Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-04123/USCOURTS-ca10-92-04123-0/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 

RONALD GRAHAM, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

FILi...v 

United States Court of Appeal11 Tenth Circuit 

DEC 2 2 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk . 

v. 

FRED VAN DER VEUR, Warden; VAN 

AUSTIN, Dr.; ANN MCDONALD, Dr.; 

KAY PRESTON; WILLIAM EASTMAN; 

OFFICER NUNLEY; DON CARROLL; 

JIM GABER, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 92-4123 

(D.C. No. 92-C-459-J) 

(D. Utah) 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument 

would not be of material assistance in the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P . 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The 

cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not b e cited, o r used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

t he case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-4123 Document: 010110154883 Date Filed: 12/22/1992 Page: 1 
Mr. Graham, a state inmate proceeding pro se, appeals the 

district court order which dismissed Mr. Graham's§ 1983 claim as 

frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) . We affirm. 

Mr. Graham, who is incarcerated in a Utah prison, filed his 

pro se § 1983 action against various officers and medical 

personnel of the prison. He a lleged he "was suffering from a 

manic depression state" and "was complete out of control with a 

rage mood swing." (R . Vol . I, tab 2 at 3.) He claims a verbal 

exchange between himself and some of the defendants triggered a 

"psychotic episode" and that he was given 45 days of "punitive 

isolation" without first obtaining "medical consultation" t o 

determine whether this punishment would aggravate his condition. 

Mr. Graham further charged that various defendants failed to act 

to protect him from this action and that all defendants "bread 

their duty." (R. , Vol. I, tab 2 at 4 .) 

The complaint was referred to a magistrate judge who filed an 

eight page Report and Recommendation analyzing the complaint. 

This report set forth in detail the a l legations pertaining to Mr . 

Graham's right to medical treatment under the Eighth Amendment and 

concluded Mr. Graham had no arguable legal or factual basis for 

his claim. The report recommended the complaint be dismissed 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (d ). Mr. Graham filed objections and the 

district court adopted the magistrate's report. We attach hereto 

a copy of the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation as 

filed on June 10, 1992. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-4123 Document: 010110154883 Date Filed: 12/22/1992 Page: 2 
Mr. Graham appeals this order and asserts, inter alia, "they 

didn't [give me] time to prove through ... process, or grant 

me [an] attorney to produce witnesses." (Appellant's Br., p. 3.) 

He further asserts he produced sufficient evidence in his 

objections to the magistrate's report. 

Looking next to the objections filed by Mr. Graham, he 

concludes "the medical need is so obvious that even a lay person 

would recognize the need for treatment," and he argues he can 

prove the defendant doctors "did act deliberate indifferent .. . by 

the countless prisoners protesting of my condition [by] 

keeping them awake at night." 

Mr . Graham fails to perceive the difference between facts and 

conclusions. Mr. Graham first had to plead facts showing he had 

an obvious medical need. Mr. Graham failed to do so, as he only 

alleged he was "raging" and the prison officers needed to quell 

the disturbance. Next Mr. Graham had to allege facts showing the 

defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. 

Mr. Graham only alleged the defendants were negligent in failing 

to notice or diagnose his medical condition and they were 

negligent in failing to base their actions upon his condition. 

Negligence or carelessness does not necessarily amount to 

deliberate indifference. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-4123 Document: 010110154883 Date Filed: 12/22/1992 Page: 3 
Mr. Graham's pleading burden was to set forth facts showing a 

medical need and that the defendants failed to meet this medical 

need through deliberate indifference. Mr. Graham does not have a 

claim against prison officials based upon a violation of the 

United States Constitution or federal law. The United States 

Constitution does not protect Mr. Graham's medical needs from 

negligence but only from deliberate indifference. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED for 

substantially the same reasons set forth by the magistrate judge. 

The mandate shall issue f orwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 92-4123 Document: 010110154883 Date Filed: 12/22/1992 Page: 4 
I ,Lfn IN UNITED STATES DISTr.!CT 

JRT. DISTRICT OF UTAH 

CENTRAL DIVISION 

RONALD GRAHAM 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FRED VANDERVEUR, DR. VAN 

AUSTIN, DR. ANN MCDONALD, KAY 

PRESTON, WILLIAM EASTMAN, 

OFFICER NUNLEY, DON CARROLL, 

JIM GABER 

Defendants. 

Case No. 92-C-459 J 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

This case has been referred to the magistrate judge under 28 

u.s. c. S 636(b) (1) (B). Plaintiff Graham, currently an inmate at 

the Utah State Prison at Draper, Utah, was formerly an inmate at 

the Central Utah Correctional Facility (CUCF). Plaintiff has 

filed suit under 42 U. S.C. S 1983 alleging that his right to 

medical treatment under the eighth amendment has been violated by 

the defendants. Plaintiff is proceeding prose and has been 

granted permission to file this complaint in forma pauperis under 

28 u.s.c. S 1915(a) . The issue before this court, then, is 

whe ther this complaint should be dismissed as frivolous under 28 

u.s. c. S 1915(d) or process served on the defendants. 

