Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03376/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03376-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carper
Appellee
Jeffery Dean Cooper
Appellant
Von Ruden
Appellee
William Wade
Appellee

Document Text:

- -

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

FJLBD 

United St ce, Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

APR 18 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

JEFFERY DEAN COOPER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

v. 

No. 90-3376 

(D.C. No. 90-3498-S) 

(D. Kansas) 

WILLIAM WADE, VON RUDEN, and 

CARPER, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

Jeffery Dean Cooper filed a prose complaint under 42 u.s.c. 

§ 1983 alleging "gross indifference and denial of medical care 

contrary to the Eighth Amendment. Among his claims were: 

1. Defendants "ignored" medical care prescribed 

by plaintiff's private physician; 

2. Defendant Von Ruden delayed performance of a 

C.A.T. scan prescribed by a private physician; 

*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: 90-3376 Document: 010110034243 Date Filed: 04/18/1991 Page: 1 
-- --

3. Defendant Von Ruden took away a wheelchair 

ordered by another physician; 

4. Defendant Carper did not allow plaintiff to 

have prescribed exercise; 

5. Defendants deprived plaintiff of prescribed 

medications. 

The district court dismissed the complaint prior to service of 

process upon the finding that "read liberally, the complaint 

alleges no more than delay in performing the C.A.T. scan procedure 

and plaintiff's obvious difference of opinion regarding the 

appropriate course of his medical treatment." The court held 

these allegations "fail to state a claim cognizable under 42 

u.s.c. § 1983." The court did not state the basis of its order, 

but from the foregoing, we assume the court envoked Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 12(b)(6). We reverse. 

When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the 

court must consider every well-pleaded averment as true. 

McKinney v. State of Oklahoma Dept. of Human Servs., 925 F.2d 363, 

365 (10th Cir. 1991). Moreover, prose pleadings are entitled to 

liberal construction, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 

Given that liberal standard of review, we must conclude 

plaintiff's complaint raised specific, non-conclusory instances of 

the denial of proper medical care in addition to his claim over 

the delay of his C.A.T. scan. Liberally construed, as required, 

these averments state a claim beyond a mere difference of opinion 

regarding the appropriate course of his medical treatment. For 

these reasons, the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-3376 Document: 010110034243 Date Filed: 04/18/1991 Page: 2 
-

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6) without motion or notice. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 109 s. Ct. 1827, 1834 (1989); McKinney, 925 

F.2d at 365. In so concluding, however, we do not imply that the 

complaint can withstand the test of properly filed Rule 12(b)(6) 

or Rule 56 motions. We simply hold the district court acted 

prematurely in this instance. 

The motion to proceed on appeal without payment of fees is 

GRANTED and the judgment of the district court is REVERSED. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-3376 Document: 010110034243 Date Filed: 04/18/1991 Page: 3