Taylor v. Ward et al

Filing 59

ORDER denying 53 Defendant's Amended Motion for Summary Judgment; parties to comply by April 3, 2025. Signed by Senior Judge Brian J. Davis on 3/11/2025. (JLD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
TERRANCE T. TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:22-cv-900-BJD-MCR

W. WARD,
Defendant.
___________________________
ORDER
I.

Status

Plaintiff, an inmate of the Florida penal system, initiated this case by
filing a pro se Civil Rights Complaint (Doc. 1; Complaint). He is proceeding as
a pauper. See Order (Doc. 6). One Defendant remains: W. Ward.1
Before the Court is Defendant’s Amended Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 53; Motion). Defendant submitted several exhibits in support
of his Motion. See Doc. 53-2 (hospital records); Doc. 53-3 (internal movements
- job assignments); Doc. 53-4 (Inspector General report); Doc. 53-5 (incident
report); Doc. 53-6 (Plaintiff’s deposition); Doc. 54 (CD of audio interview of

1 The Court dismissed without prejudice all claims against Defendant John Doe. See

Order (Doc. 52).

Plaintiff); Doc. 55 (CD of PREA interview of Plaintiff). The Court advised
Plaintiff of the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and afforded
him an opportunity to file a response. See Order (Doc. 7). Plaintiff filed a sworn
Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 58; Response),
along with some of Defendant’s discovery responses (Docs. 58-2 to 58-3) and a
Declaration (Doc. 58-4). The Motion is ripe for review.
II.

Plaintiff’s Allegations

According to Plaintiff, in the afternoon of August 17, 2020, at Hamilton
Correctional Institution, he “was assaulted and left injured by fellow
inmates,” and Defendant Ward “wit[]nessed [Plaintiff] in a state of duress and
refused to give [him] medical assistance.” Complaint at 5. Specifically,
Plaintiff contends that around 3:00pm, he “was ordered to deliver the
confinement laundry cart to G[] dorm Wing #2.” Doc. 1-1 at 2. After delivering
the laundry, Plaintiff asked Defendant for permission to enter Wing #3, which
Defendant granted. Id. at 2-3. Plaintiff entered inmate Jeremy Owusu’s cell,
and then inmate Floyd Peterson also entered the cell. Id. at 3. “Plaintiff and
Peterson exchanged words,” and then the two exited Owusu’s cell and
proceeded to cell G3-207. Id. “While inside of G3-207 Plaintiff was[] assaulted
and stabbed [in the left arm and in the abdomen] with a prison made weapon.”
Id. “The wounds to the left arm included two wounds, both wounds caused
2

massive bleeding and needed stitches, [and] these wounds caused large
amounts of bleeding and pain and discomfort.” Id. The abdominal wound
required surgery. Id. at 4. Along with the stab wounds and resulting injuries,
Plaintiff alleges that he suffered a fractured jaw, swollen face, and three
herniated discs in his lower back. Id. at 3-4. He also “suffered excessive pain
and discomfort.” Id. at 4.
After Plaintiff was assaulted, around 3:40pm, Defendant entered Wing
#3 for a security check. Id. Defendant “visually witnessed Plaintiff in a state
of distress lying on the floor [of cell G3-207] with apparent stab wounds and
bleeding.” Id. Defendant stated, “Y’all need to clean this mess up!” Id.; see
Doc. 53-6 at 36-37, 39 (Plaintiff testifying at deposition that after he was
stabbed, he walked out of Peterson’s cell holding an ace bandage on his
stomach, but Peterson pulled him back in when Defendant was approaching
the cell; and Defendant “seen all the blood, he seen [Plaintiff] and that’s when
he looked in there and he said y’all need to clean this sh*t up”). “At no time
did [Defendant] attempt to assist Plaintiff and get him medical attention for
his appearant [sic] needs.” Doc. 1-1 at 4.
At approximately 4:00pm, officials announced “‘[r]ecall’ for count.” Id.
at 5. Defendant “sent his orderly Michael Jackson into G3 to get Plaintiff.” Id.
Plaintiff told inmate Jackson that he could not walk, so Jackson went back to
3