Factual Background 

The defendants are all employed at CUCF. They are : (1) Fred 

Vande rveur, the warden at CUCF; (2) Dr. Van Austin, a 

Appellate Case: 92-4123 Document: 010110154883 Date Filed: 12/22/1992 Page: 5 
psychiatrist; (3) Ann McDonald, a psychologist; (4) Kay Preston, 

a lieutenant in charge of control; (5) William Eastman, "head 

officer"; (6) Officer Nunley, an officer in charge of opening 

cell doors; (7) Don Carroll, an Inmate Disciplinary Hearing 

Officer; and (8) Jim Gaber, a counselor responsible for answering 

grievances and classifying prisoners. The plaintiff claims that 

defendants violated his eighth amendment rights. 

The case arose when defendant Nunley and plaintiff had a 

verbal exchange. Plaintiff claims that he was manic depressive 

and the verbal exchange with Officer Nunley triggered a 

"psychotic episode." Evidently, the plaintiff became enraged at 

Officer Nunley and when Lt. Preston and Officer Eastman arrived 

they assisted Nunley in securing the plaintiff. Following this 

event, plaintiff was given 45 days of "punitive isolation . " 

Plaintiff claims that defe ndants Nunley, Preston and Eastman did 

not obtain any medical consultation, thereby depriving him of his 

eighth amendment rights. Moreover, plaintiff claims that 

defendants Carroll and Gaber deprived him of his eighth amendment 

rights by failing to get a medical opinion on the effect of 

punishment on the plaintiff's condition. Finally, plaintiff 

claims that defendants Vanderveur, Austin, and McDonald did 

nothing to prevent the other defendants from violating his eighth 

amendment rights. 

Appellate Case: 92-4123 Document: 010110154883 Date Filed: 12/22/1992 Page: 6 
Dismissal under S 1915(4) 

While the initial treatment of the a pleading is weighted in 

a prose plaintiff's favor, but the court cannot, with propriety , 

become the prose plaintiff's advocate. Denton v. Hernandez, 60 

U.S.L. W. 4346 (U.S. May 5, 1992); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F . 2d 1106, 

1110 (10th Cir. 1991) . A court, making a S 1915(d) review, has 

no obligation "to accept without question the truth of the 

plaintiff's allegations. " Denton,~, 60 U.S.L.W. at 4347 . 

Thus, when faced with a complaint in forma pauperis under S 

1915(a), the court must make the threshold determination whether 

the complaint should be dismissed as frivolous under S 1915 (d) . 

In order to dismiss a complaint as frivolous under S 1915 (d ) , the 

court must be convinced that the complaint "lacks an arguable 

basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 109 s . ct. 

1827 (1989). 

Eighth Amendment Violation 

In order to make out a violation of the eighth amendment, 

the plaintiff must establish two elements: (1) objectively, the 

plaintiff had serious medical needs and (2) subjectively, the 

defendants we re deliberately indifferent to those serious medical 

needs. Wilson v. Seiter, 111 s.ct. 2321, 2324 (1991); Estelle v 

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Miller v. Glanz, 948 F.2d 1562 , 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-4123 Document: 010110154883 Date Filed: 12/22/1992 Page: 7 
1569 (10th Cir. 1991). A complaint, in order to have an arguable 

basis in law, must include both of these elements. 

Conversely, plaintiff has alleged neither. A medical need 

is objectively serious when a physician has diagnosed the need as 

demanding treatment or when the medical need is so obvious that 

even a lay person would recognize the need for treatment. Ramos 

v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 575 (10th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 

U.S. 1041 (1981); Gomm v. DeLand, 729 F. Supp. 767, 778 (D. Utah 

1990) . The plaintiff, however, has not alleged that he was 

diagnosed as manic depressive prior to this incident and raging 

is not so obvious that a reasonable lay person would recognize 

the need for treatment. Objectively, the plaintiff has not 

presented facts which would show he had a serious medical need. 

Assuming manic depression to be a serious medical need, the 

second prong should be explored. 

Moreover, there is no showing that any defendant was 

deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff's medical needs. The 

plaintiff was raging and the officers on the scene needed to 

quell the disturbance. Following this interlude, the plaintiff 

was punished for the disturbance. Rather than alleging that the 

defendant's were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical 

need, plaintiff has alleged that the defendant's were negligent 

in failing to notice his psy chological condition and negligent in 

4 

Appellate Case: 92-4123 Document: 010110154883 Date Filed: 12/22/1992 Page: 8 
assessing the effect of their decisions upon his psychological 

condition. This does not amount to a violation of the eighth 

amendment, since a misdiagnosis or an inadvertent medical mistake 

is not a constitutionally cognizable claim. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 

106; McCracken v. Jones, 562 F.2d 22, 25-26 (10th Cir. 1977). 

