Learonardo Truss v. Warden
684 F. App'x 794
11th Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiff Learonardo Truss, a pro se state prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state negligence law alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference at Elmore Correctional Facility.
- Two principal claims on appeal: (1) exposure to a TB outbreak in an overcrowded dormitory; (2) use of unsanitary hair clippers by inmate barbers causing risk of infection.
- The prison defendants (warden(s) and captain) conceded awareness of TB and overcrowding but introduced written policies and evidence showing TB screening, contact investigations, isolation of active TB cases, and INH prophylaxis for latent TB cases.
- For the barbering claim, defendants presented barbershop guidelines, daily disinfection practices, use of disinfectants, weekly inspections, and barber training; inmate affidavits contested actual compliance but did not show staff knowledge.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants; Truss appealed arguing triable issues of fact as to subjective deliberate indifference and objective substantial risk. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exposure to TB in an overcrowded dorm created a triable Eighth Amendment claim | Truss: overcrowding and reported TB outbreak, plus affidavits, show defendants disregarded substantial risk | Defs: had reasonable TB policies and followed procedures (screening, testing, contact tracing, isolation, INH) so no subjective disregard | Held for defendants — no evidence they disregarded risks or provided care shocking to conscience |
| Whether use of unsanitary hair clippers created a triable Eighth Amendment claim | Truss: unsanitary clippers risk infection/spread of disease; inmate affidavits say clippers not sanitized | Defs: had guidelines, disinfectants, daily cleaning, inspections, and training; no evidence defendants knew of noncompliance or of actual harm | Held for defendants — plaintiff failed to show substantial risk or defendants' subjective knowledge |
| Whether other pleaded claims survive (negligence; generic Eighth claims about medication delivery and lack of on-site care) | Truss: raised various ancillary Eighth and negligence claims below | Defs: argued summary judgment appropriate | Held: Truss abandoned these issues on appeal by not briefing them, so they are not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Harrison v. Culliver, 746 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2014) (summary-judgment standard and de novo review)
- Farrow v. West, 320 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2003) (deliberate indifference elements and subjective knowledge requirement)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates Eighth Amendment)
- Hale v. Tallapoosa Cty., 50 F.3d 1579 (11th Cir. 1995) (elements for deliberate-indifference claim)
- Lane v. Philbin, 835 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2016) (objective standard for substantial risk of serious harm)
- Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993) (existence of reasonable policies can negate deliberate indifference)
- Rogers v. Evans, 792 F.2d 1052 (11th Cir. 1986) (medical care so grossly inadequate as to shock the conscience supports Eighth Amendment claim)
- Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2004) (issues not briefed on appeal are abandoned)