Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-07074/USCOURTS-ca10-89-07074-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Muskogee
Appellee
County of Muskogee
Appellee
Charles C. Gray
Appellant

Document Text:

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

CHARLESC. GRAY, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

CITY OF MUSKOGEE, and COUNTY OF ) 

MUSKOGEE, both State of Oklahoma, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

JAN 2 9 1991 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

Ho. 89-7074 

(D.C. Ho. 89-135-C) 

(E.D. Okla.) 

Before MOORE, BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and SPARR,** District 

Judge. 

**Honorable Daniel 

District Court for 

designation. 

B. Sparr, District Judge, 

the District of Colorado, 

United States 

sitting by 

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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

* 

The case is therefore ordered 

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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-7074 Document: 010110083563 Date Filed: 01/29/1991 Page: 1 
Plaintiff appeals from an order of the district 

dismissing his civil rights action, 42 u.s.c. S 1983, for 

court 

failure 

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We affirm. 

Plaintiff commenced this civil rights action against 

defendants, the City and County of Muskogee, Oklahoma, alleging 

that he fell and injured himself after he was required, in an 

intoxicated condition, to walk down stairs at the County Jail 

without help. He contended that the police officer escorting him 

down the stairs was negligent in not helping him, the City was 

negligent in not training police in how to transport intoxicated 

persons, and the County knowingly permitted the City to transport 

intoxicated persons down the stairs in a negligent manner. Both 

defendants filed motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). 

Concluding that plaintiff set forth only a cause of action for 

negligence, the district court granted the motions. 

On appeal, plaintiff argues he did state a cause of action. 

He maintains that the City's failure to have a policy regarding 

transporting intoxicated persons down a stairway constituted 

deliberate indifference or a conscious choice by the City to 

deprive plaintiff of his due process rights under the fourteenth 

amendment. Plaintiff, however, concedes that he made allegations 

of negligence in his complaint. 

We review the granting of a motion to dismiss for failure to 

state a claim de novo, Wells v. Walker, 852 F.2d 368, 369-70 (8th 

Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1012 (1989); Dugan v. Brooks, 

818 F.2d 513, 516 (6th Cir. 1987), and assume that the facts 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-7074 Document: 010110083563 Date Filed: 01/29/1991 Page: 2 
alleged in the complaint are true, Sawyer v. County of Creek, 908 

F.2d 663, 665 (10th Cir. 1990). "[A] complaint should not be 

dismissed for failure to state a claim 'unless it appears beyond 

doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of 

his claim which would entitle him to relief.'" 

(quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). 

Id. at 667 

The issue is whether plaintiff has stated a claim for relief 

for violation of a clearly established constitutional right. To 

the extent plaintiff argues defendants violated his fourteenth 

amendment due process rights by acting in a negligent manner, 

plaintiff has not stated a claim. It is settled that there is no 

violation of due process rights by an official's negligent acts 

causing unintended injury. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328 

(1986); Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 347-48 (1986). "To hold 

that injury caused by [negligence or lack of due care] is a 

deprivation within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment would 

trivialize the centuries-old principle of due process of law." 

Daniels, 474 U.S. at 332. 

The Fourteenth Amendment is a part of a 

Constitution generally designed to allocate governing 

authority among the Branches of the Federal Government 

and between that Government and the States, and to 

secure certain individual rights against both State and 

Federal Government. When dealing with a claim that such 

a document creates a right in prisoners to sue a 

government official because he negligently created an 

unsafe condition in the prison, we bear in mind Chief 

Justice Marshall's admonition that "we must never 

forget, that it is A constitution we are expounding," 

McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 407 (1819)(emphasis 

in original). Our Constitution deals with the large 

concerns of the governors and the governed, but it does 

not purport to supplant traditional tort law in laying 

down rules of conduct to regulate liability for injuries 

that attend living together in society. We have 

previously rejected reasoning that "'would make of the 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-7074 Document: 010110083563 Date Filed: 01/29/1991 Page: 3 
Fourteenth Amendment a font of 

superimposed upon whatever systems 

administered by the States[.]'" 

tort · law to 

may already 

be 

be 

To the extent plaintiff sought to allege deliberate 

indifference in his complaint (although we do not read the 

complaint as making such an allegation), plaintiff has also failed 

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Pretrial 

detainees are protected under the fourteenth amendment against 

deliberate indifference to their needs. Garcia v. Salt Lake 

County. 768 F.2d 303, 307 (10th Cir. 1985); see also Estelle v. 

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976)(post-trial detainees). Although there 

need not be an allegation of an intent to inflict injury, there 

must be at least an allegat-ion of obduracy and wantonness. See 

Blankenship v. Meachum, 840 F.2d 741, 742 (10th Cir. 1988); ~ 

also Martin v. Board of County Comm'rs, 909 F.2d 402, 406 (10th 

Cir. 1990)(simple inadvertence is not deliberate indifference). 

Allegations of conduct amounting to inadvertence or a good faith 

error are insufficient. See Blankenship, 840 F.2d at 742. 

Because plaintiff's allegations fail to indicate more than 

inadvertence or a good faith error, plaintiff failed to state a 

claim of deliberate indifference. 

Plaintiff also argues the City failed to properly train 

officers in transporting intoxicated persons. Again, we believe 

the district court correctly concluded that plaintiff failed to 

state a claim. Inadequate police training may serve as a basis 

for civil rights relief if the failure to train amounts to 

deliberate indifference to the rights of an arrested person. City 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-7074 Document: 010110083563 Date Filed: 01/29/1991 Page: 4 
• 

of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 388 (1989). 

fails to meet this standard. 

The complaint 

The district court correctly dismissed this action for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the United States District Court for 

the Eastern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

5 

Appellate Case: 89-7074 Document: 010110083563 Date Filed: 01/29/1991 Page: 5 
• 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

CHARLES C. GRAY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 89-7074 

CITY OF MUSKOGEE, and COUNTY OF 

MUSKOGEE, both State of Oklahoma, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDER 

Before MOORE and BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and SPARR,* District 

Judge. 

*Honorable Daniel B. Sparr, District Judge, United States District 

Court for the District of Colorado, sitting by designation. 

It appears that this appeal is frivolous. Therefore, the 

court on its own motion, orders plaintiff Charles C. Gray and his 

attorney David M. Garrett to show cause in writing within twenty 

days of the date of this order why sanctions should not be imposed 

for filing a frivolous appeal. See 10th Cir. R. 46.5; Fed. R. 

App. P. 38; 28 U.S.C. S 1927; Braley v. Campbell, 832 F.2d 1504 

Appellate Case: 89-7074 Document: 010110083563 Date Filed: 01/29/1991 Page: 6 
/. 

(10th Cir. 1987); Van Sickle v. Holloway, 791 F.2d 1431, 1437 

(10th Cir. 1986). 

Clerk 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-7074 Document: 010110083563 Date Filed: 01/29/1991 Page: 7