David Windom v. Orange County

── David Windom v. Orange County ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: May 21, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-10795 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 05/21/2026 Page: 1 of 11 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-10795 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ DAVID WINDOM, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ORANGE COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 6:23-cv-00761-JA-UAM ____________________ Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: David Windom, formerly incarcerated at Orange County Jail (“OCJ”), sued Orange County, Florida (the “County” or “Or- ange County”) for deliberate indifference to his serious medical USCA11 Case: 25-10795 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 05/21/2026 Page: 2 of 11 2 Opinion of the Court 25-10795 needs in violation of the Eighth1 and Fourteenth Amendments. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the County, holding that Windom failed to show a persistent and wide- spread practice of deliberate indifference ongoing at the time of his treatment. Reviewing de novo, we find that the District Court cor- rectly granted summary judgment in favor of the County. There- fore, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Windom was incarcerated at OCJ from early 2018 to May 2019. Upon entering OCJ, Windom had no conditions impairing his vision. During his time in OCJ custody, Windom began experi- encing a burning sensation, redness, and blurriness in his right eye. Windom was seen by OCJ medical staff several times for his eye condition. Medical staff gave Windom over-the-counter eye drops, but the drops seemed to aggravate his condition. He re- quested to be seen by an outside vision specialist several times over 1 The record does not indicate whether the claim alleged by Windom occurred while serving a sentence pursuant to a conviction in a court of law, or whether he was merely being held in pretrial detention. This is relevant to us because the Eighth Amendment only applies to conduct that occurs while the plaintiff was confined “subsequent and as a consequence of” his lawful conviction of a crime. Hamm v. DeKalb Cnty., 774 F.2d 1567, 1572 (11th Cir. 1985). However, despite this gap in the record, we may proceed with our analysis because this circuit applies the same standard regarding medical care—that is, deliberate indifference—regardless of whether the claim arises under the Eighth Amend- ment for convicted persons, or under the Fourteenth Amendment for pretrial detainees. Id. at 1574. USCA11 Case: 25-10795 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 05/21/2026 Page: 3 of 11 25-10795 Opinion of the Court 3 the course of a few months—but each request was denied. Eventu- ally, OCJ permitted Windom to see an outside specialist and sent him to Bird Institute/Garay Eye Care and Surgery Center (the “Eye Center”). On February 25, 2019, Dr. Cynthia Franco first examined Windom at the Eye Center. Dr. Franco diagn