Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06411/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06411-0/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 

ARCHIE BURCH, } 

} 

Plaintiff-Appellant, } 

} 

V • } No. 89-6411 

FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals ·r em t· 1 C' tr:'.1::r · 

, PH ~ i 1 0 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

} (W.D. Okla. CIV-89-1272-P} 

ANDY HOUSTON; SARGENT HILL; } 

RICKE. PETERS; NURSE GAUDETTE; } 

CAPTAIN MCKENNA; OFFICER EDWARDS; } 

and TWYLA SNIDER, Deputy Warden; } 

} 

Defendants-Appellees. } 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, BRORBY, 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. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff-appellant Archie Burch, a paraplegic, is an inmate 

at the Lexington (Oklahoma} Correctional Center. Plaintiff 

brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that various 

prison officials violated rights guaranteed him by the Eighth and 

* 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 oE establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-6411 Document: 01019967147 Date Filed: 04/27/1990 Page: 1 
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In 

particular, plaintiff alleges that defendants violated his Eighth 

Amendment rights by placing an upper bunk in his cell on July 6, 

1989, which interfered with his ability to get into bed. 

Plaintiff further alleges that he fell while attempting to get 

into bed and that he did not receive adequate treatment following 

the fall. In addition, plaintiff alleges that for over two hours 

he was deprived of a lubricating jelly necessary for him to 

urinate and that prison officials refused to fix the brakes on his 

wheelchair. Plaintiff also alleges that his requests for 

rehabilitation and for the removal of the bullet in his spine have 

been improperly denied. Finally, plaintiff alleges that his 

Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the laws has 

been violated. 

Plaintiff subsequently filed in this court a motion for the 

appointment of counsel pursuant to 18 u.s.c. § 3006A and a motion 

for a temporary injunction. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of 

counsel pursuant to 18 u.s.c. § 3006A is denied. Section 3006A 

does not authorize the appointment of counsel to assist prisoners 

in bringing civil actions under 42 u.s.c. § 1983. 

We also deny plaintiff's motion for temporary injunction 

because he has failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of 

success on the merits of his claim; he has not shown any 

irreparable injury; he has failed to prove that any injury that 

the injunction would remedy outweighs the damage that the proposed 

injunction would cause to defendants; and he has not shown that 

the injunction, if issued, would not be--adverse to the public 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-6411 Document: 01019967147 Date Filed: 04/27/1990 Page: 2 
interest. See United States ex rel. Citizen Band Potawatomi 

Indian Tribe of Oklahoma v. Enterprise Management Consultants, 

Inc., 883 F.2d 886, 889 (10th Cir. 1989). 

After reviewing the briefs and the record on appeal, we agree 

with the district court that plaintiff has not made a sufficient 

showing that defendants acted with deliberate indifference in 

placing the upper bunk in his cell, in waiting until the day after 

his July 6, 1989 fall to have a doctor examine him, and in 

refusing to fix the brakes on his wheelchair. Moreover, plaintiff 

has not made a sufficient showing that he was improperly denied 

the opportunity to receive rehabilitation or to have the bullet in 

his spine removed. 1 Plaintiff also has not sufficiently alleged 

any violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment. 

We also conclude that the denial of access to the jelly for 

only approximately two hours does not amount to deliberate 

indifference to a serious medical need within the meaning of 

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976). Plaintiff's need 

to urinate during the two-hour period does not constitute a 

serious medical need. In his traverse to defendants' motion to 

dismiss, plaintiff did allege that he received treatment by a 

1 In any event, plaintiff did not discuss the need for the 

removal of the bullet at all in his complaint. In addition, 

plaintiff only mentions the denial of rehabilitation in the last 

paragraph of his complaint, where he requests the court to award 

damages for the denial of the opportunity to receive treatment in 

a program conducted at the National Institute of Health (''NIH") in 

Bethesda, Maryland. However, the record indisputably indicates 

that no therapeutic benefits were expected for participants in 

the NIH program that plaintiff sought to attend. See R. Doc. 17, 

Special Report, at 6, Attachment L; R. Doc. 19, Exhibit 6. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-6411 Document: 01019967147 Date Filed: 04/27/1990 Page: 3 
urologist on September 21, 1989 as a result of the denial of 

access to lubricating jelly on July 6. R. Doc. 19, at 3-4. 

However, it appears that the treatment by the urologist was 

necessary because plaintiff attempted to insert his catheter 

without the jelly while he was in the holding cell. Because 

plaintiff did not sufficiently allege that defendants were aware 

that plaintiff might attempt this in the holding cell and that 

serious injury would result, he has failed to state a cognizable 

Eighth Amendment claim. 

In sum, we deny plaintiff's motions for appointment of 

counsel and for a temporary injunction. In addition, we AFFIRM 

the district court's November 22, 1989 judgment dismissing 

plaintiff's complaint. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-6411 Document: 01019967147 Date Filed: 04/27/1990 Page: 4