Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-08-06027/USCOURTS-ca10-08-06027-0/pdf.json

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

---

*

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not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value

consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 30, 2008

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

DAVID KAY WIENS,

Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 08-6027

v. (W.D. Oklahoma)

M.D. DOCTOR ZEAVIN; MRS.

PETRASH, Physician’s Assistant;

MRS. GRISMER, Health Services

Administrator; JOHN DOE, Federal

and State Officers,

Defendants - Appellees.

(D.C. No. 5:06-cv-01286-F)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRISCOE, MURPHY, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.

David Kay Wiens filed in the United States District Court for the Western

District of Oklahoma a civil-rights complaint alleging a violation of the Eighth

Amendment by federal prison staff who were deliberately indifferent to his

medical needs. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of

Appellate Case: 08-6027 Document: 01011054776 Date Filed: 05/30/2008 Page: 1 
-2-

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (permitting claims against federal officers who

violate a plaintiff’s constitutional rights). In a thorough Report and

Recommendation (R&R) the magistrate judge assigned to the case recommended

denial of the claims. The district court adopted the recommendation and

dismissed the complaint.

On appeal Mr. Wiens, appearing pro se, challenges the district court’s (1)

dismissal of his civil-rights complaint, (2) denial of his motion to compel

discovery and present evidence, and (3) denial of his motions for the appointment

of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

For the reasons stated in the R&R, we affirm the dismissal of the Eighth

Amendment claims. As for Mr. Wiens’s contention that he was denied discovery

and the ability to present evidence, he has not identified any evidence of a

disputed material fact that he hopes to obtain through discovery or any disputed

material facts that he can prove with his evidence. Because he cannot show

prejudice, he is not entitled to relief. See Davoll v. Webb, 194 F.3d 1116, 1139

(10th Cir. 1999) (denial of discovery will not be disturbed absent a showing that

the court’s decision resulted in “actual and substantial prejudice” to the

complaining litigant). Finally, the district court’s denial of counsel was not an

abuse of discretion. The court reasonably determined that Mr. Wiens’s claims did

not present complex issues and that he had demonstrated his ability to present the

claims. See Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995) (district

Appellate Case: 08-6027 Document: 01011054776 Date Filed: 05/30/2008 Page: 2 
-3-

court did not abuse its discretion in denying appointment of counsel in civil case

when plaintiff was able to present his claims without the assistance of counsel).

We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. We DENY Mr. Wiens’s

motions to present evidence and his motion for a subpoena.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Harris L Hartz

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 08-6027 Document: 01011054776 Date Filed: 05/30/2008 Page: 3