Defendant and relayed the message. Id. Defendant ordered Jackson to assist
Plaintiff out of the wing and into the barbershop. Id.; see Doc. 53-6 at 39
(Plaintiff testifying at deposition that inmate Jackson entered the cell and
told Plaintiff he needed to leave because officials announced “recall”; Plaintiff
responded he could not walk, so Jackson “left and he went out there and he
says something to Sarge and he come back in and he say Sarge told me to
come get you”). Jackson placed Plaintiff on the floor inside the inmate
barbershop. Doc. 1-1 at 5. During his deposition, Plaintiff testified that when
he laid on the barbershop floor, “blood started shooting out of [his] stomach,”
but stopped once he curled into the fetal position. Doc. 53-6 at 40.
During formal count procedures,2 Defendant “witnessed Plaintiff lying
on the floor [of the barbershop] with apparent stab wounds and covered in
blood,” but he failed to assist Plaintiff or get him medical attention. Doc. 1-1
at 6. After the formal count was concluded, Defendant ordered Plaintiff to “get
up,” but when Plaintiff advised that he could not stand, Defendant retrieved
“the laundry cart and ordered Plaintiff to use it to assist in standing.” Id.; see
Doc. 53-6 at 32 (Plaintiff testifying at his deposition that Defendant saw him
in the barbershop, “kicked” him, and told Plaintiff “to get the f*ck out of his

2 Count procedures take approximately 45 minutes to one hour. See Doc. 53-6 at 40.

4

dorm and don’t never come back”). Defendant then personally “escorted
Plaintiff to the walkway to G-F dorm and unlocked the gate with his personal
key.” Doc. 1-1 at 6. Plaintiff asked Defendant “about medical,” but Defendant
stated, “Stay the f*ck out of my dorm.” Id.
“Plaintiff proceeded to his assigned cell” in F dorm, and when other
inmates saw Plaintiff, they informed the F dorm sergeant. Id. at 7. Around
6:00pm, Sergeant Perry entered Plaintiff’s cell and immediately informed
medical staff of his condition. Id. Plaintiff was then transferred to UF Health
in Gainesville where he “underwent surgeries.” Id. At his deposition, Plaintiff
estimated that he was stabbed between 3:30pm and 4:00pm, and he was seen
by medical staff between 6:30pm and 7:00pm. Doc. 53-6 at 55-56.3
Plaintiff lists his injuries as a fractured jaw, swollen head, three stab
wounds, three herniated discs in his lower back, and mental injuries.
Complaint at 5. He alleges that he was dependent on a cane for six months,
he experienced extended pain for over one year, and he suffers from PTSD
and depression. Doc. 1-1 at 7. He states that he takes “mental health meds
for depression.” Id. As relief, Plaintiff requests monetary damages and he

3 The prison medical records reflect that Plaintiff was examined at 6:40pm. See Doc.

53-4 at 7.

5

“seek[s] to make it a law for a correctional officer to witness such a[n] act and
not react.”4 Complaint at 5.
III.

Summary Judgment Standard

Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[t]he court shall
grant summary judgment 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). An issue is genuine when the evidence
is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict in favor of the
nonmovant. Mize v. Jefferson City Bd. of Educ., 93 F.3d 739, 742 (11th Cir.
1996) (quoting Hairston v. Gainesville Sun Publ’g Co., 9 F.3d 913, 919 (11th
Cir. 1993)). “[A] mere scintilla of evidence in support of the non-moving
party’s position is insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment.”
Kesinger ex rel. Estate of Kesinger v. Herrington, 381 F.3d 1243, 1247 (11th
Cir. 2004) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986)).

