UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

WESLEY BERNARD WILLIAMS, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

DAVID ALLRED, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

No. 14-1498 

(D.C. No. 1:13-CV-03420-RBJ-BNB) 

(D. Colo.)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, LUCERO and MATHESON, Circuit Judges. 

 

 Wesley Bernard Williams, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the 

district court’s order dismissing his claims against a prison physician. He alleged 

that (1) Dr. Allred was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment, and (2) Dr. Allred retaliated against him for 

filing prison grievances in violation of the First Amendment. He seeks leave to 

 *

 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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

May 7, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 14-1498 Document: 01019427482 Date Filed: 05/07/2015 Page: 1 
- 2 - 

proceed in forma pauperis (“ifp”). Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, 

we grant ifp and affirm. 

I. BACKGROUND 

 Mr. Williams’s claims arose during his incarceration at the federal penitentiary 

in Florence, Colorado. The magistrate judge chronicled the medical care provided to 

Mr. Williams for his scalp condition beginning in July 2009 at other federal prisons. 

He was prescribed Ketoconazole shampoo, among other treatments. After his 

transfer to Florence on August 30, 2012, he filed a grievance to get a refill for 

Ketoconazole shampoo. The warden resolved the October 2012 grievance by having 

the prescription refilled and noting that Mr. Williams had not mentioned at intake 

that his prescription was running low. 

On December 6, 2012, Mr. Williams requested another prescription refill. The 

prescription did not expire until December 11, 2012. Dr. Allred denied further refills 

until Mr. Williams appeared for a sick call. On December 17, 2012, Mr. Williams 

filed a grievance because his prescription had not been refilled. The warden 

responded on January 15, 2013, stating that Mr. Williams would have to be examined 

before another refill would be authorized and that he had been scheduled for an 

exam. 

On January 25, 2013, Nurse Kellar examined Mr. Williams and recommended 

selenium sulfide lotion for his scalp condition. He advised Mr. Williams to follow up 

at sick call as needed. On February 14, 2013, Dr. Allred examined Mr. Williams in 

Appellate Case: 14-1498 Document: 01019427482 Date Filed: 05/07/2015 Page: 2 
- 3 - 

his cell in the special housing unit. An assistant apparently accompanied him 

because his report states, “NO scalp lesions were noted by two examiners.” R. 

Doc. 1 at 65. Dr. Allred observed no dandruff, flaking, scaling, excoriations, blood, 

lesions, or bumps. He noted that Mr. Williams had recently purchased medicated 

shampoo and conditioner. Accordingly, he found no need for Ketoconazole and 

declined to renew the prescription. Dr. Allred instructed Mr. Williams to “Follow-up 

at Sick Call as Needed, Return Immediately if Condition Worsens, [and] Return to 

Sick Call if Not Improved.” Id. 

After exhausting the prison grievance procedure, Mr. Williams filed suit, 

alleging Dr. Allred was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs because 

he refused to prescribe Ketoconazole shampoo. He also alleged Dr. Allred refused to 

prescribe Ketoconazole shampoo in retaliation for the prison grievances he had filed. 

Dr. Allred moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(b)(6). The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant 

the motion. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

We review de novo the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. Christy 

Sports, LLC v. Deer Valley Resort Co., 555 F.3d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 2009). “To 

survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, 

accepted as true, to ‘state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 

Appellate Case: 14-1498 Document: 01019427482 Date Filed: 05/07/2015 Page: 3 
- 4 - 

570 (2007)). “[W]e assume the factual allegations are true and ask whether it is 

plausible that the plaintiff is entitled to relief.” Gallagher v. Shelton, 587 F.3d 1063, 

1068 (10th Cir. 2009). “[T]he tenet that a court must accept as true all of the 

allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare 

recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 

statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.1

 

 We have liberally construed Mr. Williams’s pro se filings. See Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). Even so, “this court has repeatedly 

insisted that pro se parties follow the same rules of procedure that govern other 

litigants.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 

2005) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). 

III. DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE 

 To state an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference, Mr. Williams 

must show “deliberate indifference to [his] serious medical needs.” Al-Turki v. 

