Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-04-03190/USCOURTS-ca10-04-03190-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

MAY 9 2005 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

DA YID A. WILLIAMS, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

V. 

PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, 

Employees of unknown names, 

individual and official capacities, 

Doctor and Assistant PHS 

Nurses, El Dorado KS; (FNU) PHAM, 

Doctor, in his individual and official 

capacity; LOUIS E. BRUCE, Acting 

Warden Director of El Dorado 

Correctional Facility, in his 

individual and official capacity; 

WILLIAM L. CUMMINGS, 

Warden, El Dorado Correctional 

Facility, in his individual and official 

capacity; JULIE (RIDDLE) ST. 

PETER, 

Defendants - Appellees. 

No. 04-3190 

(D.C. No. 02-CV-3326-MLB) 

(D. Kan.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1 (G). The case is 

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is 

not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, 

and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and 

judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and 

conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 04-3190 Document: 010110617290 Date Filed: 05/09/2005 Page: 1
Before LUCERO, McKAY, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. 

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, David A. Williams, a state prisoner 

proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment 

in favor of defendant prison officials. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291, we AFFIRM. 

Williams is incarcerated at the El Dorado Correctional Facility in El 

Dorado, Kansas. In his complaint, Williams alleged that defendants violated his 

Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by failing 

adequately to treat his serious medical needs. Specifically, as summarized by the 

district court: 

plaintiff suffers chronic back pain that is likely due to a gunshot wound he 

received in 1980. He claims that defendants violated his constitutional 

rights by revoking his privilege to use a shower massage and take extended 

showers, as well as by failing to prescribe adequate medications or invoke 

the expertise of a back specialist. 

Williams v. Prison Health Servs., No. 02-3326-MLB, slip op. at 1-2 (D. Kan. 

May 11, 2004). 

"We review the grant of summary judgment de novo applying the same 

standard as the district court embodied in Rule 56(c)." Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, 

Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 670 (10th Cir. 1998). Under Rule 56( c ), summary judgment is 

proper if "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving 

-2-

Appellate Case: 04-3190 Document: 010110617290 Date Filed: 05/09/2005 Page: 2
party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). "In 

applying this standard, we view the factual record and draw all reasonable 

inferences therefrom most favorably to the nonmovant." Adler, 144 F.3d at 670. 

However, "[ c ]onclusory allegations that are unsubstantiated do not create an issue 

of fact and are insufficient to oppose summary judgment." Harvey Barnett, Inc. 

v. Shidler, 338 F.3d 1125, 1136 (10th Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted). 

To establish an Eighth Amendment violation, Williams must prove that 

defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. See 

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). 

"Deliberate indifference" involves both an objective and a subjective 

component. The objective component is met if the deprivation is 

sufficiently serious. A medical need is sufficiently serious if it 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. The subjective component is 

met if a prison official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to 

inmate health or safety. 

Sealock v. State of Colorado, 218 F .3d 1205, 1209 (10th Cir. 2000) (quotations 

and citations omitted). Given these standards, it is not enough for Williams to 

establish that the prison medical staff acted negligently. ill at 1211. In addition, 

a difference of opinion between Williams and the prison medical staff about 

medical treatment does not constitute deliberate indifference. See Johnson v. 

Stephan, 6 F.3d 691, 692 (10th Cir. 1993). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 04-3190 Document: 010110617290 Date Filed: 05/09/2005 Page: 3
The district court thoroughly summarized Williams' prison medical records, 

and we will not repeat that summary here. On reviewing the record, we note that 

the district court ordered defendants to perform a supplemental medical 

evaluation of plaintiff after Williams filed this case. As a result of the exam, 

Williams received further treatment. Dr. Terry Jones prescribed various pain 

medication, ordered up additional x-rays, and renewed the use of the massaging 

shower head. 

Having carefully reviewed the record, the parties' briefs, and the applicable 

law, we conclude that the district court correctly determined: (I) that Williams 

has failed to advance sufficient evidence linking defendants Bruce, St. Peter, 

Cummings, and Prison Health Services to the alleged Eighth Amendment 

violations; and (2) that Williams has failed to present sufficient evidence to 

establish the subjective component of the deliberate indifference standard with 

regard to his claims against the prison doctor, defendant Dr. Pham. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. We remind plaintiff 

that he must continue making partial payments on court fees and costs previously 

assessed until such have been paid in full. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

Carlos F. Lucero 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 04-3190 Document: 010110617290 Date Filed: 05/09/2005 Page: 4