Case: 12-14007 Date Filed: 12/09/2013 Page: 1 of 16
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-14007
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-21898-DLG
JOHN CHRISTOPHER SPAULDING,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DR. JOSEPH POITIER,
a.k.a. John Poitier,
CAPTAIN DANIEL MERA,
Miami Dade Department and Rehabilitation,
OFFICER WILLIE RODGERS,
Miami Dade Department and Rehabilitation,
OFFICER JANEEN ABONZE,
Miami Dade Department and Rehabilitation,
OFFICER DEMORA PRUDENT,
Miami Dade Department of Corrections, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
JACKSON HEALTH SERVICES,
a.k.a. Miami Jackson Hospital, et al.,
Defendants.
Case: 12-14007 Date Filed: 12/09/2013 Page: 2 of 16
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(December 9, 2013)
Before HULL, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
John Spaulding, currently a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the
district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants, Miami-Dade
Corrections and Rehabilitation Department (“MDCR”) staff, in his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action. 1 The claims at issue on appeal are against Dr. Joseph Poitier,
Captain Daniel Mera, Nurses Javan Etienne and Daniel Lamarche, and Officers
Janeen Abonze, Demora Prudent, Beverly Neal, and Guery Jasmin (collectively
“Defendants”). After review, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
We review the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the non-
movant.2 On the evening of May 14, 2008, Plaintiff John Spaulding (“Spaulding”)
1
Although Spaulding raised numerous claims in his complaint, the district court
dismissed several of the claims prior to its summary judgment ruling.
2
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, drawing all reasonable
inferences and reviewing all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.
Moton v. Cowart, 631 F.3d 1337, 1341 (11th Cir. 2011). Summary judgment is appropriate “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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The movant may meet that
2
Case: 12-14007 Date Filed: 12/09/2013 Page: 3 of 16
was confined as a pretrial detainee at the Miami-Dade County Pretrial Detention
Center. Spaulding declared himself suicidal to an MDCR officer. Despite this
claim, Spaulding was not actually suicidal, and he only made this claim in order to
be moved away from a different officer who was harassing him. Spaulding’s plan
worked, and he was moved to a cell on the Psychological Suicide Watch Floor.
A. Events on May 15, 2008
Early the next morning, Spaulding and another inmate argued, and staff
reported that Spaulding was screaming incessant threats at other inmates and staff.
After unsuccessful attempts were made to calm Spaulding, an officer handcuffed
Spaulding. Spaulding was informed that he was to be injected with medication
ordered by Dr. Joseph Poitier because Spaulding was “out of control.” Upon
learning that he was to be injected, Spaulding informed those present that he
suffered from glaucoma, a condition that causes a decrease in vision over time.
Spaulding was “bouncing up and down” in an attempt to avoid the injection. In
order to administer the medication to Spaulding, officers pulled forcefully on
Spaulding’s handcuffs while the nurses and the other officers present restrained
Spaulding by holding him around his neck and torso.
burden by showing that there is a lack of evidence to support the essential elements that the non-
movant must prove at trial. Moton, 631 F.3d at 1341.
3
Case: 12-14007 Date Filed: 12/09/2013 Page: 4 of 16
Nurse Daniel Lamarche injected Spaulding with medication, but the type of
medication is disputed. Spaulding claims that Nurse Lamarche injected him with
Haldol, antipsychotic medication, against his will. Defendants, however, claim
that Spaulding was injected with Vistaril, a mild antihistamine, used for relieving
anxiety. The 2008 medical records show that “Vistaril” was injected on May 15,
2008, but Spaulding, in his affidavit, avers that it was Haldol. Spaulding also
submits a 2006 medical record where he was given Haldol.
A camera recorded the incident, but the video recording is no longer
available. Contrary to MDCR policy, no “use of force” report was prepared after
the injection.
Following the injection, Spaulding fell unconscious. When Spaulding
awoke, he had blurred vision, bruises on his wrists and arms, and numbness in his
hands. 3 Later that day, Dr. Poitier reviewed Spaulding’s medical condition. Dr.
Poitier determined that Spaulding was no longer a threat to himself or others, and
thus, Dr. Poitier released Spaulding from the Psychological Suicide Watch Floor.
