*At the parties’ request, the case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral

argument pursuant to the applicable rules. This order and judgment is not binding

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

estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments;

nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th

Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 6/24/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

JOE WILLIE JONES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CHARLES SIMMONS, Secretary of

Corrections; ROD CRAWFORD, Director

of Operations; WAYNE PHELPS,

Manufacturing Manager; MARTY

MORA, CIM II, Kansas Correctional

Industries; LEONARD L. EWELL,

Director of Administration,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 96-3059

(D.C. No. 96-3026-GTV)

(District of Kansas)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, KELLY and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff Joe Willie Jones, a state prisoner, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He

alleged that defendants subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment out of deliberate
- 2 -

indifference to his serious medical needs when they forced him to work at a strenuous

job. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim of

constitutional dimension. The court also denied plaintiff leave to proceed in forma

pauperis on appeal. Plaintiff now appeals and moves to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Because plaintiff filed his notice of appeal before President Clinton signed the

Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-134, Title VIII, §§ 801-10, 110

Stat. 1321, (1996), into law, we determine his fee status on appeal without regard to

that Act. White v. Gregory, No. 95-1215, slip op. at 3 (10th Cir., June 21, 1996). We

grant plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

The district court concluded that plaintiff had merely “challenge[d] a matter of

medical judgment concerning the restrictions necessary to accommodate his diagnosis,”

and, therefore, he failed to state a deliberate indifference claim. See Ledoux v. Davies,

961 F.2d 1536, 1537 (10th Cir. 1992) (a prisoner’s disagreement with the judgment of

medical personnel does not give rise to a claim of deliberate indifference). Plaintiff

objects to the district court’s characterization of his claim. He states that medical

personnel properly restricted him from strenuous activity, but other corrections personnel

failed to abide by that restriction when they required him to work. 

We agree with the district court that plaintiff has failed to allege deliberate

indifference to serious medical needs. Plaintiff admits in his complaint that medical

personnel did not place any work restrictions on him; the restrictions only pertained to
- 3 -

sports. Defendants did not “deny, delay, or intentionally interfere” with plaintiff’s

medical care by requiring him to work. See Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334

(9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir. 1988)). 

We affirm the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint. The mandate shall

issue forthwith.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Carlos F. Lucero

Circuit Judge