Filed: Oct. 01, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 13-15158 Date Filed: 10/01/2014 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 13-15158 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 3:11-cv-00964-RBD-MCR WARREN L. OLIVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus OFFICER HARDEN, a.k.a. Officer Hardy, BARRY REDDISH, Warden, in his own capacity, OFFICER WOOD, a.k.a. Officer Woody, EUGENE MCLEMORE, Sgt., a.k.a. Sgt. McCal, L. T. SWAIN, in his own capacity, LT. BROWN, in his own capacity, Defendants-Appellees
Summary: Case: 13-15158 Date Filed: 10/01/2014 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 13-15158 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 3:11-cv-00964-RBD-MCR WARREN L. OLIVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus OFFICER HARDEN, a.k.a. Officer Hardy, BARRY REDDISH, Warden, in his own capacity, OFFICER WOOD, a.k.a. Officer Woody, EUGENE MCLEMORE, Sgt., a.k.a. Sgt. McCal, L. T. SWAIN, in his own capacity, LT. BROWN, in his own capacity, Defendants-Appellees,..
More
Case: 13-15158 Date Filed: 10/01/2014 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-15158
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:11-cv-00964-RBD-MCR
WARREN L. OLIVER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
OFFICER HARDEN,
a.k.a. Officer Hardy,
BARRY REDDISH,
Warden, in his own capacity,
OFFICER WOOD,
a.k.a. Officer Woody,
EUGENE MCLEMORE,
Sgt.,
a.k.a. Sgt. McCal,
L. T. SWAIN,
in his own capacity,
LT. BROWN,
in his own capacity,
Defendants-Appellees,
SGT. DAVIS,
in his own capacity,
Defendant.
Case: 13-15158 Date Filed: 10/01/2014 Page: 2 of 7
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(October 1, 2014)
Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Warren L. Oliver, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals from the
district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants in Oliver’s
42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, claiming that the defendants were deliberately indifferent
to a substantial risk of serious harm to him in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
On appeal, Oliver argues that: (1) the defendants were not entitled to qualified
immunity because the evidence showed that they were on notice of the danger that
the inmates faced and that the inmates were improperly supervised; (2) the district
court erred in denying his motions to appoint counsel because his case is
meritorious; and (3) the district court improperly denied his motions to compel and
deprived him of necessary evidence. After careful review, we affirm.
We review a district court’s decision to grant summary judgment de novo,
viewing all of the evidence and its reasonable inferences in the light most favorable
to the nonmoving party. Waddell v. Hendry Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 329 F.3d 1300,
1304 (11th Cir. 2003). “Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than
2
Case: 13-15158 Date Filed: 10/01/2014 Page: 3 of 7
pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.”
Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998).
The relevant facts are these. In September 2011, Oliver, a Florida state
prisoner, filed a pro se complaint against Officer Matthew Harden, Warden Barry
Reddish, Officer Christopher Wood, Sergeant Eugene McLemore, and Lieutenant
Shawn Swain (collectively, “defendants”). Defendants were Florida Department
of Corrections (“FDOC”) employees who worked at Union Correctional Institution
(“UCI”) during the relevant time period, and Oliver named them all in their
individual capacities. Oliver said that the defendants had been deliberately
indifferent to the substantial risk of serious harm to inmates by failing to properly
restrain and monitor inmates while inmates were in a room called the day-room.
The evidence showed that Oliver was attacked by Robert Ohlin while the
guards were escorting inmates back to their cells from the day-room and Oliver
and Ohlin had been left alone there. Both Oliver and Ohlin were handcuffed at the
time, and the attack occurred during a two-to-three minute interval when there was
no guard in the day-room. Oliver and Ohlin did not have any prior incidents, and
none of the defendants were aware of any risk that Ohlin posed generally to inmate
safety or specifically to Oliver’s safety.
The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding
that Oliver had failed to allege facts showing a history of widespread failure to
3
Case: 13-15158 Date Filed: 10/01/2014 Page: 4 of 7
protect inmates that was obvious, flagrant, rampant, and of a continued duration. It
held that the policies and procedures in place at UCI were sufficient to protect and
monitor the inmates, and the defendants responded reasonably. The court also
concluded that the evidence was insufficient to show that the defendants had
subjective knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm to Oliver. Throughout
the proceedings, Oliver filed multiple motions to compel and for appointment of
counsel. A magistrate judge denied each of Oliver’s motions. Oliver did not file
objections to any of the denials of his motions.
