Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-07036/USCOURTS-ca10-89-07036-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Troy Alexander
Appellee
Lloyd Buckmaster
Appellee
Michael Cody
Appellee
Department of Corrections
Appellee
Dr. Russell Roth
Appellee
Jacqueline Francine Ervin
Appellant
Gary D. Maynard
Appellee
Dan Reed
Appellee

Document Text:

" 

tnaTBD STATBS COURT 0~ APPBALS 

TD1'l'JI CIRCUIT 

JACQUELINE FRANCINE ERVIN ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

FILED 

UaiuNi Sttt8 c-ctoE Appeals 

T'"rh Circuit 

APR 2 '/ 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) No. 89-7036 

) 

GARY D. MAYNARD, Warden, Director- ) 

Department of Corrections; MICHAEL CODY,) 

Warden, Jess D~nn correctional Center; ) 

LLOYD BUCKMASTER, Physician Assistant ) 

at JDCC; DR. RUSSELL ROTH, Muskogee ) 

Regional Medical Center; DEPARTMENT OF ) 

CORRECTIONS; DAN REED, Unit Manager, ) 

Jess Dunn Correctional Center; ) 

TROY ALEXANDER, Unit Manager, Jess Dunn) 

Correctional Center, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

ORDBR AND JlJDGKDT• 

(E.D. Okla. 88-646-C) 

Before MOORB, BRORBY, and BBBL, 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. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

* 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: 89-7036 Document: 01019967143 Date Filed: 04/27/1990 Page: 1 
Plaintiff-appellant Jacqueline Francine Ervin appeals from 

the district court's March 27, 1989 orders dismissing her 

complaint. On appeal, plaintiff argues that defendant-appellee 

Dr. Russell Roth intentionally and improperly released her medical 

files to the Oklahoma Department of Corrections without 

plaintiff's consent, resulting in plaintiff being transferred to a 

higher-security facility and losing 90 days of earned time credits 

against her sentence. Plaintiff further alleges that she was 

improperly "punished" for receiving medical treatment, in 

violation of the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. 

Plaintiff also requests this court to issue a temporary injunction 

ordering the Department of Corrections to transfer her to a 

different facility and to grant her a hearing before she is 

permanently assigned to Mabel Bassett Correctional Center. 

The district court acted properly in dismissing plaintiff's 

- complaint. Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that Dr. Roth 

acted under color of state law in disclosing medical information 

relating to plaintiff's visit to the emergency room at Muskogee 

Regional Medical Center. Plaintiff also did not sufficiently 

allege in her co~plaint that Dr. Roth participated in a conspiracy 

with the other defendants in violation of 42 u.s.c. S 1985(3). 

In addition, plaintiff failed to make sufficient allegations 

in her complaint to support a claim against any of the other 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-7036 Document: 01019967143 Date Filed: 04/27/1990 Page: 2 
1 defendants under 42 u.s.c. S 1983 or 42 u.s.c. S 1985(3). 

Plaintiff's complaint is primarily concerned with defendants' 

wrongful use of medical information to punish her for engaging in 

sexual misconduct. However, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate 

that the correctional department defendants were under a legal 

obligation to refrain from using the medical information obtained 

from Dr. Roth against her in the disciplinary action for sexual 

misconduct. 

Finally, we deny plaintiff's request for a temporary 

injunction because she has failed to satisfy the requirements 

announced in Lundgrin v. Claytor, 619 F.2d 61, 63 (10th Cir. 

1980). In Lundgrin, this court held that a party seeking a 

preliminary injunction must: (1) demonstrate a substantial 

likelihood of prevailing on the merits; (2) show that she will 

suffer irreparable injury unless the injunction issues; (3) prove 

that the threatened injury to her outweighs the damage that the 

proposed injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) show 

that the injunction, if issued, would not be adverse to the public 

interest. Lundgrin v. Claytor. 619 F.2d at 63. Plaintiff has not 

satisfied any of these requirements. 

Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 

However, we AFFIRM the March 27, 1989 orders of the district court 

1 We note that defendant Lloyd Buckmaster apparently was never 

served with a copy of plaintiff's complaint and thus was not 

effectively joined as a party to this case. The district court 

did not treat Buckmaster as a party to the case, and Buckmaster 

has not submitted any brief on appeal to this court. Therefore, 

this order and judgment does not consider whether plaintiff has 

stated any claims against Buckmaster. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-7036 Document: 01019967143 Date Filed: 04/27/1990 Page: 3 
dismissing plaintiff's complaint, ~nd we deny plain~iff's request 

for a temporary injunction • . The mandate shall me issued forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-7036 Document: 01019967143 Date Filed: 04/27/1990 Page: 4