Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03211/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03211-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Phillip K. Hill
Appellee
F. Kemen
Appellee
Albert Earle Smith-Bey
Appellant

Document Text:

I , '- FI LED 

United Scates Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 16 1990 

TENTH CIRCUIT __________ ROBERTL.HOECKER 

ALBERT EARLE SMITH-BEY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

PHILLIP K. HILL; DR. F. KEMEN, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Clerk 

No. 90-3211 

(D.C. No. 90-3179-R) 

(D. Kansas) 

Before MCKAY, 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. 

Mr. Smith-Bey appeals the dismissal of his complaint. 

* 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: 90-3211 Document: 010110051300 Date Filed: 11/16/1990 Page: 1 
' 

Mr. Smith-Bey is a federal inmate. In his prose complaint, 

he complains he was denied his constitutional right to adequate 

medical treatment, his contention being he needed immediate 

surgery and that defendants "capriciously lied" in deciding he had 

only "minor hemrodial [sic] tags." 

The district court dismissed the action stating: 

It is well settled that while the judgment of a doctor 

which results in the delay or deprivation of medical 

treatment may give rise to an action in tort for 

malpractice or negligence, it does not amount to a 

federal constitutional violation. Estelle v. Gamble, 

429 U.S. 97 (1976), reh'g denied, 429 U.S. 1066 (1978); 

Smart v. Villar, 547 F.2d 112 (10th Cir. 1976). 

Further, medical malpractice does not become a 

constitutional violation simply because the victim is a 

prisoner. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106; Parilla v. Cuyler, 

447 F. Supp. 363 (E.D. Pa. 1978). Accordingly, the 

allegations set forth in plaintiff's complaint, even if 

taken as true and liberally construed, do not state a 

claim of cruel and unusual punishment. 

Plaintiff's remedy, if any, lies in a claim 

pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). 28 

u.s.c. § 2671. Before plaintiff may present a claim of 

medical malpractice or negligence to a United States 

District Court, he must first exhaust administrative 

remedies available under the FTCA. 28 u.s.c. § 2675. 

Plaintiff must therefore seek relief through the Bureau 

of Prisons before pursuing his claim in federal court. 

District Court Order dated June 26, 1990. 

In his prose appeal to this court Mr. Smith-Bey argues 

strongly that the district judge was wrong and capricious and that 

the district court's order dismissing the case was "a forged and 

counterfeit document." 

Mr. Smith-Bey has requested permission to proceed in this 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-3211 Document: 010110051300 Date Filed: 11/16/1990 Page: 2 
~ ' . 

appeal in forma pauperis and we grant this request. 

We have carefully examined the record on appeal and have 

determined that the district court's order dismissing the 

complaint is what it purports to be. Having considered the record 

on appeal and Mr. Smith-Bey's briefs, we AFFIRM the decision of 

the district court. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-3211 Document: 010110051300 Date Filed: 11/16/1990 Page: 3