First, we are unpersuaded by Oliver’s argument that the district court
improperly granted summary judgment with respect to his deliberate indifference
claim. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) states that summary judgment shall
be granted if the pleadings and evidence show that there is “no genuine dispute as
to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Once the moving party makes the required showing, the non-moving party has the
burden of rebutting that showing through affidavits or other relevant and
admissible evidence beyond the pleadings. Josendis v. Wall to Wall Residence
Repairs Inc., 662 F.3d 1292, 1315 (11th Cir. 2011).
Prison guards have a duty under the Eighth Amendment to protect inmates
from violence at the hands of other inmates. Carter v. Galloway, 352 F.3d 1346,
1349 (11th Cir. 2003). Not every injury suffered by an inmate implicates this duty,
4
Case: 13-15158 Date Filed: 10/01/2014 Page: 5 of 7
but rather it must be shown that the guard was deliberately indifferent to a
substantial risk of serious harm. Id. To be deliberately indifferent, the guards must
have been subjectively aware of the substantial risk of serious harm to the inmate
and must have failed to respond reasonably to the risk.
Id. To survive summary
judgment, a plaintiff must show sufficient evidence of: (1) a substantial risk of
serious harm; (2) the defendants’ deliberate indifference to that risk; and (3)
causation.
Id. In so doing, the plaintiff must show that the defendants were aware
of specific facts from which it could be inferred that a substantial risk of serious
harm existed and that the defendants actually drew that inference.
Id. Mere
negligent failure to protect an inmate from attack does not justify liability.
Id. at
1350. Further, a general awareness of an inmate’s propensity for being violent
does not satisfy the subjective awareness requirement.
Id.
To hold a supervisor liable for constitutional violations, a plaintiff must
show that either the supervisor participated directly in the unconstitutional conduct
or the supervisor’s actions were causally connected to the alleged constitutional
violation. Harrison v. Culliver,
746 F.3d 1288, 1298 (11th Cir. 2014). The
necessary causal connection can be established 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, or when his customs or policies result in
deliberate indifference to constitutional rights.
Id. An excessive risk of inmate-on-
5
Case: 13-15158 Date Filed: 10/01/2014 Page: 6 of 7
inmate violence creates a substantial risk of serious harm, but occasional, isolated
attacks by one prisoner on another may not constitute an Eighth Amendment
violation. Id. at 1299. The evidence of inmate-on-inmate violence must rise to the
level such that inmates were exposed to the constant threat of violence.
Id.
Here, Oliver’s claim fails because he has not established that the defendants
had subjective awareness of the substantial risk of serious harm. First, it was
undisputed that the guards were frequently returning to the day-room because they
were escorting inmates to their cells, and both Oliver and Ohlin were handcuffed at
the time of the attack. As a result, arguments and evidence related to claims of
insufficient supervision or use of restraints are irrelevant to this specific incident.
Second, the evidence shows that Oliver and Ohlin had no conflict prior to the
attack, none of the guards had any knowledge that Ohlin was particularly violent,
and Oliver had not asked to not attend the day-room or to be protected from Ohlin.
In any event, a general awareness of an inmate’s propensity for being violent does
not satisfy the subjective awareness requirement. Moreover, the evidence is
insufficient to establish that inmates were exposed to the constant threat of
violence. To that end, Oliver reported that he had attended the day-room numerous
times before and after the attack without incident, and he had never alerted the
defendants that he feared for his safety based on the general amount of violence
that occurred at UCI. Thus, even when viewed in the light most favorable to
6
Case: 13-15158 Date Filed: 10/01/2014 Page: 7 of 7
Oliver, the evidence shows that the attack appears to be an isolated incident of
violence in the day-room. It was, at most, the fifth such attack that occurred in the
day-room over a two-year period, despite the high frequency of inmates attending
the day-room.
We are also unconvinced by Oliver’s claim that the district court should
have granted his motions to appoint counsel and to compel the production of
necessary evidence. According to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), “[a]
party may serve and file objections to [a magistrate judge’s] order within 14 days
after being served with a copy,” but “[a] party may not assign as error a defect in
the order not timely objected to.” We have read Rule 72 to mean that, “where a
party fails to timely challenge a magistrate’s nondispositive order before the
district court, the party waived his right to appeal those orders [on appeal].” Smith
v. Sch. Bd. of Orange Cnty., 487 F.3d 1361, 1365 (11th Cir. 2007).
As the record shows, Oliver failed to object to any of the magistrate judge’s
denials of his motions that he seeks to challenge on appeal. Thus, he has waived
his right to appeal those denials, and we will not consider them. Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.
7
