Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-08023/USCOURTS-ca10-91-08023-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT OCT 2 5 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

CHUCK GOODMAN, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

DUANE SHILLINGER, Warden; DR. A. P. ) 

KIRSCH, M.D.; JIM FERGUSON, Deputy ) 

Warden; RON RUETTGERS; WILLIAM KLINE,) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 91-8023 

(D.C. No. 90-CV-0236-B) 

( D. Wyoming) 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, 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. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff Chuck Goodman appeals the district court's grant of 

summary judgment against him in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against 

the warden, various subordinate officers in the Wyoming state 

penitentiary, and A.P. Kirsch, M.D., a contract physician for the 

* 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 of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-8023 Document: 010110092174 Date Filed: 10/25/1991 Page: 1 
/ \ 

prison. The complaint alleged deliberate indifference rising to 

the level of a constitutional violation under Estelle v. Gamble, 

429 U.S. 97 (1976). Plaintiff asserted that his Eighth and 

Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated (1) when the prison 

officials made him walk, shackled and handcuffed, across an icy 

stretch of terrain to a vehicle that was to carry him to a 

hospital for tests, where he fell, and (2) when the officials 

subsequently failed to administer properly to his medical needs. 

After considering plaintiff's deposition, the medical records, and 

the affidavits from various defendants and medical personnel, the 

district court granted summary judgment in favor of all 

defendants, finding there was no contested issue of fact that 

would warrant a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff on either of 

his claims. 

Since the district court's decision the United States Supreme 

Court has further defined the deliberate indifference test. See 

Wilson v. Seiter, 111 s. Ct. 2321 (1991). The defendants' state 

of mind must be considered and something beyond negligence is 

necessary to state a constitutional claim under this standard. 

Id. 

We have reviewed the record and are satisfied that nothing 

beyond negligence can be shown with respect to the slip-and-fall 

accident; plaintiff's previous escape from custody justified the 

use of handcuffs and shackles. Further, the medical records 

produced in district court indicate that neither the prison 

officials nor the doctor deliberately denied plaintiff medical 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-8023 Document: 010110092174 Date Filed: 10/25/1991 Page: 2 
care for his condition. 1 Plaintiff in fact received "frequent, 

numerous, and detailed medical examinations for his complaints of 

neck, head, and back pain." IR. doc. 10. These included a CAT 

scan, bone scan, MRI neck scan, and multiplex-rays. Further, the 

five orthopedic surgeons and a neurologist who examined plaintiff 

found no injury or damage except "degenerative bone changes." Id. 

The record clearly shows that plaintiff failed to present 

facts supporting his allegation of deliberate indifference by 

defendants. 

1 

AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Plaintiff himself stated in a deposition, 

Q. And did they ever deny you any medical treatment? 

A. No. I have always been treated in some form or 

fashion. 

Q. Okay. Do you think that you got a difference of 

opinion as to what they did versus what you think they 

should have done? 

A. Yes. 

Q. That's basically what we are down to is difference 

in opinion. You think they should have done one thing, 

and you think they did another, right? 

A. Yes. 

Brief of Defendants-Appellees, App. C. "[A] mere difference of 

opinion between the prison's medical staff and the inmate as to 

the diagnosis or treatment which the inmate receives does not 

support a claim of cruel and unusual punishment." Ramos v. Lamm, 

639 F.2d 559, 575 (10th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1041 

(1981) (citations omitted). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-8023 Document: 010110092174 Date Filed: 10/25/1991 Page: 3