Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03318/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03318-0/pdf.json

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

---

FIL~ D 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Coμrt~ A~b Tenth Circuit; 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FEB 2 7 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECF..E~ 

Clerk 

JOHNS. PERESIC, Jr. ) 

) 

) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v . 

GARY STOTTS; GARY RAYL; DAVE MCCUNE; 

RAYMOND ROBERTS; PHYLLIS WARDER; GAY 

SAVINO; R. BUFORD; STUPAR; CALLISON; 

RUTLEDGE; MCCRAY; L. EWELL; D. SHIPMAN; 

JAMES KING; and MARY ANN NURSE, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) No. 91-3318 

) (D. C. No. 91-CV-3283-S) 

) ( D. Kan.) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

* be 

for 

res 

Mr. Peresic appeals the decision of the district court 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

judicata, or collateral estoppel . 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-3318 Document: 010110226162 Date Filed: 02/27/1992 Page: 1 
dismissing his complaint. The district court denied Mr. Peresic 

permission to maintain this appeal in forma pauperis after 

concluding any appeal would be legally frivolous. Peresic v. 

Stott, No. 91-3283-S, Order dated Oct. 11, 1991. We grant Mr. 

Peresic permission to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Mr. Peresic filed a prose complaint wherein he alleged he is 

an inmate in the Kansas prison located at Lansing, Kansas. Mr. 

Peresic set forth several grievances. First, Mr. Peresic alleged 

he had a severe stomach disorder, went to the prison infirmary 

where he was seen by a nurse rather than a doctor, and received 

medicine that made him sicker than he was. Mr. Peresic alleged 

this was deliberate indifference to his medical needs. Second, he 

alleged a prisoner was stabbed and killed by another prisoner "in 

close proximity" to where Mr. Peresic was residing. Third, Mr. 

Peresic alleged the prison officials are violating a federal court 

order that requires segregation of violent offenders. Mr. Peresic 

alleged these latter two facts constitute reckless endangerment of 

his life. Mr. Peresic requested damages of $6 million, and 

injunctive and declaratory relief, all under 42 u.s.c. § 1983. 

The district court first concluded Mr. Peresic's complaints 

all stem from the problem of alleged inadequate housing of 

prisoners at Lansing. The district court then held the housing of 

prisoners involves management decisions that are not subject to 

judicial review unless made in such a manner as to constitute a 

clear abuse of discretion, and concluded no such abuse was shown. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-3318 Document: 010110226162 Date Filed: 02/27/1992 Page: 2 
The district court also noted the existence of class action in 

Arney v. Hayden, No. 77-3045, which addresses the same problems, 

and concluded Mr. Peresic's complaints should not be relitigated 

in a separate action. The court then dismissed Mr. Peresic's 

complaint. Peresic v. Stotts, No. 91-3283-S, Order dated Oct. 4, 

1991. 

Mr. Peresic appeals pro se asserting the same arguments 

raised before the trial court. 

An allegation of medical malpractice by a nurse, standing 

alone, does not set forth a constitutional violation under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Labeling such an act as "deliberate indifference" 

does not convert it to a cognizable claim. 

The district court found the balance of Mr . Peresic's claims 

were being litigated in a class action. In his appeal to us, Mr. 

Peresic asserts: (1) the district court failed to address his 

allegation that prison officials were violating the court's order 

in the class action; and (2) the exact issue s he asked the 

district court to decide are not being litigated in the class 

action. 

The district court failed to specifically address the alleged 

violation of the court orders issued in the class action. 

However, the district court did addre~s the alleged violation 

implicitly. Mr. Peresic's proper remedy is to contact the 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-3318 Document: 010110226162 Date Filed: 02/27/1992 Page: 3 
attorneys representing the prisoners in the class action. The 

class action and its remedial effects would be defeate d were every 

member of the class allowed to pursue independent actions. 

While Mr. Peresic asserts the class action fails to deal with 

his complaints, the record does not support this contention. Mr. 

Peresic's bald assertion in this regard is unsupported by any 

showing whatsoever. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall 

issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-3318 Document: 010110226162 Date Filed: 02/27/1992 Page: 4