After observing Spaulding, Dr. Poitier concluded that Spaulding had no condition
that warranted “emergent medical treatment” for any hand injury or vision
problem.
3
In some instances, Spaulding states that the numbness was only in his “thumbs,” rather
than his hands generally. We use the term “hands” to encompass those instances in which he
asserts that the numbness was only in his thumbs.
4
Case: 12-14007 Date Filed: 12/09/2013 Page: 5 of 16
B. Subsequent Medical Treatment
Spaulding admits that, sometime after the injection, he saw an eye doctor,
who informed Spaulding that he was extremely nearsighted and prescribed him
eyeglasses. Spaulding’s medical records confirm that, after complaining about
blurry vision, he was referred to Bascom Palmer Eye Institute (“BPEI”) for
evaluation because his vision was worsening due to glaucoma. His medical
records show that he was seen at the BPEI on June 11, 2008, less than a month
after the injection. Spaulding was told to continue his current eye drops and to
return if his vision declined. Spaulding was seen at the BPEI again in August
2008.
As to his hand injury, Spaulding also admits that, within the two months
following the injection, MDCR medical staff referred him to a sports medicine
clinic for treatment of the numbness in his hands. The Consultation/Referral Form,
dated June 11, 2008, states that a medical professional was referring Spaulding to
“Sports Medicine” for a consultation due to a “numbness feeling” in Spaulding’s
hands. Although Spaulding visited the clinic, no one treated the numbness in his
hands. Spaulding, however, indicates that the numbness in his hands healed
without treatment “some months” after the injection.
C. Lawsuit
5
Case: 12-14007 Date Filed: 12/09/2013 Page: 6 of 16
About two years later, in June 2010, Spaulding filed this action, alleging that
Defendants violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by forcefully
injecting him with Haldol without his consent and by exhibiting deliberate
indifference to his medical needs. Spaulding amended his complaint in April
2011, and that amended complaint makes the same claims with more specificity
and also alleges that Defendants violated his First Amendment right to free speech
by injecting him with Haldol in retaliation for him speaking to another inmate.
The district court determined that Spaulding had not shown that Defendants
deprived him of a constitutional right, and thus, the court denied Spaulding’s
motion for summary judgment and granted Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment. Spaulding filed this appeal.
II. LIBERTY INTEREST IN AVOIDING FORCED MEDICATION
Spaulding argues that his liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment
was violated when MDCR staff forcibly injected him with the antipsychotic drug
Haldol without his consent and without justification. 4
Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, pretrial
detainees have “a significant liberty interest in avoiding the unwanted
administration of antipsychotic drugs.” See Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210,
4
Spaulding also appeals the denials of his motion to strike Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment as untimely and of his motion for sanctions based on Defendants’ delay in
producing documents. However, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was timely filed
within the extension of time the magistrate judge granted Defendants, and the record does not
support Spaulding’s claim of delay as to discovery.
6
Case: 12-14007 Date Filed: 12/09/2013 Page: 7 of 16
221-22, 110 S. Ct. 1028, 1036 (1990) (discussing the Fourteenth Amendment as it
applies to convicted prisoners); see also Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S. 127, 135, 112
S. Ct. 1810, 1815 (1992) (providing that pretrial detainees have an interest under
the Fourteenth Amendment in avoiding forced antipsychotic medication).
Nevertheless, because of the requirements of the prison setting, prison
officials are permitted to forcibly treat a mentally ill pretrial detainee with
antipsychotic medication “if [he] is dangerous to himself or others and the
treatment is in [his] medical interest.” Harper, 494 U.S. at 227, 110 S. Ct. at 1039-
40; see Riggins, 504 U.S. at 135, 112 S. Ct. at 1815. Although the forcible
injection of medication into a non-consenting person’s body represents a
substantial interference with that person’s liberty, the Supreme Court has observed
that an inmate’s liberty interests are “are adequately protected, and perhaps better
served, by allowing the decision to medicate to be made by medical professionals
rather than a judge.” Harper, 494 U.S. at 231, 110 S. Ct. at 1042.