The Court previously dismissed Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Ward for
monetary damages in his official capacity. See Order (Doc. 35). Additionally,
regarding Plaintiff’s request to “make . . . a law,” such relief is not available in a civil
rights case. Indeed, the Constitution delegates law-making authority to Congress, not
to the judiciary. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 587-88
(1952). Thus, Plaintiff’s request to “make . . . a law” is dismissed.
4

6

The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of
demonstrating to the court, by reference to the record, that there are no
genuine issues of material fact to be determined at trial. See Clark v. Coats &
Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir. 1991). The record to be considered on
a motion for summary judgment may include “depositions, documents,
electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations
(including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions,
interrogatory answers, or other materials.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A).
When the moving party has discharged its burden, the non-moving
party must point to evidence in the record to demonstrate a genuine dispute
of material fact. Id. Substantive law determines the materiality of facts, and
“[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the
governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.”
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. In determining whether summary judgment is
appropriate, a court “must view all evidence and make all reasonable
inferences in favor of the party opposing [the motion].” Haves v. City of Miami,
52 F.3d 918, 921 (11th Cir. 1995) (citing Dibrell Bros. Int’l, S.A. v. Banca
Nazionale Del Lavoro, 38 F.3d 1571, 1578 (11th Cir. 1994)). Additionally, a
court should accept as true a pro se plaintiff’s assertions in his verified

7

complaint and affidavit attached to his response. See Sears v. Roberts, 922
F.3d 1199, 1206 (11th Cir. 2019).
IV.

Analysis of Defendant’s Motion

Defendant argues that he is entitled to summary judgment because
Plaintiff fails to establish an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim
and he is entitled to qualified immunity. See Motion at 11-22. The Court
addresses each argument in turn.
A. Deliberate Indifference
Deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical need constitutes
the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain, proscribed by the Eighth
Amendment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). Importantly, however,
not every claim by a prisoner that he has not received adequate medical
treatment states a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 105.
“To prevail on a claim of deliberate indifference, [a] plaintiff[] ‘must
satisfy both an objective and a subjective inquiry,’ Farrow v. West, 320 F.3d
1235, 1243 (11th Cir. 2003), and must establish a ‘necessary causal link’
between the challenged conduct and [his] injuries, Marbury v. Warden, 936
F.3d 1227, 1233 (11th Cir. 2019).” Stalley v. Cumbie, 124 F.4th 1273, 1283
(11th Cir. 2024). “The objective inquiry turns on whether the plaintiff
experienced an ‘objectively serious medical need.’” Id. (quoting Farrow, 320
8

F.3d at 1243). A serious medical need is one that “has been diagnosed by a
physician as mandating treatment or one that is so obvious that even a lay
person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention—that, if
left unattended, poses a substantial risk of serious harm.” Keohane v. Fla. Dep’t
of Corr. Sec’y, 952 F.3d 1257, 1266 (11th Cir. 2020) (quotations omitted).
The subjective inquiry, on the other hand, turns
on whether the “prison official acted with an attitude
of ‘deliberate indifference’ to [the] serious medical
need.” Farrow, 320 F.3d at 1243. A prison official acted
with deliberate indifference if he (1) had subjective
knowledge of a risk of serious harm, (2) disregarded
that risk, and (3) engaged in conduct that amounts to
subjective recklessness. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511
U.S. 825, 836-40 (1994). As [the Eleventh Circuit]
recently reiterated, this third prong will be satisfied
only if the plaintiff shows “that the defendant actually
knew that his conduct—his own acts or omissions—
put the plaintiff at substantial risk of serious harm.”
Wade v. McDade, 106 F.4th 1251, 1253 (11th Cir.
2024) (en banc). Even when a defendant has subjective
knowledge of a serious risk, “a defendant who
‘responds reasonably’ to [such] a risk . . . ‘cannot be
found liable’ under the Eighth Amendment.” Id. at
1255 (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 845).
Stalley, 124 F.4th at 1283-84 (internal citations modified). Importantly,
medical treatment gives rise to a constitutional violation “only when it is so
grossly incompetent, inadequate, or excessive as to shock the conscience or to
be intolerable to fundamental fairness.” Hoffer v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 973
F.3d 1263, 1271 (11th Cir. 2020) (quotations omitted). “As applied in the prison
9