Robinson, 762 F.3d 1188, 1192 (10th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

 1

 Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim “without affording 

the plaintiff notice or an opportunity to amend is proper only when it is patently 

obvious that the plaintiff could not prevail on the facts alleged, and allowing him an 

opportunity to amend his complaint would be futile.” Curley v. Perry, 246 F.3d 

1278, 1281-82 (10th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). For the reasons 

discussed herein, it is plain that Mr. Williams cannot prevail, so amendment would 

be futile. Moreover, although Mr. Williams has cited case law about providing an 

opportunity to amend, he does not show or claim he could successfully amend his 

complaint. 

Appellate Case: 14-1498 Document: 01019427482 Date Filed: 05/07/2015 Page: 4 
- 5 - 

A deliberate indifference claim includes: (1) an objective component, which 

“examines whether the prisoner’s medical condition was sufficiently serious to be 

cognizable under the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause,” and (2) a subjective 

component, which “examines the state of mind of the defendant, asking whether the 

official knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Id.

(brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). “[T]he official must both be aware 

of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious 

harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Self v. Crum, 439 F.3d 1227, 

1231 (10th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Mr. Williams’s allegations as to the subjective component fail the plausibility 

test. We need not address the objective component. See, e.g., Martinez v. Beggs, 

563 F.3d 1082, 1089-91 (10th Cir. 2009) (holding even though the objective 

component was satisfied, subjective component was not; thus plaintiff had not 

demonstrated deliberate indifference). 

A. Subjective Reasonableness 

 Mr. Williams argues that Dr. Allred’s refusal to renew his prescription was 

subjectively unreasonable because (1) his medical records demonstrated the 

seriousness of his scalp condition, and (2) three weeks before Dr. Allred’s 

examination, Nurse Kellar recommended selenium sulfide lotion to treat his scalp. 

But Dr. Allred’s decision to examine Mr. Williams’s scalp was not unreasonable. 

Until Nurse Kellar examined him in late January 2013, 19 months had elapsed since 

Appellate Case: 14-1498 Document: 01019427482 Date Filed: 05/07/2015 Page: 5 
- 6 - 

his last scalp evaluation and, as the physician who had been asked to prescribe 

Ketoconazole shampoo, Dr. Allred made a reasonable and responsible decision to 

examine him to determine whether a new prescription was warranted. Indeed, that 

decision indicated he did not disregard an excessive risk to Mr. Williams’s health.2

 

B. Dr. Allred’s Medical Reports 

 Mr. Williams also asserts Dr. Allred fabricated his medical reports. He 

contends Dr. Allred invented the need for an examination based on a limited 

description of his scalp condition in the records, even though the records contained 

ample information about his scalp condition. In addition, Mr. Williams claims Dr. 

Allred falsified the report of his examination, as evidenced by the conflicting 

findings of Dr. Allred and Nurse Kellar. 

 Mr. Williams refers to the documents he attached to his complaint, which we 

may consider. Farrell-Cooper Mining Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 728 F.3d 1229, 

1237 n.6 (10th Cir. 2013). Although he does not specify which documents support 

his arguments, and although the court has no duty to construct arguments for a pro se 

litigant or to search the record, Garrett, 425 F.3d at 840, we have reviewed the 

attachments. They demonstrate that, although Mr. Williams had received regular 

 2

 Mr. Williams argues on appeal that a medical examination was required 

within 14 days of his arrival at Florence, presumably by Dr. Allred. Because he did 

not raise this claim in the district court, we do not consider it. See United States v. 

Muhammad, 747 F.3d 1234, 1241 (10th Cir.) (“By not raising arguments on the other 

factors in district court, Defendant waived them and we need not consider them 

further.”), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2741 (2014). 

Appellate Case: 14-1498 Document: 01019427482 Date Filed: 05/07/2015 Page: 6 
- 7 - 

medical care for his scalp condition, he had not been examined for 19 months. Even 

if the medical records had reflected a recent examination, we would decline to hold 

that Dr. Allred’s decision to examine Mr. Williams before prescribing medication 

demonstrated deliberate indifference. It instead demonstrated due diligence. 