Defendants first argue that Spaulding was not given the antipsychotic
medication Haldol, but only the antianxiety drug Vistaril. That creates a close
issue because Harper only involved antipsychotic drugs, and the Supreme Court
did not expressly address whether its holding applies to other categories of drugs.
In addition, Spaulding’s averment about Haldol is arguably conclusory.
7
Case: 12-14007 Date Filed: 12/09/2013 Page: 8 of 16
But even accepting Spaulding’s version of events, that Haldol was
administered, we conclude that Defendants adequately showed Spaulding was a
danger to himself and others. Thus, we conclude his liberty interests were not
violated by the administration of antipsychotic medication under the particular
facts here. As noted above, prison officials are constitutionally permitted to
forcibly treat an inmate with antipsychotic medication when that inmate is a danger
to himself or others. See id. at 227, 110 S. Ct. at 1039-40. According to the
record, Spaulding had declared himself suicidal, and his behavior, including
screaming incessantly and threatening staff and other inmates, indicated that he
was agitated on the date of the injection. In his affidavit, Spaulding swore that he
was not a danger to himself or others, but he has never denied that he declared
himself suicidal, that an argument ensued with another pretrial detainee, and that
he screamed threats at other pretrial detainees and MDCR staff. Further,
Spaulding has not claimed that he told anyone that he was not actually suicidal and
had only declared himself suicidal to avoid an officer who harassed him. Thus,
Defendants had no reason to believe that he was not suicidal.
Spaulding also failed to present any evidence showing that this one injection
of him with antipsychotic medication was not medically appropriate.5 See id. at
5
We emphasize that, in this case, Defendants are not seeking to continue treating
Spaulding with Haldol, and Spaulding has not alleged that he is continuing to be treated with
Haldol. Thus, we have no occasion to discuss the state’s burden of establishing the continued
8
Case: 12-14007 Date Filed: 12/09/2013 Page: 9 of 16
227, 110 S. Ct. at 1039-40. He has not shown that, if he presented a danger to
himself, Haldol was a medically inappropriate choice of drug with which to treat
his described behavior on that day. In his affidavit, Spaulding only claimed that
Haldol should not be used to treat an individual with glaucoma, but he failed to
provide any medical basis for his asserted belief. His unsupported, conclusory
statement fails to show that Haldol was not in his medical interest. See Ellis v.
England, 432 F.3d 1321, 1327 (11th Cir. 2005) (providing that unsupported,
conclusory statements not based on personal knowledge are insufficient to
withstand a motion for summary judgment). Based on the record in this particular
case, Spaulding has not shown that Defendants violated his liberty interests in
administering the injection of Haldol. See Harper, 494 U.S. at 227, 110 S. Ct. at
1039-40.
III. DELIBERATE INDIFFERNCE TO SERIOUS MEDICAL NEEDS
Spaulding also contends that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his
medical needs by: (1) administering a drug that they knew could cause an adverse
reaction based on his diagnosed glaucoma; and (2) failing to treat his injuries
sustained during and after the injection, including bruises, blurry vision, and
numbness in his hands.
need and medical appropriateness of treatment involving antipsychotic medication. See
Riggins, 504 U.S. at 135, 112 S. Ct. at 1815; cf. United States v. Diaz, 630 F.3d 1314, 1331-32
(11th Cir. 2011) (providing that the government must show by clear and convincing evidence
that involuntary medication is necessary to render a defendant competent to stand trial).
9
Case: 12-14007 Date Filed: 12/09/2013 Page: 10 of 16
Deliberate indifference to a pretrial detainee’s serious medical needs violates
the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. Goebert v. Lee Cnty., 510 F.3d
1312, 1326 (11th Cir. 2007) (explaining that the standards that govern an Eighth
Amendment claim of deliberate indifference also govern a pretrial detainee’s claim
under the Fourteenth Amendment). To establish deliberate indifference, the
pretrial detainee must show three elements: (1) he had a serious medical need; (2)
the prison official acted with deliberate indifference to that serious medical need;
and (3) the prison official’s deliberate indifference caused the pretrial detainee
injury. Id. The second element is the subjective component of the claim, wherein
the inmate must show that the individual defendant prison official had (1)
“subjective knowledge of a risk of serious harm; (2) disregard[ed] . . . that risk; (3)
by conduct that is more than gross negligence.” Id. at 1327 (bracket omitted); see
Campbell v. Sikes, 169 F.3d 1353, 1363-66 (11th Cir. 1999) (discussing the
subjective component of an Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to
psychiatric medical needs).
