Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01432/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01432-0/pdf.json

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

---

• 

UNITED FIL~~ STATES COURT OF APPE.At.fluted Statel Court Appeal, 

Ten.th Circu t 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JOSE M. ESCOBAR, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

WILLIAM PARKER, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

DEC 10 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-1432 

(D. Colo., No. 91-M-1580) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, Circuit Judge, BARRETT, Senior Circuit Judge, and 

EBEL, Circuit Judge.** 

In this prose appeal, the appellant challenges the district 

court's order dismissing his §1983 complaint against the appellee, 

a guard at the Arkansas Valley Correctional Facility (AVCF) where 

the appellant is currently incarcerated. In his complaint, the 

appellant alleged that, following an altercation between two 

inmates, the appellee told a third inmate that it was the 

* 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. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 91-1432 Document: 010110151592 Date Filed: 12/10/1992 Page: 1 
appellant who should have been stabbed and announced that the 

appellant was dangerous and could not be trusted. Additionally, 

the appellant alleged that, upon requesting the appellee not to 

talk about him to the other prisoners, the appellee pushed him 

several times with his stomach and told him "it was just a matter 

of time before he would get his." The appellant asserted that 

these actions violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth 

Amendments and requested injunctive relief and monetary damages. 

The United States District Court for the District of Colorado 

required the appellant to show cause why the appellant's complaint 

should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim. When the 

appellant failed to respond to the district court's show cause 

order, the district court dismissed the complaint. The appellant 

now appeals and we affirm. 

The sufficiency of a complaint is a question of law requiring 

de novo review. Ayala v. Joy Mfg. Co., 877 F.2d 846, 847 (10th 

Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). A complaint is insufficient if, 

accepting the allegations as true, it appears that the plaintiff 

can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would 

entitle him to relief. Jacobs. Visconi & Jacobs. Co. v. City of 

Lawrence, 927 F.2d 1111, 1115 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Hishon v. 

King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984)). For purposes of this 

determination, the plaintiff's allegations must be viewed in the 

light most favorable to the plaintiff. Williams v. Meese, 926 

F.2d 994, 997 (10th Cir. 1991). 

To state a claim under §1983, an individual must allege 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 91-1432 Document: 010110151592 Date Filed: 12/10/1992 Page: 2 
misconduct that is "so egregious as to subject the aggrieved 

individual to a deprivation of constitutional dimensions." Wise 

v. Bravo, 666 F.2d 1328, 1333 (10th Cir. 1981). When misconduct 

falls short of this standard, an individual must seek relief in 

state court under traditional tort-law principles. Id. 

In this case, the appellant has alleged that the appellee's 

conduct violated his constitutional rights in two respects. 

First, the appellant alleges that the appellee's conduct violated 

his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual 

punishment. However, "not every governmental action 

affecting ... the well-being of a prisoner" constitutes cruel 

and unusual punishment. Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 

(1986). Prison officials are entitled to significant deference in 

administering and controlling penal institutions. Hudson v. 

McMillian, 112 S.Ct. 995, 999 (1992); Bethea v. Crouse, 417 F.2d 

504, 505-06 (10th Cir. 1969) . Thus, to violate the Eighth 

Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, 

conduct must involve the "unnecessary .and wanton infliction of 

pain." Hudson, 112 S.Ct. at 998 (quoting Ingraham v. Wright, 430 

U.S. 651, 670 (1977)). 

In the instant case, we cannot say that the appellee's 

conduct amounted to the "unnecessary and wanton infliction of 

pain." The physical contact between the appellee and the 

appellant was minimal, consisting merely of the appellee shoving 

the appellant several times with his stomach. Such a de minimis 

use of physical force does not amount to a constitutional 

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 91-1432 Document: 010110151592 Date Filed: 12/10/1992 Page: 3 
violation. See Hudson, 112 S.Ct. at 1000 (not "every malevolent 

touch by a prison guard gives rise to a federal cause of action"). 

Similarly, the comments made by the appellee consisted only of 

casual verbal threats. While we can imagine situations where 

verbal abuse alone might rise to the level of cruel and unusual 

punishment, we do not believe this case presents such a situation. 

Cf. Collins v. Cundy, 603 F.2d 825 (10th Cir. 1979) (holding 

sheriff's threat to hang prisoner following prisoner's request to 

mail some legal correspondence did not amount to cruel and unusual 

punishment). Consequently, we believe the appellant has failed to 

allege an Eighth Amendment violation. 

The defendant also alleges that the appellee's actions 

violated his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. 1 

In the prison context, however, the due process clause 

affords no greater protection to a prisoner than does the Eighth 

Amendment. Whitley, 475 U.S. at 327. Whether a particular prison 

measure "shocks the conscience" and so violates due process 

depends on whether the conduct involves the "unnecessary and 

wanton infliction of pain." Id. Consequently, our conclusion 

that the appellee's conduct did not amount to cruel and unusual 

punishment properly disposes of the appellant's due process claim 

1 Although the appellant's complaint does not specifically allege 

a due process violation, we must construe his prose complaint 

broadly. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Hall v. 

Belman, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). Consequently, we 

interpret his reference to the Fourteenth Amendment as raising a 

due process claim. 

- 4 -

Appellate Case: 91-1432 Document: 010110151592 Date Filed: 12/10/1992 Page: 4 
• 

as well. Accordingly, we find that the appellant's complaint has 

failed to state a claim under §1983. 

The judgement of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

- 5 -

Appellate Case: 91-1432 Document: 010110151592 Date Filed: 12/10/1992 Page: 5