Draper Woodyard v. David Leggett

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Draper Frank Woodyard. Decision: Affirmed in part, Reversed in part, and Remanded. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 15-14929

Date Filed: 06/30/2017

Page: 1 of 15

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-14929
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-00566-WS-N

DRAPER FRANK WOODYARD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants,

DAVID LEGGETT,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
________________________
(June 30, 2017)

Case: 15-14929

Date Filed: 06/30/2017

Page: 2 of 15

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Draper Woodyard, an inmate in the Alabama prison system, alleges that
David Leggett, a corrections officer at the prison where he was incarcerated, acted
with deliberate indifference by failing both to prevent another inmate from
assaulting him and to respond appropriately to that assault. The district court
granted summary judgment to Leggett. Woodyard appeals.
I.
“We relate the facts — as we must at this stage of the litigation — in the
light most favorable to” Woodyard. Goodman v. Kimbrough, 718 F.3d 1325, 1329
(11th Cir. 2013).
A.
In July 2012 Woodyard approached Leggett, who was on duty in
Woodyard’s prison dormitory, to report that another inmate, Lawrence Anderson,
had threatened him. According to Woodyard’s deposition, Anderson wanted
Woodyard to give him some goods, which pass for money in prison. Woodyard
refused, at which point Anderson became angry, they shoved each other, and
Anderson threatened to stab Woodyard that night. It is unclear whether Woodyard
told Leggett that Anderson shoved him or the timeframe for the planned attack.
Leggett brushed off the threat, saying that it was probably just the alcohol
2

Case: 15-14929

Date Filed: 06/30/2017

Page: 3 of 15

talking.1 Woodyard asked for permission to go and report the threat to the shift
supervisor, but Leggett refused to allow him to do so, saying that Woodyard had to
“wait until the next movement call.” Leggett also refused to call a supervisor.
Woodyard returned to his bed and, because his medication made him drowsy, fell
asleep.2
Not long afterwards, Anderson walked to Woodyard’s bed and began
stabbing Woodyard while he was asleep.3 Woodyard woke up and the two men
began to struggle, tumbling over several beds. Woodyard called out to Leggett for
help. He was stabbed repeatedly in the hands, chest, and fingers.
According to Woodyard’s deposition, the assault seemed to last around five
minutes and he called out to Leggett for help, but received no immediate

1

As the district court noted: “Left unexplained is why the prison so generously tolerated
known, repetitive prisoner drunkenness, but that is not an issue raised by the plaintiff.”
2

Another inmate testified in a deposition that Woodyard did not go to sleep, but instead
warily watched Anderson until the assault began. Which version of events is more beneficial to
Woodyard’s case is difficult to say, but we credit Woodyard’s version.
3

With his opposition to the defendants’ first motion for summary judgment, Woodyard
submitted an affidavit from Anderson. In that affidavit, Anderson claimed that just before the
assault he walked right by Leggett with a knife visible and that “the officer saw the knife and
looked the other way.” Although this affidavit is hearsay and would not be admissible for the
truth of its contents at trial, see Fed. R. Evid. 802, we would normally consider it at the summary
judgment stage because it would indicate what the affiant would testify to at trial, see Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(c)(2) & (4).
In this case, however, Anderson testified at his later deposition that his affidavit was
untrue and that Leggett did not see the knife before the assault. As a result, our usual assumption
that an affidavit forecasts the affiant’s trial testimony and for that reason may be considered at
the summary judgment stage does not hold. Without that assumption, the affidavit is only
inadmissible hearsay. And “[e]vidence inadmissible at trial cannot be used to avoid summary
judgment.” Lebron v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 772 F.3d 1353, 1360 (2014).
3

Case: 15-14929

Date Filed: 06/30/2017

Page: 4 of 15

assistance. Leggett testified during his deposition that he called for backup upon
noticing the fight and backup arrived within ten to fifteen seconds of his call for
assistance.
B.
Woodyard, acting pro se, filed a lawsuit against Leggett and several other
defendants, claiming that his rights had been violated in a number of ways.
Among the claims he raised was one that Leggett had acted with deliberate
indifference in violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by failing
to (1) prevent Anderson from assaulting him and (2) adequately protect him once
the assault began.
The defendants filed an answer and special report, to which Woodyard
responded. The magistrate judge construed those filings as a motion for summary
judgment and a response in opposition. She recommended that the district court
grant the motion for summary judgment as to all of Woodyard’s claims except his
deliberate indifference claims against Leggett in his individual capacity. The
district court adopted that recommendation and, in response to a request from
Woodyard, appointed counsel to represent Woodyard on his deliberate indifference
claims against Leggett. 4