Plaintiff has no arguable legal or factual basis for his 

eighth amendment claim. Plaintiff attempts to place liability on 

defendants Vanderveur, Austin, McDonald, Carroll, and Gaber1 

because they failed to exercise supervisorial authority to 

procure medical treatment for him. Because there was no 

constitutional violation, a fortiori, these supervisorial 

officers cannot be held liable. Moreover, plaintiff must show 

some proximate causal link between the actions or inactions of 

these defendants and his alleged deprivation. Daniels v. 

Gilbreath, 668 F.2d 477, 480-481 (10th Cir. 1982). "There is no 

concept of supervisor strict liability under S 1983 . " Ruark v. 

It is unclear to what extent plaintiff is suing the 

defendants in their official capacity. To the extent that these 

plaintiffs are sued in their official capacity, such a suit cannot 

proceed. A suit against such defendants, as officials of the 

state, is essentially a suit against the state. Hafer v. Melo, 112 

s.ct. 358, 362 (1992). The Eleventh Amendment bars such a suit 

against the state without its consent. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 

651, 663 (1974); Kennecott Copper Corp. v. State Tax Comm., 327 

U.S. 573, 579 (1946). Consent to sue has not been given in this 

case . See, Richins v . Industrial Construction, Inc . , 502 F . 2d 

1051, 1055 (10th Cir. 1974). 

However, in their individual capacity, the only possible 

liability would be essentially respondeat superior liability. 

5 

Appellate Case: 92-4123 Document: 010110154883 Date Filed: 12/22/1992 Page: 9 
Solano, 928 F.2d 947, 950 (10th Cir. 1991) (quoting Harris v. 

Greer, 750 F.2d 617, 618 (7th Cir. 1984)) . Plaintiff has not, 

and evidently cannot, make any such proximate cause claim against 

defendants Vanderveur, Austin, or McDonald. Therefore, suit 

against them, even had a constitutional violation occurred, would 

be improper. Before suit could be maintained against these 

defendants, additional facts showing some personal deliberate 

indifference to the plaintiffs condition by these defendants 

would need to be alleged . 

The plaintiff's complaint against the other five defendants 

is that they ought to have sought a psychological opinion of the 

effect of their actions on the plaintiff. In essence, this 

amounts to an argument that the CUCF guards and disciplinary 

officers had a constitutional obligation to perform psychological 

screening of the plaintiff. There is no such constitutional 

obligation. Danese v. Asman, 875 F.2d 1239, 1243-44 (6th Cir. 

1989), cert. denied, 110 s.ct. 1473 (1990). The Danese court 

made it clear that there is a distinction to be drawn between 

ignoring prisoners seriously in need of medical attention or 

failing to provide medical assistance to prisoners who request it 

and failing to screen prisoners to determine whether or not they 

require medical attention. Id . at 1244; Elliott v. Cheshire Co., 

750 F . Supp. 1146, 1151-1153 (D.N.H. 1990) (emphasizing that 

6 

Appellate Case: 92-4123 Document: 010110154883 Date Filed: 12/22/1992 Page: 10 
prison officials have no responsibility to anticipate or screen 

prisoners, in the context of a prisoner which committed suicide 

while in the prison). Therefore, the mere failure of the prison 

guards and disciplinary officers to determine whether the 

plaintiff needed psychological attention does not state a claim 

with any arguable basis in law or fact. 

Finally, the plaintiff contends that defendants Nunley, 

Preston, and Eastman used abusive language and manners towards 

him. This does not state a claim with any arguable basis in law 

or fact. Without more, a mere claim of verbal harassment does 

not state a violation of any right within the meaning of S 1983. 

Cumby v. Meachum, 684 F.2d 712 (10th Cir. 1982); Collins v. 

CUndy, 603 F.2d 825 (10th Cir. 1979). Moreover, the de minimus 

use of physical force does not rise to the level of 

constitutional cognizance. Hudson v. McMillian, 112 s . ct. 995, 

1000 (1992); Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 327 (1986). 

Therefore there is no arguable basis in law or fact for this 

claim either. 

Recommendation 

The magistrate judge concludes that the complaint lacks any 

arguable basis in law or fact, and therefore should be dismissed, 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S 1915(d). IT IS SO RECOMMENDED 

7 

Appellate Case: 92-4123 Document: 010110154883 Date Filed: 12/22/1992 Page: 11 
Copies of the foregoing report and recommendation are being 

mailed to the parties. They are hereby notified of their right 

to file objections hereto within 10 days from the receipt hereof. 

DATED this /~y of March, 1992. 

l 

~ /(,)~,,,{:_ Ronald N. Boyce 1 

United States Magistrate Judge 

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING 

I hereby certify that I have mailed a copy of the foregoing 

Report and Recommendation to 

Ronald Graham 

this 

Po Box 250 

Utah State Prison 

Draper UT 84020 

\~ day of June, 1992. 

8 

Appellate Case: 92-4123 Document: 010110154883 Date Filed: 12/22/1992 Page: 12