Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-05084/USCOURTS-ca10-91-05084-0/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 

FEBO 5 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKEE 

JOSEPH ANGELO DICESARE, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

JESS WALKER, DENVER DAVENPORT, ) 

CHARLES GUTHRIE, GEORGE W. CHANEY, ) 

JAMES SMITH, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Clerk . 

No. 91-5084 

(D.C . No. 90-C-1005-E) 

(N.D. Oklahoma) 

Before LOGAN, BARRETT and EBEL, 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. 

In this appeal plaintiff Joseph Angelo Dicesare sued the 

sheriff, jailer, and county commissioners of Craig County, 

Oklahoma, alleging what amounts to deliberate indifference to his 

medical needs while he was a prisoner for thirty-eight days in 

* 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 . 

Appellate Case: 91-5084 Document: 010110221713 Date Filed: 02/05/1992 Page: 1 
that county's jail. Plaintiff was transported to the Craig County 

jail from the Creek County jail where he had been injured in a 

fight with jail inmates. He asserts that his head was 

"grotesquely" swollen and that he suffered pain which bothered his 

sleeping and eating all of the time he was in the Craig County 

jail. He asserts that defendants refused to take him to a doctor 

for treatment . The district court dismissed the complaint under 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). 

Although the district court did not require a Martinez report 

with respect to this complaint, it was entitled to consider 

plaintiff's medical condition at the time he was transferred from 

the Creek County jail, as set forth in the documents contained in 

the Martinez report in the companion case, disposed of at the same 

time, which became appeal No. 91-5080 in our court. During 

plaintiff's sixteen hours in the Creek County jail he was involved 

in the altercation with other inmates in which he suffered facial 

injuries; he was taken to the emergency room of the local 

hospital. The Martinez report in No. 91-5080 contains an x-ray 

report showing that plaintiff suffered no fractures as a result of 

the fight; it contains a medical report, by the doctor who saw 

plaintiff, that recommended ice packs and Tylenol for pain as 

plaintiff's treatment . Plaintiff acknowledges that during his 

stay at the Craig County jail he was given aspirin for pain four 

times during his incarceration. Reading plaintiff's complaint and 

supporting documents carefully, we see no allegation or indication 

that the personnel at the Craig County jail refused to give 

plaintiff aspirin for pain when he requested it. Plaintiff's only 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-5084 Document: 010110221713 Date Filed: 02/05/1992 Page: 2 
complaint appears to be that jail personnel would not take him to 

a doctor. 

Considering the nature and extent of plaintiff's injuries, we 

are satisfied the district court did not err in dismissing 

plaintiff's complaint under§ 1915(d). We hold that, taking the 

facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, his complaint does 

not state a viable cause of action for deliberate indifference to 

his serious medical needs. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U. S. 97 

(1976) (in Eighth Amendment claim concerning medical needs, 

standard is deliberate indifference); cf. Wilson v. Seiter, 111 

S. Ct . 2321, 2327 (1991). 

We AFFIRM the dismissal of the complaint. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-5084 Document: 010110221713 Date Filed: 02/05/1992 Page: 3