As for conflicts between Dr. Allred’s findings and Nurse Kellar’s, the latter 

noted skin lesions, while Dr. Allred did not. He found “Skin Intact, Dry, Warmth,” 

with no tenderness, drainage, follicular lesions, scabs, or bleeding. R. Doc. 1 at 67. 

He observed a very dry scalp with flaking skin. Although the two reports reflect 

some differences, Dr. Allred examined Mr. Williams several weeks after Nurse 

Kellar did, and noted that the condition was “resolved,” suggesting improvement 

after Nurse Kellar saw him and recommended selenium sulfide lotion. See id. Doc. 1 

at 65. Moreover, Mr. Williams has not indicated whether he followed the advice of 

both Dr. Allred and Nurse Kellar to return to the clinic if his condition worsened. 

C. Disagreement About Treatment 

Dr. Allred examined Mr. Williams on February 14, 2013, and opined that he 

no longer needed the Ketoconazole shampoo. Although Mr. Williams disagrees with 

Dr. Allred’s opinion, his “case boils down to a contention that he had a right to a 

particular course of treatment.” Callahan v. Poppell, 471 F.3d 1155, 1160 (10th Cir. 

2006). Such a disagreement does not state a deliberate indifference claim. Id.; 

accord Gee v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178, 1192 (10th Cir. 2010). 

* * * * 

Appellate Case: 14-1498 Document: 01019427482 Date Filed: 05/07/2015 Page: 7 
- 8 - 

Mr. Williams’s conclusory allegations are insufficient and do not state a 

plausible claim. See Palma-Salazar v. Davis, 677 F.3d 1031, 1037 (10th Cir. 2012) 

(declining to address conclusory statements (collecting cases)). We conclude the 

district court properly dismissed Mr. Williams’s claim of deliberate indifference. 

IV. RETALIATION 

 Mr. Williams alleges that Dr. Allred retaliated against him for filing 

grievances about his medical care concerning his scalp condition. Prison officials 

may not retaliate against prisoners for exercising their constitutional rights, including 

filing internal prison grievances. See Fogle v. Pierson, 435 F.3d 1252, 1264 (10th 

Cir. 2006) (action filed by a state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983). A plaintiff must 

show that a retaliatory motive was the “but for” reason for the adverse action, and he 

“must allege specific facts showing retaliation because of the exercise of the 

prisoner’s constitutional rights.” Peterson v. Shanks, 149 F.3d 1140, 1144 (10th Cir. 

1998) (internal quotation marks omitted) (action filed by a state prisoner under 

§ 1983). 

 Mr. Williams alleges the following demonstrate Dr. Allred’s retaliatory 

motive: (1) Dr. Allred approved the prescription refill following Mr. Williams’s 

October 2012 grievance but did not require an examination at that time; (2) the only 

reason Dr. Allred examined Mr. Williams was that he had filed grievances; and 

(3) the grievances made Dr. Allred aware that Mr. Williams had complained to 

Dr. Allred’s superiors. 

Appellate Case: 14-1498 Document: 01019427482 Date Filed: 05/07/2015 Page: 8 
- 9 - 

The attachments to the complaint demonstrate that the warden and others, not 

Dr. Allred, responded to the grievances. Mr. Williams has failed to allege facts 

showing that Dr. Allred was aware that he had filed grievances. He has failed to 

show the grievances provided the “but for” reason for denying the prescription refill. 

The district court properly dismissed the retaliation claim.3

 

V. CONCLUSION 

 We affirm the district court’s judgment, grant Mr. Williams’s motion to 

proceed ifp, and remind him of his obligation to continue making partial payments 

until the filing fee is paid in full. 

 ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

 Scott M. Matheson, Jr. 

 Circuit Judge 

 3

 Mr. Williams relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau 

of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for his retaliation claim. We do not and need not 

address whether this court would recognize his claim under Bivens because we 

determine the complaint’s allegations do not otherwise state a plausible retaliation 

claim. 

Appellate Case: 14-1498 Document: 01019427482 Date Filed: 05/07/2015 Page: 9