Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03373/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03373-0/pdf.json

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

---

FIL. J 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL8tJnitedStatesCol:.'1.ofAp~ 

Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

FEBO 2 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

GARRY SAMMONS I ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

vs . ) 

) 

FRED ALLENBRAND, Sheriff; ) 

DOCTOR CHARTRAND; JOHN DOE, ) 

Nursing Staff; LT. SCHWEGMAN; ) 

CAPT. WHITE; CAPT. JOHNSTON; ) 

MAJ. SMITH, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

No. 92 - 3373 

(D.C. No. 92-3336-S ) 

(D. Kan. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before TACHA, BALDOCK and KELLY, Circuit Judges.** 

Plaintiff Garry Sammons, an inmate housed at the Johnson 

County Adult Detention Center in Olathe, Kansas, appeals the 

district court's dismissal of his 42 U. S . C. § 1983 claim. 

Plaintiff alleged that Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment 

right against cruel and unusual punishment by intentionally 

denying him medical treatment and violat ed his Fourteenth 

Amendment procedural due process right by enacting a procedure by 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law o f 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36 . 3 . 

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, t his panel 

has determi ned 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 . The case therefore is order ed 

submitted without oral argument. 

- 1 -

Appellate Case: 92-3373 Document: 010110165550 Date Filed: 02/02/1993 Page: 1 
which non-physician members of the medical staff screen prisoners' 

medical treatment requests to determine whether examination by a 

physician is required. The district court sua sponte dismissed 

Plaintiff's complaint as frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). This 

court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we review for 

abuse of discretion. Denton v. Hernandez, 112 S . Ct. 1728, 1734 

(1992). 

Pursuant to§ 1915(d), a district court may dismiss a 

complaint sua sponte where it clearly appears the action is 

frivolous or malicious. Hall v. Bellmen, 935 F.2d 1106, 1108 

(10th Cir. 1991) . A claim is frivolous for purposes of§ 1915 (d ) 

if it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory. Neitzke 

v. Williams, 490 U. S. 319, 327 (1989); Hall, 935 F.2d at 1109. 

Liberally construing Plaintiff's complaint, Haines v . Kerner, 404 

U.S. 519 (1972), Plaintiff's allegations are no more than a 

disagreement with the medical treatment he received. In order to 

establish a claim of cruel and unusual punishment based on 

inadequate medical care, an inmate must demonstrate that prison 

officials are responsible for acts or omissions "sufficiently 

harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical 

needs." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). 

11 [D]iagnostic techniques or forms of treatment" are matters for 

medical judgment and do not represent cruel and unusual 

punishment. Id. at 107. Thus, Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim 

is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, and the 

district court's§ 1915 (d) dismissal was not an abuse of 

discretion. 

-2 -

Appellate Case: 92-3373 Document: 010110165550 Date Filed: 02/02/1993 Page: 2 
Plaintiff's second claim--that he was denied procedural due 

process because prisoners' medical treatment requests are screened 

by the medical staff to determine if a prisoner requires treatment 

by a physician--was also properly dismissed as frivolous . Inmates 

do not have a constitutional right to a physician's attention for 

every submitted medical request; consequently, Plaintiff has no 

due process claim. See Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 487 (1980 ) 

(threshold question in procedural due process case is whether a 

constitutionally protected interest is implicated) . Because 

Plaintiff's second claim is based on an indisputably meritless 

legal theory, the district court did not abuse its discretion in 

dismissing it under§ 1915(d). 

In the absence of a rational argument on the law or the 

facts, petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis is 

DENIED, see Neitzke, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(d), and the appeal is DISMISSED. 

SO ORDERED. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-3373 Document: 010110165550 Date Filed: 02/02/1993 Page: 3 
Appellate Case: 92-3373 Document: 010110165550 Date Filed: 02/02/1993 Page: 4