Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02032/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02032-0/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 

STEPHEN BISHOP, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tench Circuit 

AUG - 7 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

vs. ) 

) 

LEWIS WEBER, Associate Warden - PNM, ) 

BARRY HERTZOG, Security Major - PNM, ) 

DOUG ROBERTSON, LT. ) 

No. 90-2032 

(D.C. No. 89-1180-JB) 

(D.N.M.) 

) 

Defendant-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK and EBEL, Circuit Judges.** 

Plaintiff-appellant Stephen Bishop appeals prose from the 

district court's dismissal of his action pursuant to 28 u.s.c. 

§ 1915(d). Bishop brought this 42 u.s.c. § 1983 action against 

Penitentiary of New Mexico personnel for deprivation of his eighth 

amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. 

Bishop's complaint alleged that he was injured by a fellow 

* 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 estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

** 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 cause therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 90-2032 Document: 010110039647 Date Filed: 08/07/1990 Page: 1 
• ' 

prisoner in an adjoining cell who, over a five day period, flooded 

Bishops's cell and set several fires. Bishop claims that the 

flooding caused him to fall and suffer rib and neck injuries and 

f that the smoke was so bad that medical personnel were called in to 

examine the prisoners. Bishop allegedly spoke with prison 

personnel concerning his neighbor's disruptive behavior and claims 

they were aware that his neighbor posed a health and safety hazard 

to the other prisoners. 

District courts have the authority to dismiss sua sponte 

proceedings in forma pauperis if "the action is frivolous or 

malicious." 28 U.S.C. S 1915(d). A complaint is frivolous under 

S 1915(d) when it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact." 

Neitzke v. Williams, 109 s. Ct. 1827, 1831 (1989). Failure of 

prison officials to protect an inmate from harm by other inmates 

may rise to an eighth amendment violation. Blankenship v. · 

Meachum, 840 F.2d 741, 742 (10th Cir. 1988). To prevail on such a 

claim, an inmate must not only show that prison personnel were 

negligent to the threat posed by the fellow inmate but also must 

establish that the prison displayed "deliberate indifference" to 

such threat. Berry v. City of Muskogee, 900 F.2d 1489, 1495 (10th 

Cir. 1990). "[A]n official . acts with deliberate 

indifference if the conduct (or adopted policy) disregards a known 

or obvious risk that is very likely to result in the violation of 

a prisoner's constitutional rights." Id. at 1495. 

Interpreting Bishop's prose complaint liberally as required 

by Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and accepting all 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-2032 Document: 010110039647 Date Filed: 08/07/1990 Page: 2 
• 

t ' 

• 

allegations in the complaint as true, Durre v. Dempsey, 869 F.2d 

543, 546 (10th Cir. 1989), we cannot say at this point that Bishop 

has failed to state an arguable basis in law or fact in his 

complaint for deprivation of rights under the eighth amendment, 

Neitzke, 109 S. Ct. at 1831. While Bishop's allegations may 

eventually prove to be meritless, at this juncture they are 

sufficient to establish an arguable claim that prison officials 

displayed deliberate indifference to a known risk likely to cause 

substantial harm to him. See Berry, 900 F.2d at 1496. 

Accordingly, the district court erred in dismissing the action. 

REVERSED and REMANDED. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-2032 Document: 010110039647 Date Filed: 08/07/1990 Page: 3