clause is the same as that allowed by the
eighth amendment for convicted persons); see also
Cottone, 326 F.3d 1352, 1357, citing Marsh, 268 F.3d at
1024 n.5. Accordingly, we look to the Eighth
Amendment's deliberate indifference standards when
analyzing Gary's 42 U.S.C. §1983 claim. McDowell, 392
F.3d at 1290 n.8.
4
A prison official may be held liable under the Eighth
Amendment for denying an inmate humane conditions of
confinement "only if he knows that inmates face a
substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk
by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it."
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847,114 S.Ct. 1970,
1984, 128 L.Ed.2d 811, 832 (1994). To demonstrate that
a prison official acted with deliberate indifference to an
inmate's medical needs, a plaintiff must provide evidence
that the inmate presented an objectively serious medical
need and that the official ignored it. Farrow v. West, 320
F.3d 1235, 1243 (11th Cir. 2003).
We have defined a serious medical need as one that is
"so obvious that even a lay person would easily
recognize the necessity for a doctor's attention." Id. at
1243 (quoting Hill v. DeKalb Reg'l Youth Det. Ctr., 40
F.3d 1176, 1187 (11th Cir. 1994)). Additionally, a
plaintiff who alleges a deliberate indifference claim
against a prison official must show that the official's
5
alleged unconstitutional acts caused his injury. Marsh,
268 F.3d at 1028.
To argue that the court failed to decide whether or not appellants’ conduct
could be found to have violated clearly established law and whether appellants
were on notice that their conduct could be found to have violated Mr. Butts’ rights
under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments is to simply ignore the language of
the opinion. The majority concluded that there were genuine issues of material
facts that precluded summary judgment as to these appellants because the record
includes evidence that would support a finding of deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need. The Supreme Court has made clear that such conduct can
be found to be a violation of one’s constitutional rights. In Estelle v. Gamble, 429
U.S. 97, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976), the Supreme Court recognized that
the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, made
applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause,
requires the State to provide adequate medical care to incarcerated prisoners.
Justice Marshall wrote: "deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of
prisoners constitutes the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain ... proscribed
by the Eighth Amendment." This includes "indifference ... manifested by prison
doctors in their response to the prisoner's needs or by prison guards in
intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care or intentionally
6
interfering with the treatment once prescribed." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,
104-105, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) (footnotes and internal quotation
marks omitted). This law has been clearly established for many years.
As to these appellants, the matter was remanded for trial. A jury may
conclude that one or more or all of these appellants did or did not violate the
constitutional rights of Mr. Butts.
The ruling of the district court is AFFIRMED.
7