context, the deliberate-indifference standard sets an appropriately high bar.”
Swain v. Junior, 961 F.3d 1276, 1285 (11th Cir 2020).
Here, Defendant acknowledges that Plaintiff had a serious medical need.
See Motion at 12. But Defendant contends that Plaintiff cannot show that
Defendant acted with deliberate indifference to that need. See id. at 12-15.
Specifically, Defendant argues that “Plaintiff has given several versions of
what happened on the day that he was stabbed,” and “the differences presented
by the Plaintiff create a transparent sham.” Id. at 12. According to Defendant,
“Plaintiff has only shown that he attempted to conceal his injury and due to
his changing versions of events cannot show that [Defendant] knew that
Plaintiff was in serious need of medical care.” Id. at 15.
The Court declines to find that Plaintiff’s claim is a “sham” based on
Plaintiff’s varying versions of what occurred. Indeed,
[v]ariations in a witness’s testimony and any failure of
memory throughout the course of discovery create an
issue of credibility as to which part of the testimony
should be given the greatest weight if credited at all.
Issues concerning the credibility of witnesses and
weight of the evidence are questions of fact which
require resolution by the trier of fact. An affidavit may
only be disregarded as a sham “when a party has given
clear answers to unambiguous questions which negate
the existence of any genuine issue of material fact . . .
[and that party attempts] thereafter [to] create such

10

an issue with an affidavit that merely contradicts,
without explanation, previously given clear testimony.
Tippens v. Celotex Corp., 805 F.2d 949, 954 (11th Cir. 1986) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). Upon review of the record, the Court finds that
the variations in Plaintiff’s version of events create an issue of credibility that
is appropriately resolved by the trier of fact.
Defendant also argues that Plaintiff cannot establish causation. See
Motion at 15-18. Defendant contends that “Plaintiff fails to provide medical
information that there is a casual link between the [D]efendant’s indifference
and the injuries.” Motion at 15. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff readily
acknowledges that he was assaulted by another inmate who caused his
injuries, and Plaintiff fails “to show that his injuries were exacerbated by the
two-hour delay in treatment.” Id. at 18.
In his Response, Plaintiff avers that due to Defendant’s indifference, he
“was made to endure the pain and agony of delay.” Response at 2. Plaintiff
concludes that he has met the causation element. See id. at 4.
“To survive summary judgment in a case alleging deliberate indifference,
a plaintiff must produce sufficient evidence of . . . causation.” See Goodman v.
Kimbrough, 718 F.3d 1325, 1331 (11th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted). According to Plaintiff, Defendant saw him in two
11

separate locations, both times while Plaintiff was in a state of distress, “with
apparent stab wounds,” and actively bleeding and/or covered in blood.
Defendant failed to seek medical attention for Plaintiff either time. Defendant
then kicked Plaintiff while Plaintiff was on the floor of the barbershop and
ordered him to get up. When Plaintiff advised that he could not stand,
Defendant retrieved a laundry cart for Plaintiff to use as an assistive device
and escorted Plaintiff out of the dorm.
“Even where medical care is ultimately provided, a prison official may
nonetheless act with deliberate indifference by delaying the treatment of
serious medical needs, even for a period of hours, though the reason for the
delay and the nature of the medical need is relevant in determining what type
of delay is constitutionally intolerable.” McElligott v. Foley, 182 F.3d 1248,
1255 (11th Cir. 1999); see Harris v. Coweta Cnty., 21 F.3d 388, 393-94 (11th
Cir. 1994) (“The tolerable length of delay in providing medical attention
depends on the nature of the medical need and the reason for the delay.”).
Indeed, the Eleventh Circuit has recognized that when an inmate is suffering
a serious and painful injury, such as a broken bone, “deliberately indifferent
delay, no matter how brief, [may] render defendants liable as if they had
inflicted the pain themselves.” Brown v. Hughes, 894 F.2d 1533, 1538 (11th
Cir. 1990). “Cases stating a constitutional claim for immediate or emergency
12

medical attention have concerned medical needs that are obvious even to a
layperson because they involve life-threatening conditions or situations where
it is apparent that delay would detrimentally exacerbate the medical problem.”
Hill v. Dekalb Reg’l Youth Det. Ctr., 40 F.3d 1176, 1187 (11th Cir. 1994),
overruled on other grounds by Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002).
Here, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff,
the Court finds that genuine issues of material fact preclude entry of summary
judgment. Plaintiff obviously had a serious medical need, and if a jury believes
Plaintiff, the jury may conclude that Defendant unnecessarily delayed
Plaintiff’s receipt of medical care, which caused Plaintiff to continue to suffer
extreme pain and agony for hours. Thus, the Court denies Defendant’s Motion
in this regard.
B. Qualified Immunity
According to Defendant, “[t]here has simply been no evidence that
Plaintiff has established any actions taken by Defendant that violated an
established rule, statute, or that any action taken was contrary to
constitutional law.” Motion at 19.
Qualified
immunity
shields
government
employees from suit in their individual capacities for
discretionary actions they perform while going about
their duties. The thought behind the doctrine is the
“balanc[ing of] two important public interests: ‘the
13