A doctor’s decision about the type of medicine that should be prescribed is
generally “a medical judgment” that is inappropriate for imposing § 1983 liability.
Adams v. Poag, 61 F.3d 1537, 1547 (11th Cir. 1995). Negligence as to a diagnosis
or treatment, or even medical malpractice, does not constitute deliberate
indifference. Bingham v. Thomas, 654 F.3d 1171, 1176 (11th Cir. 2011).
10
Case: 12-14007 Date Filed: 12/09/2013 Page: 11 of 16
We cannot say that the district court erred in concluding that Spaulding’s
evidence failed to show that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to
Spaulding’s glaucoma condition when they injected Spaulding with medication.
Spaulding essentially argues that Dr. Poitier committed medical malpractice in
selecting a medication, but a medical malpractice claim is inappropriate for
imposing § 1983 liability. See Adams, 61 F.3d at 1547; Bingham, 654 F.3d at
1176. To the extent Spaulding raises a claim of deliberate indifference against Dr.
Poitier for releasing him into the general prison population shortly after he was
injected with Haldol, rather than keeping him under closer observation, his claim
fails, as he has not shown a causal link between his injuries and the alleged
wrongful conduct of releasing him to the general prison population. See Goebert,
510 F.3d at 1326.
Spaulding’s claim, that Defendants refused any treatment of his blurry vision
after the injection, is refuted by the record. Dr. Poitier examined Spaulding hours
after the injection and found “no condition warranting emergent medical treatment
for any alleged hand injury or vision problem.” Furthermore, the medical records
show that Spaulding was referred for, and received, medical care for his blurry
vision. Finally, Spaulding has not shown that Dr. Poitier’s failure to find that
Spaulding needed immediate treatment for his hand injuries was conduct that
surpassed gross negligence. Subsequent to Dr. Poitier’s examination, MDCR
11
Case: 12-14007 Date Filed: 12/09/2013 Page: 12 of 16
medical staff examined Spaulding and referred him to a sports medicine clinic for
treatment of his hands. Although Spaulding claims he was never treated at the
clinic in relation to his hand injuries, he has not shown that Defendants played any
role in the clinic’s treatment of Spaulding. In addition, Spaulding acknowledges
that he healed on his own “after some months.” Accordingly, Spaulding’s claim of
deliberate indifference has no basis in the record and thus does not present a
genuine dispute as to a material fact.
IV. EXCESSIVE USE OF FORCE
Spaulding further argues that Defendants used excessive force when they
injected him, asserting that he was not a threat to himself or others.
We analyze a pretrial detainee’s claim of excessive force under the
Fourteenth Amendment as if it were an excessive-force claim under the Eighth
Amendment. Fennell v. Gilstrap, 559 F.3d 1212, 1216 n.5 (11th Cir. 2009). A
prison official’s use of force against a pretrial detainee is excessive under the
Fourteenth Amendment if it “shocks the conscience,” meaning that it is applied
“maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Id. at 1217 (internal quotation marks
omitted). We evaluate five factors relevant to ascertaining whether force was used
maliciously and sadistically: (1) the extent of the injury; (2) the need for the use of
force; (3) the relationship between that need and the amount of force used;
(4) efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response; and (5) the extent of
12
Case: 12-14007 Date Filed: 12/09/2013 Page: 13 of 16
the threat to the safety of staff and inmates, as reasonably perceived by officials.
See id.
Based on this record, we cannot conclude that Defendants used excessive
force against Spaulding. First, Spaulding’s injuries generally were de minimis,
although we note his claim that his hands remained numb for a number of months
before healing on their own. See id. Although Spaulding claims that the injection
caused his vision to worsen, his medical records make no such indication, and he
has not submitted any medical evidence to support that claim. If anything, the
record shows that the worsening of his vision is related to his glaucoma and
nearsightedness. Second, there was a medical need for the Defendants’ shown use
of force because a medical professional ordered that Spaulding be injected with
medication due to his agitation and other behavior. See id. Third, Spaulding was
only briefly restrained so that he could receive the necessary injection. See id.