4

In his briefs to this Court, Woodyard does not challenge the district court’s decision to
grant summary judgment to the defendants on all of his other claims. As a result, he has
abandoned any argument about those claims. United States v. Willis, 649 F.3d 1248, 1254 (11th
4

Case: 15-14929

Date Filed: 06/30/2017

Page: 5 of 15

After additional discovery was taken, Leggett again moved for summary
judgment. Woodyard, now represented by counsel, filed a brief in opposition that
addressed only his claim that Leggett failed to prevent the assault — omitting any
discussion of Woodyard’s allegation that Leggett failed to adequately protect him
once the assault began. The district court granted summary judgment to Leggett
on both claims. It did not consider any of the arguments Woodyard made in his
original pro se brief in opposition to the first motion for summary judgment or the
evidence he submitted in support of that opposition. Because it concluded that no
constitutional violation occurred, the district court did not address whether Leggett
was entitled to qualified immunity.
Woodyard, once again proceeding pro se, appeals.
II.
We review de novo a district court’s decision to grant a motion for summary
judgment, Harrison v. Culliver, 746 F.3d 1288, 1297 (11th Cir. 2014), viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and drawing all
reasonable inferences in his favor, Caldwell v. Warden, FCI Talladega, 748 F.3d
1090, 1098 (11th Cir. 2014). Summary judgment is only “appropriate where there
is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to

Cir. 2011) (“A party seeking to raise a claim or issue on appeal must plainly and prominently so
indicate . . . . Where a party fails to abide by this simple requirement, he has waived his right to
have the court consider that argument.”) (quotation marks omitted).
5

Case: 15-14929

Date Filed: 06/30/2017

Page: 6 of 15

judgment as a matter of law.” Hinkle v. Midland Credit Mgmt., 827 F.3d 1295,
1300 (11th Cir. 2016).
III.
Leggett asserts — as an alternative ground for affirming the district court’s
grant of summary judgment on the merits of Woodyard’s claims — that he is
entitled to qualified immunity. An officer is entitled to qualified immunity from
liability for actions taken in the course of his discretionary functions unless a
plaintiff can show (1) that the officer violated the plaintiff’s constitutional or
statutory rights and (2) that those rights were “clearly established” at the time of
the violation. Caldwell, 748 F.3d at 1098. Woodyard does not argue that Leggett
was acting outside his discretionary functions as a corrections officer. So the
burden shifts to Woodyard to demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether Leggett is entitled to qualified immunity. Id.
Because Woodyard must establish a genuine issue of material fact as to
whether Leggett violated his constitutional rights before he can possibly overcome
the officer’s qualified immunity defense, we address the district court’s conclusion
that Woodyard’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were not violated.
A.
We first consider Woodyard’s claim that Leggett acted with deliberate
indifference in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by failing to
6

Case: 15-14929

Date Filed: 06/30/2017

Page: 7 of 15

prevent Anderson from assaulting Woodyard after being made aware of
Anderson’s threat. The district court concluded that Woodyard did not present
sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether his
constitutional rights were violated. But we need not decide whether it was correct,
because “[w]e may affirm the district court’s judgment on any ground that appears
in the record, whether or not that ground was relied upon or even considered by the
court below.” Thomas v. Cooper Lighting, Inc., 506 F.3d 1361, 1364 (11th Cir.
2007). In this case, even if Leggett’s failure to prevent Anderson from assaulting
Woodyard did amount to a constitutional violation, that violation was not clearly
established by binding Supreme Court, Eleventh Circuit, or Alabama Supreme
Court precedent at the time Woodyard was assaulted.
A right is clearly established if “at the time of the incident, the preexisting
law dictates, that is, truly compel[s], the conclusion for all reasonable, similarly
situated public officials that what [the officer] was doing violated [the plaintiff’s]
federal rights in the circumstances.” Marsh v. Butler Cty., 268 F.3d 1014, 1030–
31 (11th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (quotation marks omitted) (first alteration in
original). Binding precedent has undoubtedly established that prison officials must
take reasonable steps “to protect prisoners from violence inflicted upon them by
other prisoners.” Harrison, 746 F.3d at 1298.
In all but the most obvious cases, however, such a “highly general” standard
7

