Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03287/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03287-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Defendant Denney
Appellee
Defendant Hill
Appellee
Defendant Mallein
Appellee
Defendant Quinn
Appellee
Defendant Sperry
Appellee
Defendant Vargas
Appellee
Defendant Walter
Appellee
G. Henman
Appellee
Jorge Luis Lopez
Appellant

Document Text:

" FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 'tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT APR 17 1991 

R.OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

JORGE LUIS LOPEZ, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

G. HENMAN, DEFENDANT HILL, 

DEFENDANT WALTER, DEFENDANT 

DENNEY, DEFENDANT SPERRY, 

DEFENDANT QUINN, DEFENDANT 

VARGAS, DEFENDANT MALLEIN 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-3287 

(D.C. No. 90-3252-R) 

(D. Kan.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, SEYMOUR, 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. 

We grant the appellant's request to proceed in forma 

pauperis. 

The appellant, Jorge Lopez, appeals from the district court's 

dismissal of his complaint filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 

* 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: 90-3287 Document: 010110034239 Date Filed: 04/17/1991 Page: 1 
.. where he alleged that various prison officials had denied him 

access to his psychotropic medication in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment. The issue before us is whether Lopez's complaint 

stated a claim. The United States District Court for the District 

of Kansas, without requiring the defendants to file a responsive 

pleading, determined that it did not and dismissed his complaint 

sua sponte. We reverse. 

The district court, in its September 20, 1990 Memorandum 

Order, citing to Smart v. Villar, 547 F.2d 112, 114 (10th Cir. 

1976), stated that "[i]t is well settled in this district that a 

simple difference of opinion between an inmate and prison medical 

staff regarding treatment or diagnosis does not in itself state a 

constitutional violation." While this statement is true, it is 

also equally well settled in this Circuit that "[d]eliberate 

indifference to serious medical needs is shown when prison 

officials have prevented an inmate from receiving recommended 

treatment .•.. " Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 575 (10th Cir. 

1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1041 (1981). See also Ancata v. 

Prison Health Services, Inc., 769 F.2d 700, 704 (11th Cir. 1985). 

In addition we have held that the denial of mental health care, if 

needed, can amount to deliberate indifference. See Ramos, 639 

F.2d at 577-78. 

A federal court is to construe a prose litigant's complaint 

liberally. See Reynoldson v. Shillinger, 907 F.2d 124, 125 (10th 

Cir. 1990). We have reviewed Lopez's complaint and are satisfied 

that he has alleged, with sufficient particularity, that prison 

officials prevented him from receiving recommended medication 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-3287 Document: 010110034239 Date Filed: 04/17/1991 Page: 2 
, 

necessary to prevent suicidal or destructive tendencies. 

Therefore, we find that he has stated a valid Eight Amendment 

claim under Ramso. 

We list briefly Lopez's specific allegations: (1) He alleges 

that he "is a person who needs to be under medication for his 

medical problems," and that he is able to function normally only 

when he is on his medication. Plaintiff's Brief in Support of his 

Pro Se Complaint at 3, No. 90-3252 (D. Kan. July 24, 1990); (2) He 

alleges that he was diagnosed as insane by a psychiatrist from 

"the District Court of Miami." Id.; (3) He alleges that on 

November 2, 1989, he was placed in administrative detention, and 

his medication was cut off. Id.; (4) He alleges that later, he 

was provided with medication in an erratic on-again off-again 

manner. Id.; (5) He alleges that his condition worsened and as a 

result on July 5, 1990, he attempted to commit suicide. Id. at 3-

4;1 (6) He alleges that the prison staff was aware of his 

condition, yet denied him his medication in an effort to cause him 

to injure himself. Id. at 5-6; (7) He alleges that the prison 

staff deprived him of his medicine in retaliation for his filing 

another civil rights claim. Id. at 7; (8) He alleges that he has 

a documented medical history of serious psychological dementia 

including an additional past suicide attempt, and that his medical 

records prove that he has received a substantial amount of medical 

1 In addition, Lopez even submitted a copy of the prison incident 

report pertaining to his suicide attempt. In the box designated 

for inmate comments, Lopez wrote, "I am guilty. I let them know 

that I needed medication. No one would do anything. This is the 

only way I can help." July 5th Incident Report, Contained in 

Plaintiff's Brief in Support of his Pro Se Complaint. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-3287 Document: 010110034239 Date Filed: 04/17/1991 Page: 3 
care from various prison mental health facilities in other federal 

penal institutions. Id., Addendum Statement of Fact at 1; (9) He 

alleges that the prison medical staff is aware of his medical 

needs. Id. at 3; (10) He alleges that a psychiatrist told the 

Warden that Lopez needed medication for his psychiatric condition; 

Id. (11) He submitted a copy of a prison report stating "Mr. Lopez 

has a history of mental health problems and self mutilations." 

Id., Exhibit A; (12) He submitted a copy of a prison complaint 

form in which he states, "I am hearing voices, and I am afraid." 

Id., Exhibit B; (13) He provided a copy of another prison 

complaint form in which he requested that the prison provide him 

with his medication; and (14) in the same complaint form he states 

that he cut himself because of the lack of medication. Id., 

Exhibit D. 

It may turn out that these "factual" allegations have no 

basis in truth. Nonetheless, the district court erred when it 

dismissed his complaint sua sponte without first making any effort 

to inquire into the veracity of his allegations. 

The district court is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for 

further proceedings. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-3287 Document: 010110034239 Date Filed: 04/17/1991 Page: 4