Fourth, the record shows that Defendants attempted to calm Spaulding before
using force. See id. Finally, based on Spaulding’s declared suicidal state and
behavior, Defendants reasonably perceived that Spaulding may harm himself, staff,
or other pretrial detainees. See id. Thus, given the overall record in this particular
case, restraining Spaulding to administer this one prescribed injection did not
“shock the conscience,” and summary judgment was appropriately granted in favor
of Defendants. See id.
13
Case: 12-14007 Date Filed: 12/09/2013 Page: 14 of 16
V. FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION
Spaulding’s First Amendment retaliation claim is refuted by the record, and
is supported only by his conclusory assertions. As discussed above, Spaulding was
administered medication to protect him and others, not to punish him for speaking
to another inmate. Accordingly, summary judgment was also properly granted in
favor of Defendants on this claim. See Fullman v. Graddick, 739 F.2d 553, 557
(11th Cir. 1984) (holding that mere verification of a party’s own conclusory
allegations is insufficient to withstand a motion for summary judgment).
VI. MOTION TO AMEND
Spaulding argues that the district court should have granted him leave to
amend his complaint to add a claim against Captain Daniel Mera. Specifically, the
proposed claim alleged that, (1) because of Captain Mera’s supervisory role at the
Miami-Dade County Pretrial Detention Center, he had a legal duty to ensure the
preservation of the May 15, 2008 video recording, and (2) he breached that duty
when the recording was destroyed.
We review the denial of leave to amend a pleading for an abuse of
discretion. Cockrell v. Sparks, 510 F.3d 1307, 1310 (11th Cir. 2007). After a
party has amended its pleading once as a matter of course, the party may amend its
pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or with the court’s leave.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). District courts may properly deny leave to amend when
14
Case: 12-14007 Date Filed: 12/09/2013 Page: 15 of 16
an amendment would be futile. Cockrell, 510 F.3d at 1310. “Leave to amend a
complaint is futile when the complaint as amended would still be properly
dismissed or be immediately subject to summary judgment for the defendant.” Id.
The magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Spaulding leave
to amend his complaint because such an amendment would have been futile. See
id. Although the magistrate judge did not specifically deny Spaulding’s motion on
the basis of its futility, we may affirm on any grounds supported by the record.
Bircoll v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 480 F.3d 1072, 1088 n.21 (11th Cir. 2007).
Spaulding proposed to add a Bivens 6 claim against Captain Mera, cognizable only
against federal officers and not state officers such as Captain Mera, for his failure
as supervisor to ensure the preservation of video evidence. See Wilson v.
Blankenship, 163 F.3d 1284, 1288 (11th Cir. 1998) (“[A] Bivens case challenges
the constitutionality of federal officials’ conduct, while § 1983 challenges the
constitutionality of state officials’ conduct.”). However, even if we liberally
construe this as a § 1983 claim, it is still futile because Spaulding did not claim that
Captain Mera personally participated in the alleged constitutional violation or that
he was somehow causally connected to the alleged constitutional violation. See
Keating v. City of Miami, 598 F.3d 753, 762 (11th Cir. 2010) (providing that
6
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388,
91 S. Ct. 1999 (1971).
15
Case: 12-14007 Date Filed: 12/09/2013 Page: 16 of 16
§ 1983 claims may not be brought against supervisory officials on the basis of
theories of vicarious liability or respondeat superior). 7
In connection with Spaulding’s claim against Captain Mera, Spaulding also
appeals the denial of his motion for a transcript of a status conference hearing. The
magistrate judge found that there was no transcript of that hearing, and Spaulding
has not shown otherwise, such that the denial was proper. Moreover, despite
Spaulding’s repeated, conclusory allegations to the contrary, there is no evidence
that Defendants intentionally destroyed the videotape to conceal evidence.
For all the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary
judgment in favor of Defendants.
AFFIRMED.
7
In the district court, Spaulding conceded that the only claims in his amended complaint
against Captain Mera were based on Captain Mera’s supervisory liability, which may not be
brought under § 1983. Those claims against Captain Mera are not at issue on appeal.
16