UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ CHRISTOPHER GILMORE, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. VITAL CORE, LLC; (FNU) DeMARCO; JENNIFER (LNU); ANNA (LNU); (FNU) NEPH, Defendants - Appellees. No. 23-3135 (D.C. No. 5:23- CV-03113-JWL) (D. Kan.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before BACHARACH , KELLY , and MORITZ , Circuit Judges. **

________________ _________________ Plaintiff-Appellant Christopher Gilmore, appearing pro se, appeals from the district court’s judgment di smissing his claims for excessive force, deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, a nd a failure to train regarding DefendantAppellee Vital Core, LLC. Gilmore v. V ital Core, LLC, No. 23-3113, 2023 WL 4637412 (D. Kan. July 20, 2023). On appeal , he argues that the district court did not

* This order and judgment is not bi nding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judica ta, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consiste nt with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### January 24, 2024 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court Appellate Case: 23-3135 Document: 010110989167 Date Filed: 01/24/2024 Page: 12 include in its decision the fa cts in his complaint, his cas e citations, and his responses, all of which satisfied the requi rement of a short and plain st atement of the facts. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). He also argues that the district cour t should have ordered a Martinez report as it did in another case. 1 We take the well-pleaded facts containe d in the complaint as true and in the light most favorable to Mr. Gilmore. Y oung v. Davis, 554 F.3d 1254, 1256 (10th Cir. 2009). Mr. Gilmore currently resides at Larned State Hospital, a psychiatric facility. In 2022, he was a civilly committe d patient in the custody of the Sedgwick County Jail. On December 2, 2022, Mr . Gilmore sought treatment for breathing difficulties resulting from his dentures and the jail-mandated denture adhesive. Some of the claims in this case overlap with those in Gilmore v. Neph, No. 23- 3134, in which we reversed the judgment only insofar as the si ngle claim raised on appeal: dismissal of Mr. Gilmor e’s excessive force claim rega rding his trip to the jail medical clinic. Gilmore v. Neph, No. 23-31 34, 2024 WL 48989 ( 10th Cir. Jan. 4, 2024). We follow the same course here — on remand the district court should consider the excessive force claim in light of that disposition. We affirmed the district court’s judgment in No. 23-3134 in all other respects, so Mr. Gilmore cannot raise the same clai ms in this case. We review a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) de novo, asking whether the complaint has

1 We disagree. Each case turns on its own facts, and a Martinez report is not always required. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1109 (10th Cir. 1991). Appellate Case: 23-3135 Document: 010110989167 Date Filed: 01/24/2024 Page: 23 sufficient facts to yield a clai m that is plausible on its fa ce. See Young, 554 F.3d at 1256. To state a claim for deliberate indiff erence to serious medical needs, a pretrial detainee must allege an objective component and a subjective component. Lucas v. Turn Key Health Clinics, LLC, 58 F.4th 11 27, 1136 (10th Cir. 20 23). The subjective component requires the defendant to be “awa re of the facts from which the inference of a substantial risk of seri ous harm could be drawn and also draw that inference.” Id. at 1137. The district court dismisse d Mr. Gilmore’s claim concerning deliberate indifference to serious medica l needs because he could not show that any defendant was aware of facts indicating a substantial risk of serious harm regarding his ongoing lack of access to chronic-care breathing treatments, and then drew the necessary inference. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 ( 1994). The district court noted that Mr. Gilmore had complained of breathing problems associated with denture issues, not asthma, and that he had been taken off chronic-care breathing treatments prior to December 2, 2022, the date of the in cident involving the excessive force claim. Though Mr. Gilmore indicates that he needed the breathing treatment for objectively serious medical needs, asthma and sarcoidosis, we read the district court’s order as involving the subjective component of the claim. Although Mr. Gilmore later disclaimed any reliance on hi s problems with denture adhesives, the district court correctly fo cused on the gravamen of his claims — the actions Appellate Case: 23-3135 Document: 010110989167 Date Filed: 01/24/2024 Page: 34 occurring on December 2 — and reasonably concluded that the facts did not demonstrate deliberate indifference. 2 We also agree with the di strict court that Mr. Gilm ore’s reliance on state-law claims or operational regula tions and policies does not pr ovide federal claims. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (§ 1983 claims mu st involve a violation of a federal constitutional right unde r color of state law). Inso far as Mr. Gilmore alleges that Vital Core is attempti ng to cut costs by reducing care and failing to train its employees, such allegations l ack the necessary facts to st ate a plausible claim and we affirm based on the lack of adequate fact s tending to show a constitutional violation, let alone causation. S ee Lucas, 58 F.4th at 1144. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in pa rt, and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this orde r and judgment. We GRANT Mr. Gilmore’s motion to proceed on appeal without prepayment of f ees or costs, and remind him that he is responsible for the full amount of the filing fee. 3

Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge

2 We reiterate that Mr. Gilmore brought similar claims in Gilmore v. Neph, 22- 3316, which the district court dismissed, a nd this court affirmed the dismissal as to those claims. Gilmore v. Neph, No. 22-33 16, 2023 WL 3040452, at *6–7 (D. Kan. Apr. 21, 2023), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, No. 23-3134, 2024 WL 48989 (10th Cir. Jan. 4, 2024). 3 Mr. Gilmore has submitted a “Supplem ental Affidavit” claiming that the Sedgwick County Sheriff’s Department has st olen from funds to be used to satisfy PLRA assessments. We do not consider ma terials not before th e district court. Appellate Case: 23-3135 Document: 010110989167 Date Filed: 01/24/2024 Page: 4