Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06421/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06421-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

FILED APPEALS Uoited Stat-,.._ f A ..,., '-'VUtt O ,~ppeaJs Tenth Circuit 

THOMAS L. HONEYCUTT, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

vs. ) 

) 

LLOYD HOOSE, CLAUDE STRUNK, ) 

ALLEN MORTON, BERNIE ) 

DROWATZKY, GLEN GUINN, ) 

DAVE BOWAN, NATHAN McCOY, ) 

LUCKY COHN, LARRY GOODNO, ) 

GLENDA COUSSINS, DR. DAVIS, ) 

DR. GIBSON, LESLIE PAGE, ) 

LOWELL DOGGOT, JAMES EMIG, ) 

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,) 

JOE ___ , and FRED ____ , ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

JUN 2 8 1990 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-6421 

(D.C. No. Civ-89-853-T) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

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

* 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: 89-6421 Document: 010110037477 Date Filed: 06/28/1990 Page: 1 
' ' 

This matter is before the court on plaintiff-appellant Thomas 

Honeycutt's motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed on 

appeal in forma pauperis. Honeycutt instituted this suit in the 

district court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking damages and 

injunctive relief as a result of alleged constitutional 

deprivations arising from a pretrial detention. In a thorough 

memorandum opinion, the district court analyzed each of 

Honeycutt's claims and dismissed the complaint under§ 1915(d) as 

frivolous. 

We have reviewed the record in this matter and agree with the 

district court substantially for the reasons set forth in its 

opinion, a copy of which is attached hereto. Accordingly, we deny 

Honeycutt's motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma 

pauperis and dismiss his appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). 

MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED. 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-6421 Document: 010110037477 Date Filed: 06/28/1990 Page: 2 
/ .. .., 

~ . . ' 

t . . Ff l £ D 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

THOMAS HONEYCUTT, 

vs. 

LLOYD HOOSE, et al., 

Plaintiff 

Defendants 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. CIV-89-853-T 

r-~ /)'ttn11/ U!1:! -,•'f: ·•.:rvJ~ 1...- 1 

11r 

MEMORANDUM OPINION . .. -.. I_ 0 

; . - I 3 • . - ' j . _, : C . : ·: _.: 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma 

pauperis, brings this suit pursuant to 42 u.s.c. §1983. Plaintiff 

seeks damages and injunctive relief as a result ot alleged 

constitutional deprivations stemming from his pretrial detention 

in Kay County jail from September 13, 1988, to February 1, 1989. 

The named defendants include police officers, judges, a prosecutor, 

the court clerk, the sheriff, county jail employees, Kay County, 

and two physicians. The sheriff has caused the filing of the 

Special Report in accordance with Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 

(10th Cir. 1978) and Worley v. Sharp, 724 F.2d 862 (10th Cir. 

1983) . 

Count I of the complaint alleges that each of the defendants 

denied and delayed medical care in violation of plaintiff's 

constitutional rights. The Special Report documents that after 

his arrest, plaintiff was transported from Blackwell to the jail 

at Newkirk, Oklahoma, on September 13, 1988. Plaintiff was 

observed to be suicidal, aggressive, and "high," so he was stripped 

of his clothing and placed in a holding cell until he calmed down. 

, __ 

Appellate Case: 89-6421 Document: 010110037477 Date Filed: 06/28/1990 Page: 3 
I' 

About one hour later, plaintiff was calm, stated he would not 

commit suicide, and was given a blanket, but was kept under 

observation. Due to complaints of knee pain, plaintiff was 

admitted to St. Joseph's Hospital on September 15, 1988, for 

observation and testing for two days. Plaintiff was seen by Dr. 

' 

Boring, an orthopedic physician, at this time, as well as on two 

follow-up visits in October and January. Al though additional 

testing and x-rays were scheduled, these appointments were 

cancelled by Dr. Boring's office, due to illness and were to be 

rescheduled. However, plaintiff, in the meantime, was transferred 

to the custody of the Department of Corrections. Additionally, the 

Special Report shows that plaintiff re~eived various medications 

while at the county jail and various medical complaints were 

monitored by a doctor. A daily activity log was kept by the 

defendants at the county jail. The log reflects that plaintiff was 

able to do push-ups, run up and down stairs, and walk with no limp. 

Plaintiff, as a ~retrial detainee at the time of the events 

in question, was entitled under the Due Process Clause of the 

Fourteenth Amendment to no less a level of medical care than that 

required for convicted prisoners by the Eighth Amendment. City of 

Revere v. Massachusetts General Hospital, 463 U.S. 239, 244 (1983); 

Garcia v. Salt Lake County, 768 F.2d 303, 307 (10th Cir. 1985) 

(applying the deliberate indifference standard of Estelle v. 