need to hold public officials accountable when they
exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield
officials from harassment, distraction, and liability
when they perform their duties reasonably.’” Davis v.
Waller, 44 F.4th 1305, 1312 (11th Cir. 2022) (quoting
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009)). Under
the balance that qualified immunity strikes, “all but
the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly
violate the law” enjoy its protection. Malley v. Briggs,
475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986).
To determine whether qualified immunity
applies, [courts] engage in a burden-shifting analysis.
See Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188, 1194 (11th Cir.
2002). At the first step, the public-employee defendant
must show that he was acting within the scope of his
discretionary authority when he committed the
challenged acts. Once the defendant does that, the
burden shifts to the plaintiff, who must show that
qualified immunity is not appropriate. Id. To do that,
the plaintiff must establish two things: (1) the
defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) that
constitutional right was “clearly established” at the
time of the defendant’s actions. Powell v. Snook, 25
F.4th 912, 920 (11th Cir. 2022).
A plaintiff can show that a violation is “clearly
established” in any of three ways: (1) by relying on a
“materially similar decision of the Supreme Court, of
this Court, or of the supreme court of the state in
which the case arose;” (2) by invoking “‘a broader,
clearly established principle [that] control[s] the novel
facts’ of the case;” or (3) by persuading [the court] that
the officer’s acts “so obviously violate[ ] th[e]
[C]onstitution that prior case law is unnecessary.” Id.
(citation omitted). If a plaintiff proceeds under the first
or second method, he must point to a court decision.
Id. The second and third methods require “obvious
clarity.” Id. That is, the principle must be so apparent
14

that, even without a case with similar facts to light the
way, any competent officer would know that his
conduct crossed the line. See id. In sum, the “clearly
established” part of the qualified-immunity inquiry
asks whether the law when the officer engaged in the
challenged conduct gave him “‘fair warning’ that his
conduct was unlawful.” Id. at 921 (citation omitted).
Courts have “discretion to decide which of the
two prongs of [the] qualified-immunity analysis to
tackle first.” Ashcroft v. alKidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735
(2011). And since a plaintiff must show both prongs to
overcome qualified immunity, if the prong the court
considers first is not satisfied, the court need not
consider the other prong because the officer is entitled
to qualified immunity, regardless. Pearson, 555 U.S.
at 236.
Brooks v. Miller, 78 F.4th 1267, 1279-80 (11th Cir. 2023) (internal citations
modified).
Here, there is no dispute that during the incident, Defendant was acting
within the scope of his discretionary authority as an employee of the Florida
Department of Corrections. Thus, the burden shifts to Plaintiff to show that
Defendant violated his clearly established constitutional rights.
According to Plaintiff, “the law gave [Defendant] and others fair warning
that allowing a severely injured inmate to suffer” violates the Eighth
Amendment. Response at 5.5 He argues that “[n]o clearly established law was
5 Plaintiff also argues that Defendant and others tampered with the surveillance

footage, failed to write required reports, and deliberately omitted information from
reports to cover up Defendant’s actions. See Response at 5. Plaintiff seeks a spoliation
15

needed because of obvious clarity in the law and the evil nature wherewith
such acts were concealed and carried out.” Id. Thus, it appears Plaintiff
attempts to show that his serious medical needs were so obvious that any
reasonable officer would have known that failing to get Plaintiff medical
attention would violate the Constitution.
Considering the evidence presented in the light most favorable to
Plaintiff,6 the Court finds that Defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity.
There is no dispute that Plaintiff had a serious medical need. Once officials
finally learned he needed medical attention, Plaintiff was escorted to medical
via wheelchair, and prison medical staff noted that in addition to Plaintiff’s
abdominal stab wound, he had “muscle deep lacerations” on his left forearm
that required sutures, and “gross swelling” on the left side of his face with a
“possible broken jaw.” Doc. 53-4 at 7. Plaintiff described his forearm as having
“two long cuts” which caused his forearm to “bust[] wide open.” Doc. 53-6 at 74;
see id. at 76 (“I don’t know how the skin split wide open, how the skin split that

