Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03044/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03044-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donald Gee
Appellant
Joseph Haswell
Appellee

Document Text:

, 

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United Stat.es Court of Appeals Tenth circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT AUG O 2 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

DONALD GEE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

JOSEPH HASWELL, Leavenworth 

County Deputy Sheriff, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-3044 

(D.C. No. 89-3226-S) 

(D. Kansas) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, MOORE, 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 cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Donald Gee appeals the district court's order granting 

summary judgment in favor of defendant Joseph Haswell in this 

*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: 90-3044 Document: 010110039597 Date Filed: 08/02/1990 Page: 1 
civil rights action under 42 u.s.c. § 1983. After reviewing the 

record, we conclude summary judgment is appropriate and affirm the 

district court. 

Mr. Gee alleges that on March 15, 1989, his constitutional 

rights were violated by Mr. Haswell while Mr. Gee was incarcerated 

in the Leavenworth County Jail, Leavenworth, Kansas. He claims 

that Mr. Haswell, a deputy sheriff, violated the Eighth Amendment 

prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment by hitting him in 

the eye while passing a telephone cord through a food slot opening 

on a cell door. Because we conclude there is no evidence in the 

record indicating that Mr. Gee sustained any trauma in his left 

eye, we affirm as a matter of law summary judgment in favor of Mr. 

Haswell. 

I. 

On the evening of March 15, 1989, jail employees at the 

Leavenworth County Jail placed a telephone through the food slot 

in the "A" tank door to allow Mr. Gee and other inmates in the "A" 

tank to call their families. 

approached the "A" tank and 

After an 

asked that 

hour, Mr. Haswell 

the inmates hand the 

telephone back out through the food slot. A verbal dispute arose 

between Mr. Gee and Mr. Haswell. Mr. Gee contended he did not get 

his turn to speak with his family, and Mr. Haswell commanded Mr. 

Gee to follow his directive. Eventually, Mr. Haswell unplugged 

the telephone from the outlet and put the cord through the feeding 

slot into the tank area. 

One hour later, Mr. Haswell and deputy sheriff John Knight 

returned to the "A" tank area in response to banging on the door 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-3044 Document: 010110039597 Date Filed: 08/02/1990 Page: 2 
by Mr. Gee. Mr. Gee told Mr. Haswell he had been hit in the eye 

by the telephone cord and by Mr. Haswell's hand when it passed 

through the slot. Mr. Gee filled out a medical request form and 

saw the jail physician, Dr. William Mccollum, who recommended that 

Mr. Gee be taken to the emergency room at a local hospital. Mr. 

Gee was examined in the emergency room by Dr. James H. McMechan 

who diagnosed light conjunctivitis. He covered the eye with an 

eye patch and prescribed neosporin ophthalmic solution. 

Mr. Gee continued to complain of pain and loss of vision in 

his left eye. Between March 19, 1989, and August 3, 1989, he 

submitted approximately twenty-four written medical request forms 

to the employees of the jail. Each of these complaints was 

responded to by the jail physician, and Mr. Gee was examined by 

ophthalmologists in the Leavenworth area and from the University 

of Kansas Medical Center. 

Mr. Gee filed this § 1983 action against Mr. Haswell, 

alleging Mr. Haswell violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition 

against cruel and unusual punishment by throwing the phone cord 

through the food slot and hitting Mr. Gee in the left eye. The 

district court concluded defendant Mr. Haswell was entitled to 

summary judgment as a matter of law. Holding that Mr. Gee had to 

demonstrate that the guard's conduct involved "the unnecessary and 

wanton infliction of pain," the court determined Mr. Gee presented 

no evidence that would support a finding that Mr. Haswell acted 

with the purpose of causing harm to Mr. Gee. Thus, the court 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-3044 Document: 010110039597 Date Filed: 08/02/1990 Page: 3 
concluded Mr. Gee failed to set forth facts sufficient for a jury 

to impose liability and dismissed the action. 