Case: 15-14929

Date Filed: 06/30/2017

Page: 8 of 15

is not enough to clearly establish the unconstitutionality of an officials’ conduct.
See Marsh, 268 F.3d at 1031–32 & n.9. Instead, a plaintiff must be able to point to
a binding, “materially similar” precedent recognizing the violation. Id. at 1032.
We have explained that:
For qualified immunity purposes, a preexisting precedent is materially
similar to the circumstances facing an official when the specific
circumstances facing the official are enough like the facts in the
precedent that no reasonable, similarly-situated official could believe
that the factual differences between the precedent and the
circumstances facing the official might make a difference to the
conclusion about whether the official’s conduct was lawful or
unlawful.
Id. That is not the case here.
The plaintiff in a deliberate indifference case must show (1) that “a
substantial risk of serious harm” existed, (2) that the defendant acted with
“deliberate indifference” to that risk, and (3) a causal connection between that
indifference and his injury. Caldwell, 748 F.3d at 1100. An official acts with
deliberate indifference to a risk where he (1) had subjective knowledge of the risk,
(2) disregarded it, and (3) did so “by conduct that is more than gross negligence.”
Goodman, 718 F.3d at 1332.
Some of our sister circuits’ decisions suggest that Woodyard’s report to
Leggett might be enough to show that Leggett had subjective knowledge of the risk
Woodyard faced. See, e.g., Gevas v. McLughlin, 798 F.3d 475, 481 (7th Cir.
2015) (“[A] complaint that identifies a specific, credible, and imminent risk of
8

Case: 15-14929

Date Filed: 06/30/2017

Page: 9 of 15

serious harm and identifies the prospective assailant typically will support an
inference that the official to whom the complaint was communicated had actual
knowledge of the risk.”). But in determining whether a particular constitutional
violation is clearly established, we look to our own binding precedent, the binding
precedent of the Supreme Court, and the binding precedent of the “highest court in
the state where the action is filed.” Merricks v. Adkisson, 785 F.3d 553, 560 (11th
Cir. 2015). And no decision from the United States Supreme Court, this Court, or
the Alabama Supreme Court clearly established that the information available to
Leggett was sufficient to apprise him of the risk Woodyard faced and require him
to take preventative action.
According to his deposition testimony, Woodyard told Leggett before the
assault that Anderson was drunk, had threatened to stab him, and went “nuttio”
when Woodyard declined to provide him with more goods. Woodyard told the
officer that he believed Anderson was “sincere” and that he “need[ed] to go [to the
supervisor’s office] now.” In his sworn complaint, Woodyard alleges he also said
that he feared life-threatening violence. The record indicates that Anderson and
Woodyard had no history of altercations. And one inmate testified in a deposition
that, on the whole, the prisoners in the dorm got along fairly well.
Our decision in Rodriguez v. Secretary for the Department of Corrections,
508 F.3d 611 (11th Cir. 2007), has some factual similarities to this case. There an
9

Case: 15-14929

Date Filed: 06/30/2017

Page: 10 of 15

inmate told several guards that he had been threatened by his former gang and that
he feared they would assault him when he was released into the general population.
Id. at 614–616. He was released anyway and a few hours later a gang enforcer
stabbed him. Id. at 616. We held that — because the inmate had relayed the
threats to several prison officials — the inmate had shown that those officials had
subjective knowledge of the risk of assault he faced. Id. at 618–22.
In Rodriguez the officers were aware of both the threats made against the
inmate and the gang-related nature of those threats. The assault in this case was
not gang-related. All Leggett was aware of was Anderson’s threats, Anderson’s
drunkenness, and the fact that Anderson and Woodyard had an argument a few
minutes before Woodyard spoke to Leggett. A reasonable officer could conclude
that, because of the violence associated with gangs and the lack of gang
involvement in the dispute between Anderson and Leggett, this situation was
different from the one the officers in Rodriguez faced. A gang’s threat to kill
someone for leaving the gang (or really for almost any other reason) could
reasonably be considered more credible than a drunk inmate’s threat to kill
someone because they didn’t hand over “goods.” That distinction is enough to
prevent Rodriguez from clearly establishing that Leggett’s conduct was
unconstitutional. See Marsh, 268 F.3d at 1032. Even if Leggett was aware that
Anderson had said he would stab Woodyard “that night” and had shoved him, we
10

Case: 15-14929

Date Filed: 06/30/2017

Page: 11 of 15

are not persuaded that Rodriguez clearly established that Leggett’s response to the
situation amounted to deliberate indifference.
As the Eighth Circuit has recognized, “threats between inmates are common
and do not, under all circumstances, serve to impute actual knowledge of a
substantial risk of harm.” Prater v. Dahm, 89 F.3d 538, 542 (8th Cir. 1996). Until
binding precedent clarifies the circumstances in which threats between inmates are
sufficient to allow the jury to impute knowledge of such risks to an officer, we
cannot say that in the circumstances of this case a refusal to act on a threat (or
threats accompanied by drunkenness) amounted to a clearly established
constitutional violation. For those reasons, the district court did not err by granting
summary judgment to Leggett on Woodyard’s failure to prevent claim.
B.
We next consider Woodyard’s claim that Leggett acted with deliberate
indifference when he failed to immediately intervene to stop Anderson from
assaulting Woodyard. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the district
court erred when it granted summary judgment to Leggett on this claim.
1.
The district court believed that Woodyard had failed to establish a genuine
issue of material fact as to whether Leggett had violated his constitutional rights by
failing to adequately respond to Anderson’s assault. Admittedly, Woodyard did
11