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) to pretrial detainees); Simons v. 

Clemons, 7 52 F. 2d 1053, 1056 ( 5th Cir. 1985) . Under Estelle, 

inadvertence or ordinary negligence regarding medical care is 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-6421 Document: 010110037477 Date Filed: 06/28/1990 Page: 4 
r 

insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim; rather, it is 

deliberate indifference to a prisoner's serious medical needs which 

is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. Differences of opinion as 

to treatment or diagnosis between an inmate and a treating doctor 

do not give rise to a cause of action. Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559 

(10th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1041 (1981); Smart v. 

Villar, 547 F.2d 112 (10th Cir. 1976). The Constitution does not 

guarantee a prisoner the medical treatment of his choice. Cf. 

Jackson v. Fair, 846 F.2d 811 (1st Cir. 1988). Moreover, mere 

delay in getting a prisoner to medical treatment does not rise to 

the level of a constitutional violation. See Shockley v. Jones, 

823 F.2d 1068 (7th Cir. 1987). The Court notes that plaintiff's 

claim against the police officers at most alleges that the officers 

were negligent in getting him to where he could be treated. The 

Due Process Clause is not triggered by negligent acts. Daniels v. 

Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986). There is no indication or 

allegation that the defendants refused to comply with the orders 

of any physician. Plaintiff's disagreement with the course of 

medical treatment and diagnosis simply does not rise to the level 

of a constitutional violation. 

Plaintiff next claims that the defendants denied him access 

to legal materials and access to courts. The Kay County Detention 

Center has neither a law library nor a commissary for stamps and 

paper. However, plaintiff did receive the services of courtappointed attorneys. Plaintiff was advised that he should contact 

his counsel concerning his request for legal information and 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-6421 Document: 010110037477 Date Filed: 06/28/1990 Page: 5 
r , 

material. (See the October 17, 1988, letter from defendant 

Assistant District Attorney Emig, which is an attachment to 

plaintiff's September 1, 1989, motion.) Further, at his guilty 

plea proceedings, plaintiff responded affirmatively when asked 

whether he was satisfied with the advice and help of counsel and 

that counsel had done all that he could do to assist plaintiff. 

Providing inmates with their constitutional right of access 

to the courts can be achieved by various alternative means, 

including providing adequate law libraries or providing legal 

assistance. See Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977); see also 

Howland v. Kilguist, 833 F.2d 639, 643 (7th Cir. 1987) (conclusory 

allegations that prisoner was denied right to legal stati0nery, 

lawbooks, and other legal materials insufficient when he was 

offered counsel); Carter v. Fair, 786 F.2d 433, 435 (1st Cir. 1986) 

(absence of law library permissible when inmates have opportunity 

for consultation with visiting attorneys); Love v. summit County, 

776 F.2d 908, 914, 915 (10th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 814 

(1986) (pretrial detainee not denied access when counsel available 

for assistance with pleadings). Plaintiff had the opportunity for 

consultation with counsel. There is no requirement that he also 

be provided access to a law library. Moreover, the fact that 

plaintiff. has pressed this lawsuit suggests that he has not been 

constitutionally harmed. See Howland v. Kilguist, 833 F.2d at 642; 

Mann v. Smith, 796 F.2d 79, 84 (5th Cir. 1986) (no actual injury 

shown by pretrial detainee). 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-6421 Document: 010110037477 Date Filed: 06/28/1990 Page: 6 
- . 

Plaintiff further claims that the defendant judges and the 

court clerk denied him meaningful access to the courts by failing 

to act on a petition for writ of habeas corpus for medical 

attention, and a tort claim which apparently was in the form of a 

letter. Plainti\f was clearly dealing with the judges in their 

judicial capacities in these matters and thus the judges . are 

entitled to absolute immunity from damages. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 

U.S. 349 (1978); Pearson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967). The court 

clerk passed the writ and/or letter on to the judges and the items 

were evidently placed in the court file, although they were not 

file-stamped. The Tenth Circuit has held that court clerks are 

likewise entitled to absolute immunity from damages. 

New Mexico State Supreme Court Clerk, 664 F. 2d 812 

1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 840 (1982); see also 

Wiggins v. 

( 10th Cir. 

Eades v. 

Sterlinske, 810 F.2d 723 (7th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 

847 (1987). No action of record was taken regarding these matters, 

but the affidavit of defendant Judge Doggett indicates that he 

would most likely have inquired into the issue with jail personnel 

and that sometime such matters would be referred to an inmate's 

counsel for action. Defendant Assistant Attorney Emig would 

likewise be entitled to absolute immunity for prosecutorial 

activities, -I .... rnb......._l_.e .... r___ v .......... __.P ...... a __ c"'"'h __ t=m=a~n, 424 U.S. 4 09 ( 1976) , but this 

defendant was under absolutely no obligation to provide plaintiff 

with legal advice or materials inasmuch as plaintiff was 

represented by counsel. 

