Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-86-02858/USCOURTS-ca10-86-02858-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Captain of the Guard
Appellee
Lieutenant Benson
Appellee
Segregation Counselor
Appellee
Segregation Lieutenant X
Appellee
Albert Earle Smith-Bey
Appellant

Document Text:

FILED 

Unit.ed States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

ALBERT EARLE SMITH-BEY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

V • 

CAPTAIN OF THE GUARD; 

LIEUTENANT BENSON; 

SEGREGATION LIEUTENANT X; 

SEGREGATION COUNSELOR, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

JAN 311989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 86-2858 

(D.C. No . 86-3274 

(D. Kan.) 

Before MOORE, BRORBY, 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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Plaintiff, a prose prisoner, has appealed from an order of 

the district court which dismissed his civil rights action as 

frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). The complaint alleged 

that defendants have failed to protect plaintiff from exposure to 

Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). Because the district 

court's order did not state otherwise, the dismissal was with 

prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4l(b). 

Appellate Case: 86-2858 Document: 01019962433 Date Filed: 01/31/1989 Page: 1 
.-

A prisoner states a civil rights claim based on the threat of 

AIDS in prison if he shows a pervasive risk of harm to inmates of 

contracting the AIDS virus and there is a failure of prison 

officials to reasonably respond to that risk. Glick v. Henderson, 

855 F.2d 536, 539-40 (8th Cir. 1988). AIDS is transmitted only 

through s exual intercourse, use of tainted blood or blood 

products, sharing of needles, and prenatal and natal exposure. 

See id. at 539 (citing United States Dep't of Health and Human 

Services, Pub. No. (CDC) HHS-88-8404, Understanding AIDS (1988)). 

In this case, the complaint does not show a pervasive risk of 

acquiring AIDS through a recognized means of transmission. 

However, it is unclear whether the deficiencies in the complaint 

can be cured by amendment. Therefore, a§ 1915(d) dismissal with 

prejudice was inappropriate, and the proper procedural mechanism 

is a dismissal without prejudice. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the United States District Court 

for the District of Kansas is modified to a dismissal without 

prejudice and AFFIRMED as so modified. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

2 

Appellate Case: 86-2858 Document: 01019962433 Date Filed: 01/31/1989 Page: 2 
No. 86-2858, Smith-Bey v. Captain of the Guard, et al. 

EBEL, Circuit Judge, dissenting. 

I read the majority opinion as stating that Plaintiff does 

not plead his case with specificity. An in forma pauperis 

complaint should be dismissed only "if the plaintiff cannot make a 

rational argument on the law or the facts to support his claim." 

Phillips v. Carey, 638 F.2d 207, 208 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 

450 U.S. 985 (1981). I cannot agree that Plaintiff's complaint is 

so void of merit that he could not make a rational argument to 

support his claim. 

Pro se complaints are held to "less stringent standards than 

formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 

519, 520 (1972). With the liberality afforded prose plaintiffs, 

I find that Plaintiff does allege that he faces a pervasive risk 

of acquiring AIDS and that the prison officials are failing to 

respond reasonably to that risk. Plaintiff's complaint is 

specific as to the risk to which he is exposed (the risk of AIDS), 

and the manner in which that risk relates to him (exposure through 

prison food and through other inmates who have not been screened 

for AIDS). Although I recognize that prevailing medical wisdom 

indicates that the AIDS virus cannot be spread through food and 

casual contact, on a motion to dismiss we are dealing not with 

facts but with the sufficiency of the pleading. Whether the risk 

is nonexistent, and whether it is an unreasonable risk, are not 

matters that we should decide without the benefit of evidence. If 

3 

Appellate Case: 86-2858 Document: 01019962433 Date Filed: 01/31/1989 Page: 3 
... . .. Joo...J 

the evidence is overwhelming that AIDS cannot be contracted in the 

manner alleged by Plaintiff, then the proper procedure would be to 

dispose of the case on a motion for summary judgment. 

Accordingly, although I render no opinion on the merits of 

Plaintiff's case, I would provide Plaintiff the opportunity to 

offer proof in support of his allegations. 

4 

Appellate Case: 86-2858 Document: 01019962433 Date Filed: 01/31/1989 Page: 4