instruction at trial. See id. The Court declines to address a request for relief made in
a response to a motion.
6 See Hinson v. Bias, 927 F.3d 1103, 1118 (11th Cir. 2019) (“As we have noted, we

view all facts and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party
when reviewing a summary-judgment ruling. This means that we normally take as
true the testimony of the non-moving party and adopt his version of the facts in a
qualified-immunity case.”).
16

wide open, but they was able to bring it back together.”). Prison medical staff
immediately sent Plaintiff to an outside hospital where he underwent
emergency abdominal surgery and received stitches in his forearm. See Doc.
53-2 at 19.
After Plaintiff’s altercation with inmate Peterson, Defendant observed
Plaintiff over a period of time—in inmate Peterson’s cell, in the barbershop,
and while walking out of the dorm. During these encounters, Plaintiff contends
that he was covered in blood and in a state of distress. Plaintiff’s most serious
injury, the stab wound to his abdomen which required surgery, may not have
been readily visible, but apparently blood from his arm and/or stomach was
readily apparent. See Doc. 58-4 at 2 (averring that Defendant observed
Plaintiff “bleeding profusely” and “covered in blood”). When Defendant
escorted Plaintiff out of the dorm, Plaintiff could not walk unassisted. And
Defendant did not leave Plaintiff in the custody of other officers or send him to
medical. Instead, according to Plaintiff, Defendant escorted him out of the
dorm and left him outside of the gate so the only place Plaintiff could go was
into the dorm to which he was assigned. Defendant had nothing to do with
Plaintiff later obtaining the medical assistance he needed.
If a jury were to believe Plaintiff’s version of events, the jury could
reasonably find that Defendant violated Plaintiff’s clearly established
17

constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Taking
Plaintiff’s version of the facts as true, a reasonable officer in Defendant’s
position would have known that failing to obtain medical treatment for an
inmate covered in blood, with a “grossly” swollen face and open wound on his
forearm, and who cannot walk on his own would violate the Eighth
Amendment. And, at the time of the incident, the law was clearly established
that a defendant’s knowledge of the need for medical care and intentional
refusal to provide that care amounted to deliberate indifference. See, e.g.,
Harris, 21 F.3d at 393-94. Additionally, “it was clear [by 1994] that deliberate
indifference could be inferred from an unexplained delay in treating a known
or obvious serious medical condition.” Id. at 394; Brown, 894 F.2d at 1538
(“[A]n unexplained delay of hours in treating a serious injury states a prima
facie case of deliberate indifference.”). As such, at this stage of the proceeding
where the Court must adopt Plaintiff’s version of the facts, the Court finds that
“[t]he contours of unreasonable delay in providing treatment for serious
medical needs were defined with enough particularity to allow a reasonable
[officer in Defendant’s position] to understand whether his actions were
lawful.” Harris, 21 F.3d at 394. Therefore, Defendant’s request for qualified
immunity is due to be denied.
Accordingly, it is
18

ORDERED:
1.

Defendant’s Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 53) is

DENIED.
2.

Plaintiff’s request to “make . . . a law” is DISMISSED. This case

will proceed on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim
against Defendant in his individual capacity for monetary damages.
3.

The parties shall confer in good faith regarding settlement. The

parties are encouraged to maintain a realistic approach in making and
considering any settlement offers. If the parties resolve the case, they shall
expeditiously file a notice in compliance with Local Rule 3.09(a). If they are
unable to settle the case, no later than April 3, 2025, the parties shall file a
notice advising whether a settlement conference with a United States
Magistrate Judge may be beneficial.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 11th day of
March, 2025.

19

JAX-3 3/7
c:
Terrance T. Taylor, #L06850
Counsel of Record

20