5 

Appellate Case: 89-6421 Document: 010110037477 Date Filed: 06/28/1990 Page: 7 
. ;. .. ~ 

r) 

Plaintiff next claims that his due process rights have been 

violated by the general conditions of confinement such as foreign 

particles in the food, lack of outdoor exercise, lack of sanitary 

conditions, and retaliation for speaking to a jail inspector. 

Plaintiff's claims concerning the nature and condition of his 

' 

p~etrial detention are reviewed under a due process analysis which 

turns on whether the conditions of plaintiff's detention amount to 

"punishment" in the constitutional sense. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 

U.S. 520, 534 (1979); Littlefield v. Deland, 641 F.2d 729, 731 

( 10th Cir. 1981) . In evaluating plaintiff's claims, it is 

necessary to determine, first, whether jail officials expressed an 

intent to punish, and in the absence of proof of intent to punish, 

the Court must determine whether an alternative purpose exists as 

to whether the restriction or condition may be rationally related, 

and whether the restriction or condition appears excessive in 

relation to the alternative purpose assigned to the restriction or 

condition. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 538; Littlefield v. 

Deland, 641 F.2d at 731. 

The facts as developed by the jail inspection report and the 

Special Report reveal no basis for the plaintiff's allegation of 

unsatisfactory food service. Although the jail inspection 

disclosed that the toilets were not draining properly, subsequent 

to the plaintiff's complaint the plumbing was reworked which 

corrected this deficiency. Moreover, the Special Report indicates 

that plaintiff was placed in a maximum security cell for better 

observation of hfs medical conditions at the advice of the jail 

6 

Appellate Case: 89-6421 Document: 010110037477 Date Filed: 06/28/1990 Page: 8 
, __ 

\ 

·-

-.. --- ,.-- - . . \ 

inspector, and not in retaliation for speaking with the jail 

inspector. Further, there is a large day room where detainees may 

exercise, visit with other detainees, or play games and cards. 

Taken together, and in light of the information in the Special 

Report, plaintiff has not shown conditions or restrictions that 

amount to punishment under the standard set forth in Bell v. 

Wolfish, supra. The restrictions placed on plaintiff as the result 

of jail policy or practice including the lack of outdoor exercise, 

lack of commissary, and limited visitation, are all restrictions 

that are reasonably related to legitimate, non-punitive government 

objectives of maintaining jail security, effective management of 

the jail, and maintaining order and discipline in the facility. 

Plaintiff's allegations do not reflect conditions that are so harsh 

as to support a conclusion that the conditions were imposed as 

punishment. 

Further, the restrictions or jail policies at issue are not 

unconstitutional on their face. Plaintiff does not allege that any 

of the jail's policies were unconstitutionally applied such that 

Kay County, as a government entity, could be held responsible. See 

City of Canton v. Harris, __ U.S. __ , 109 s.ct. 1197 (1989). 

Moreover, plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief to improve 

the conditions at the Kay County Detention Center are moot, since 

he is no longer subject to these conditions. Martin v. Sargent, 

780 F.2d 1334 (8th Cir. 1985). Further, because all the named 

defendants in this action are entitled to either absolute or 

qualified immunity from damages, and since there is no showing that 

7 

Appellate Case: 89-6421 Document: 010110037477 Date Filed: 06/28/1990 Page: 9 
........ . ( ' ,,-

, ) 

the defendants' conduct violated clearly established statutory or 

constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have 

known,-TM Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982), plaintiff's 

claims considered individually and collectively simply do not rise 

to the level of a constitutional violation. See Ramos v. Lamm, 639 

' 

F.2d at 579. 

The administrative record developed by the Special Report has 

been expressly approved to determine if a suit must go beyond 

preliminary stages. Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d at 320. As the 

plaintiff can make no argument on the law or facts in support of 

his claims, the complaint is dismissed as frivolous. 28 u.s.c. 

§1915(d); Neitzke v. Williams, __ U.S. --' 109 S. Ct. 1827 

(1989). Further, an order authorizing an appeal in forma pauperis 

will not issue. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 

p ..J <J day of November, 1989. 

-·7 , ,,f ~ ~ v_~ Q ; y~L~ - __ ., 

RALPH G. THOMPSON 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

8 

Appellate Case: 89-6421 Document: 010110037477 Date Filed: 06/28/1990 Page: 10