Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01858/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01858-0/pdf.json

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

---

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

DAVID RALPH BLANKENSHIP, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

. FILED 

United St.ates Co!1rt of Appeals Tenth C1rcuit 

FEB 2 3 1988 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 87-1858 

LARRY P. MEACHUM; DAVID C. MILLER; 

E.K. MCDANIELS; DAVID MORRIS, SR.; 

SAMMY EARLS, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

(D.C. No. 87-26-BT) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

David Ralph Blankenship, prose. 

Robert A. Nance, Assistant Attorney General, .(Robert H. Henry, 

Attorney General, with him on the brief), the State of Oklahoma, 

for Defendants-Appellees. 

Before MOORE and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and BRIMMER, Chief Judge.* 

PER CURIAM. 

*Honorable Clarence A. 

District Court f.or 

designation. · 

Brimmer, Chief Judge, United States 

the District of Wyoming, sitting by 

Appellate Case: 87-1858 Document: 010110018265 Date Filed: 02/23/1988 Page: 1 
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. 34.1.8. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the district court 

dismissing his complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff was placed in protective custody at the Lexington 

Correctional Center (LCC) after having been assaulted by other 

inmates. Plaintiff alleged that when he was transferred to the 

Oklahoma State Reformatory (OSR), he was placed with the general 

prison population instead of continuing in protective custody. As 

a result, he was attacked by an unknown inmate and suffered head, 

chest, knee, and groin injuries and emotional distress. Plaintiff 

alleged that this placement subjected him to cruel and unusual 

punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. He also alleged 

that prison officials had failed to follow prison regulations. 

The district court held that plaintiff had failed to allege 

more than mere negligence on the part of prison officials and, 

therefore, had failed to state a claim under the standard 

announced in Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986) and Davidson 

v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344 (1986). On appeal, plaintiff repeats his 

allegations and also argues that the district court erred in not 

appointing counsel to represent him. 

The district court's reliance on Daniels and Davidson was 

misplaced. In Daniels and Davidson, the Court addressed 

2 

Appellate Case: 87-1858 Document: 010110018265 Date Filed: 02/23/1988 Page: 2 
violations arising under the due process clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment which resulted in the deprivation of life, liberty, or 

property. Plaintiff alleged that he had been subjected to cruel 

and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

The failure of prison officials to protect an inmate from 

attacks by other inmates may rise to the level of an Eighth 

Amendment violation. Meriwether v. Faulkner, 821 F.2d 408, 417 

(7th Cir.), cert. denied, 108 s. Ct. 311 (1987)(emphasis added). 

While an "express intent to inflict unnecessary pain is not 

required, • [i)t is obduracy and wantonness, not inadvertence 

or error in good faith, that characterize the conduct prohibited 

by the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause." Whitley v. Albers, 

475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986). 

Plaintiff has not shown more than inadvertence or a good 

faith error by defendants. Plaintiff alleged that the LCC staff 

and transportation officer were aware of his status. He admitted 

that he did not request protective custody from the OSR staff. 

Defendants submitted a medical intake report which indicated that 

plaintiff was in protective custody status. However, there is no 

indication or allegation that information gathered by the medical 

staff was routinely shared with intake officers or that the 

medical staff refused to share this information. Plaintiff has 

not shown that any defendant acted in a wanton or obdurate manner. 

The decision whether to appoint counsel in a civil case is 

left to the sound discretion of the district court. 

Crouse, 417 F.2d 504 (10th Cir. 1969). We find no 

Bethea v. 

abuse of 

discretion in the court's refusal to appoint counsel. Plaintiff's 

3 

Appellate Case: 87-1858 Document: 010110018265 Date Filed: 02/23/1988 Page: 3 
allegation that prison officials failed 

regulations is vague and conclusory 

constitutional claim. 

to comply 

and fails 

with prison 

to state a 

Plaintiff is granted in forma pauperis status on appeal. The 

judgment of the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff's outstanding motions 

are denied. 

4 

Appellate Case: 87-1858 Document: 010110018265 Date Filed: 02/23/1988 Page: 4