II. 

In reviewing the summary judgment order, we apply the same 

standard employed by the trial court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). 

Osgood v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 848 F.2d 141 (10th Cir. 

1988). "It is the appellate court's duty to examine the record to 

determine if any genuine issue of material fact was in dispute; if 

not, the court must determine if the substantive law was correctly 

applied." Id. at 143. The mere existence of some alleged factual 

dispute will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for 

summary judgment; the requirement is that there is no genuine 

issue of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 

242, 247-48 (1986). We may affirm the granting of summary 

judgment if any proper ground exists to support the district 

court's ruling. Goichman v. City of Aspen, 859 F.2d 1466, 1468 

(10th Cir. 1988). 

After examining the record, we conclude that as a matter of 

law summary judgment was appropriate since there was no evidence 

that Mr. Gee suffered severe pain or lasting injury in his left 

eye. A prison guard's use of force against an inmate is "cruel 

and unusual" only if it involves the "unnecessary and wanton 

infliction of pain." Sampley v. Ruettgers, 704 F.2d 491, 495 

(10th Cir. 1983). In Sampley, we set forth three requirements for 

an inmate to state a cause of action under the Eighth Amendment 

and§ 1983 for an attack by a prison guard: 

First, "wanton" requires that 

intended to harm the inmate. 

-4-

the guard have [sic] 

Second, "unnecessary" 

Appellate Case: 90-3044 Document: 010110039597 Date Filed: 08/02/1990 Page: 4 
requires the force used to have been more than appeared 

reasonably necessary at the time of the use of force to 

maintain or restore discipline. Third, "pain" means 

more than momentary discomfort; the attack must have 

resulted in either severe pain or a lasting injury. 

Id. In its order, the district court focused on Mr. Haswell's 

intent and concluded that Mr. Gee presented no evidence to support 

a finding that Mr. Haswell acted with a purpose of causing harm to 

Mr. Gee. Although we find the district court erred because 

circumstantial evidence of Mr. Haswell's intent was in dispute, 

nevertheless, we conclude summary judgment was proper since there 

was no evidence of trauma in Mr. Gee's left eye. 

The medical records and documentation submitted to the 

district court show the only evidence of any harm was the 

emergency room doctor's diagnosis of light conjunctivitis1 within 

hours of the alleged . . 2 l.nJury. Dr. w. Lee Murray, a local 

ophthalmologist who examined Mr. Gee, reported tests indicated Mr. 

Gee's left eye was functioning with binocular vision and there was 

no basis for his complaint of poor vision and persistent pain in 

that eye. When the University of Kansas Medical Center treated 

Mr. Gee within a month of his alleged injury, the ophthalmologist 

suspected malingering and found no reason for a follow-up 

examination. Finally, Dr. Mccollum, the jail physician maintained, 

after reviewing all records of Mr. Gee's medical treatment and the 

1conjunctivitis is the "inflammation of the conjunctiva," the 

mucous membrane covering the anterior surface of the eyeball and 

lining the lids. Stedman's Medical Dictionary 312 (5th. unabr. 

law. ed. 1982). 

2There was no effort made by the examining doctor to connect the 

conjunctivitis with trauma, and he speculated that the infection 

had "been going on for perhaps as much as a day." Therefore, the 

cause of the infection is undisclosed. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-3044 Document: 010110039597 Date Filed: 08/02/1990 Page: 5 
.,. ' ' 

Leavenworth County Jail medical request forms, that "there was no 

evidence of significant injury to his left eye at any time." 

Therefore, we conclude the record does not support Mr. Gee's claim 

that he has a cause of action under the Eighth Amendment and 

§ 1983 against Mr. Haswell. 

The order of the district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall 

issue forthwith . 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-6-

Appellate Case: 90-3044 Document: 010110039597 Date Filed: 08/02/1990 Page: 6