Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-07117/USCOURTS-ca10-91-07117-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
R. Michael Cody
Appellee
David Monjay
Appellee
Eugene Morris
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

EUGENE MORRIS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

R. MICHAEL CODY, Warden; 

DOCTOR DAVID MONJAY, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

TENTH CIRCUIT FEBO 5 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKEE 

Clerk 

No. 91-7117 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

(E.D. Okla. No . CIV-91-293-S) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, BARRETT, 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. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

The appellant filed suit under 42 U.S . C. § 1983 in the 

District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, alleging that 

the appellees deprived him of his constitutional rights under the 

Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by denying him steel-toed work 

shoes and proper medical care. The district court dismissed his 

* 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: 91-7117 Document: 010110221717 Date Filed: 02/05/1992 Page: 1 
complaint on the grounds that it was frivolous and meritless. On 

appeal, he alleges that he was improperly denied an evidentiary 

hearing and that he was entitled to an attorney to assist him in 

bringing his civil rights complaint. We grant the appellant's 

motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and application for 

a certificate of probable cause. 

The appellant injured his left great toe when working with 

the Department of Correction. He was taken to a health center for 

emergency treatment and later transferred to a hospital. His 

treatment included various antibiotics and painkillers, daily 

dressing changes, whirlpool soaks (until the whirlpool broke), a 

fracture shoe, and several follow-up appointments. The appellant 

claims that this treatment was inadequate. 

A difference of opinion as to treatment or diagnosis between 

a prisoner and the medical staff of the prison does not alone give 

rise to a cause of action under section 1983. Smart v. Villar, 

547 F.2d 112, 114 (10th Cir. 1976). Furthermore, the Constitution 

does not guarantee a prisoner the medical treatment of his choice. 

Jackson v. Fair, 846 F.2d 811, 817 (1st Cir. 1988). "In order to 

state a cognizable [section 1983] claim, a prisoner must allege 

acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate 

indifference to serious medical needs." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 

U.S. 97, 106 (1976). 

We agree with the district court's determination that Mr. 

Morris failed to allege any acts or omissions by the appellees 

that are sufficient to establish a deliberate indifference to his 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 91-7117 Document: 010110221717 Date Filed: 02/05/1992 Page: 2 
medical needs and affirm for the reasons stated in the district 

court's September 27, 1991 Order. 

The appellant also complains that he was improperly denied an 

evidentiary hearing. An evidentiary hearing was unnecessary, 

however, because a district court reviewing the sufficiency of a 

complaint presumes that the plaintiff's factual allegations are 

true. Freeman v. Department of Corrections, 949 F.2d 360, 361 

(10th Cir. 1991). Thus, there were no factual disputes requiring 

an evidentiary hearing. 

Finally, the appellant's claim that he was entitled to an 

attorney to assist him in bringing his civil rights complaint is 

without merit. "There is no constitutional right to appointed 

counsel in a civil case." Durre v. Dempsey, 869 F.2d 543 (10th 

Cir. 1989) (per curiam). 

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the decision of the district court. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 91-7117 Document: 010110221717 Date Filed: 02/05/1992 Page: 3