Case: 15-14929

Date Filed: 06/30/2017

Page: 12 of 15

not address this claim in his response to Leggett’s second motion for summary
judgment. But the district court still considered and addressed the claim and it is
raised in Woodyard’s brief on appeal, so we will also address it.
As we have explained, to survive summary judgment on his failure to protect
claim, Woodyard bears the burden of showing (1) that “a substantial risk of serious
harm” existed, (2) that Leggett acted with “deliberate indifference” to that risk, and
(3) a causal connection between that indifference and his injury. Caldwell, 748
F.3d at 1100. We think that Woodyard has established a genuine issue of material
fact about this claim.
As to the first element, a substantial risk of serious harm existed once the
assault began: Woodyard was being assaulted with a knife by a fellow inmate.
The second element, deliberate indifference, is established only where a plaintiff
demonstrates that the defendant (1) had subjective knowledge of the risk,
(2) disregarded it, and (3) did so “by conduct that is more than gross negligence.”
Goodman, 718 F.3d at 1332. Woodyard has created a genuine issue of material
fact as to whether he has met that standard and established the second element.
First, a jury could conclude that Leggett was subjectively aware of the risk
Woodyard faced. The depositions before the district court established that Leggett
was between seven and twenty feet from the fight when it started, that Woodyard
called for help, that there was a lot of blood, and that the men “tussled” over
12

Case: 15-14929

Date Filed: 06/30/2017

Page: 13 of 15

several beds. That would presumably have drawn Leggett’s attention. Indeed,
Leggett himself testified in his deposition that he heard a yell and saw inmates
tumble over a bed, which is consistent with Woodyard’s version of events.
Likewise, a jury could conclude that Leggett disregarded that risk. Although
the summary judgment record does not reveal exactly how long it took him to
notice the assault once it began, reasonable jurors could conclude that — given his
proximity to the fight, the amount of blood spilled, the yelling, and the commotion
caused by the men tumbling over beds — Leggett noticed the fight soon after it
began. Based on Woodyard’s deposition testimony that the assault lasted around
five minutes and Leggett’s deposition testimony that help arrived within ten to
fifteen seconds of his eventual call for assistance, a jury could also infer that
Leggett did not immediately call for backup. Instead, reasonable jurors could infer
that for some time Leggett merely watched the assault happen or ignored it.5
And jurors could also reasonably conclude that failing to take immediate
action while an inmate was being assaulted amounted to more than gross
negligence. Though Leggett was not required to leap into the fray alone to save
Woodyard, he could have called for assistance right away instead of waiting for
5

Given the contradictory evidence on several of these points in the record, reasonable
jurors might also reach a different conclusion at trial, but at this point we are required to draw all
inferences in Woodyard’s favor. See Swint v. City of Wadley, 51 F.3d 988, 992 (11th Cir. 1995)
(“[W]hat we state as ‘facts’ in this opinion for the purposes of reviewing the rulings on the
summary judgment motions may not be the actual facts. They are, however, the facts for
present purposes . . . .”).
13

Case: 15-14929

Date Filed: 06/30/2017

Page: 14 of 15

five minutes to do so.
Finally, Leggett’s alleged delay in acting allowed Anderson’s assault to
continue unabated, satisfying the causation element of a deliberate indifference
claim. All of those facts, taken together, are sufficient to create a genuine dispute
of material fact as to whether Leggett violated Woodyard’s constitutional rights.
2.
Because we conclude that a reasonable jury could find that Leggett violated
Woodyard’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by failing to adequately act
once Anderson began his assault, we must determine whether prior case law
clearly established that Leggett’s conduct was unconstitutional. It did.
As we have already said, our precedents have made clear, repeatedly, that
the Constitution requires that prison officials take reasonable measures to protect
the safety of the inmates. See, e.g., Harrison, 746 F.3d at 1298. Any reasonable
officer should have known that he could not, in keeping with that standard, delay
for five minutes taking any action while one inmate assaulted another one. See
United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 271, 117 S. Ct. 1219, 1227 (1997) (“[A]
general constitutional rule already identified in the decisional law may apply with
obvious clarity to the specific conduct in question.”) (quotation marks omitted).
For these reasons, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Woodyard,
Leggett is not entitled to summary judgment on Woodyard’s failure to protect
14

Case: 15-14929

Date Filed: 06/30/2017

Page: 15 of 15

claim.
IV.
The judgment of the district court as to Woodyard’s failure to prevent claim
is AFFIRMED. The judgment of the district court as to Woodyard’s failure to
protect claim is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED to the district court for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

15