Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02055/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02055-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles McGuinness
Appellant
Rudolpho Valdivia
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

Uoited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

APR 2 6 1991 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk CHARLES McGUINNESS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

RUDOLPHO VALDIVIA, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 90-2055 

(D.C. No. 90-0077-JP) 

(D.N.M.) 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, 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. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff-appellant Charles McGuinness has brought this 

action against defendant-appellee Dr. Rudolpho Valdivia seeking 

recovery pursuant to 42 u.s.c. S 1983. Plaintiff, a prisoner at 

the Western New Mexico Corrections Center, claims defendant, a 

doctor at that facility, subjected him to cruel and unusual 

* 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: 90-2055 Document: 010110105194 Date Filed: 04/26/1991 Page: 1 
punrshment in violation of the eighth and fourteenth amendments by 

providing plaintiff with improper medical care. 

The district court dismissed plaintiff's complaint on 

February 6, 1990. Plaintiff delivered his notice of appeal to 

prison officials for mailing to the district court on March 8, 

1990. The notice of appeal was actually filed with the district 

court on March 12, 1990. 

We must first determine whether the notice of appeal was 

filed in a timely manner. Defendant contends the deadline for 

filing the notice of appeal was March 8, 1990. Because the notice 

was not actually filed until March 12, 1990, defendant believes 

this court does not have jurisdiction over this appeal. 

The Supreme Court, however, has held a notice of appeal by a 

prose prisoner is filed at the time it is handed over to prison 

officials for mailing to the district court. See Houston Y..:.. Lack, 

487 U.S. 266, 270-71 (1988). Plaintiff delivered his notice of 

appeal to the prison officials on March 8, 1990, thirty days after 

the district court entered its order. The notice of appeal was 

therefore filed in a timely manner and we have jurisdiction to 

consider this appeal. 

The district court properly dismissed plaintiff's complaint 

for failure to state a claim. Because petitioner is representing 

himself, his complaint will be construed liberally. Haines Y..:.. 

Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). Plaintiff's complaint 

alleges defendant provided him with improper treatment for warts 

on his testicles. A prisoner states a cognizable claim under the 

eighth amendment only if he alleges "acts or omissions 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-2055 Document: 010110105194 Date Filed: 04/26/1991 Page: 2 
1 

sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to 

serious medical needs." Estelle L. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 

(1976). 

Plaintiff's complaint does not contain these required 

allegations. It only states plaintiff believes defendant did not 

provide proper medical care. Such allegations do not support a 

claim under section 1983. Smart L. Villar, 547 F.2d 112, 114 

(10th Cir. 1976). We AFFIRM for substantially the same reasons 

provided by the district court. The mandate shall issue 

forthwith. 

-3-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-2055 Document: 010110105194 Date Filed: 04/26/1991 Page: 3