Court Opinion

ID: 9942667
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-21 18:01:36.779142+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:48:23.388628
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-1068     Document: 010111003450      Date Filed: 02/21/2024    Page: 1
                                                                                  FILED
                                                                      United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                        February 21, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                         Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                             Clerk of Court
  KAPATRICK BOLLING,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                          No. 23-1068
                                                 (D.C. No. 1:20-CV-01004-DDD-SKC)
  ZACHARY J. ENGELBERT, M.D.,                                  (D. Colo.)

        Defendant - Appellee.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before BACHARACH, KELLY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

       Kapatrick Bolling, a Colorado state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the

 district court’s order dismissing his complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to

 state a plausible claim for relief. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,

 we affirm.

       *
         After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously that oral argument would not materially 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. This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
Appellate Case: 23-1068    Document: 010111003450         Date Filed: 02/21/2024     Page: 2

                                    BACKGROUND

       According to the allegations in the operative complaint, Mr. Bolling was

 diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnea in 2016 and 2017. Following his arrest in

 November 2017, he told jail staff about the diagnosis and was treated with a

 continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machine. In April 2019, Mr. Bolling

 was transferred to the Freemont Correctional Facility. This time, however, when he

 reported the diagnosis to staff, he was told that he had to take a sleep study test to

 determine whether he qualified for a CPAP machine under Colorado Department of

 Corrections (CDOC) guidelines.

       Mr. Bolling had his first appointment with prison-medical-provider Zachary J.

 Engelbert, M.D., in late August 2019. He complained of shortness of breath and

 chronic headaches and reported that he stopped breathing in his sleep on several

 occasions. When Dr. Engelbert offered to schedule a sleep study test, Mr. Bolling

 told him that he had already been tested but would take another test if needed.

       A few days later, Mr. Bolling’s family faxed him his records, which included

 the results of the prior sleep studies and a prescription for a CPAP machine. He

 provided these materials to Dr. Engelbert during an appointment in early October

 2019. Relying on these materials, Dr. Engelbert put in an order for a CPAP machine.

 But not long thereafter, the request was denied because he “did not meet the criteria

 for mild [obstructive sleep apnea] without witnessed [apnea] by a professional or

 documented cardi[o]vascular [d]isease.” R., vol. I at 77. Mr. Bolling alleged he was

                                             2
Appellate Case: 23-1068     Document: 010111003450         Date Filed: 02/21/2024     Page: 3

 told by staff that his apnea-hypopnea index in the previous tests was 6.7; however,

 CDOC guidelines required a minimum index of 15 to qualify for a CPAP machine.

        When several months passed without any word about a sleep study test,

 Mr. Bolling filed suit, alleging that Dr. Engelbert’s refusal to provide him with a

 CPAP machine violated the Eighth Amendment.1 Shortly after suit was filed,

 Dr. Engelbert ordered a sleep test and Mr. Bolling was provided a CPAP machine.

                          DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS

        A magistrate judge recommended granting Dr. Engelbert’s motion to dismiss

 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a plausible claim under the Eighth

 Amendment. Mr. Bolling timely objected. The district court, applying a de novo

 standard of review, agreed with the magistrate judge’s recommendation and

 dismissed the complaint.

                               STANDARD OF REVIEW

        “We review de novo a district court’s grant of a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.”

 Johnson v. Reyna 57 F.4th 769, 774 (10th Cir. 2023). In doing so, “[w]e accept as

 true all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint and view them in the light

 most favorable to [Mr. Bolling], the non-moving party.” Id.

        “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must include enough facts to

 state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim is plausible on its face

        1
         In addition to Dr. Engelbert, Mr. Bolling named Correctional Health Partners
 and the CDOC as defendants; however, he voluntarily dismissed them as parties on
 appeal.
                                              3
Appellate Case: 23-1068     Document: 010111003450         Date Filed: 02/21/2024        Page: 4

 when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable

 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 774-75

 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). However, “[t]hreadbare recitals of

 the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not

 suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

        “Because [Mr. Bolling] [appears pro se], we liberally construe his filings, but

 we will not act as his advocate.” James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312, 1315 (10th Cir.

 2013). “Although we construe a pro se plaintiff’s complaint broadly, the plaintiff

 still has the burden of alleging sufficient facts on which a recognized legal claim

 could be based.” Jenkins v. Currier, 514 F.3d 1030, 1032 (10th Cir. 2008) (internal

 quotation marks omitted).

                                LEGAL FRAMEWORK

        A prison doctor’s deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners

 can be “manifested . . . in [his or her] response to the prisoner’s needs or by . . .

 intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care or treatment or intentionally

 interfering with treatment once prescribed.” Estate of Booker v. Gomez, 745 F.3d

 405, 429 (10th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, “a delay in

 medical care only constitutes an Eighth Amendment violation where the plaintiff can

 show that the delay resulted in substantial harm. The substantial harm requirement

 may be satisfied by lifelong handicap, permanent loss, or considerable pain.”

 Requena v. Roberts, 893 F.3d 1195, 1216 (10th Cir. 2018) (brackets, citation, and

 internal quotation marks omitted).

                                              4
Appellate Case: 23-1068     Document: 010111003450        Date Filed: 02/21/2024       Page: 5

        “To state a denial of medical care claim, a plaintiff must satisfy both an

 objective and a subjective component.” Id. at 1215 (internal quotation marks

 omitted). To meet the first prong, a plaintiff “must produce objective evidence that

 the deprivation at issue was in fact sufficiently serious.” Id. (internal quotation

 marks omitted). “A medical need is sufficiently serious if it is one that has been

 diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one that is so obvious that even a

 lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention.” Id.

 (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted).

        “[U]nder the subjective component, [the plaintiff] must allege the prison

 official acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind, i.e. that the official knew of

 and disregarded an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Id. (brackets and

 internal quotation marks omitted). This means “the official must have been both

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

 serious harm exists, and he must have also drawn the inference.” Id. (brackets,

 ellipses, and internal quotation marks omitted). But “an inadvertent failure to

 provide adequate medical care cannot be said to constitute [a constitutional

 violation]. Thus, a complaint that a physician has been negligent in diagnosing or

 treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment

 under the Eighth Amendment.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-06 (1976).

                                       ANALYSIS

        We agree with the district court that the allegations in the operative complaint

 fail to plausibly allege that whatever delay might be attributable to Dr. Engelbert

                                             5
Appellate Case: 23-1068     Document: 010111003450          Date Filed: 02/21/2024     Page: 6

 resulted in lifelong handicap, permanent loss, or considerable pain. We also agree

 that the allegations fail to show the necessary subjective state of mind to establish a

 claim for denial of medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. As the court

 explained, Mr. Bolling’s “position . . . appears to be that Dr. Engelbert should have

 known that a sleep study would be required and that putting in the request without

 the [new] study was doomed to fail.” R., vol. I at 519-20. However, there are no

 allegations that Dr. Engelbert knew that without conducting a new sleep study test,

 Mr. Bolling would not receive a CPAP machine. Thus, at best, the purported claim is

 based on Dr. Engelbert’s alleged negligence, which does not state a valid claim under

 the Eighth Amendment.

                                      CONCLUSION

        The judgment of the district court is affirmed. We grant Mr. Bolling’s motion

 to proceed on appeal without prepayment of fees. We deny his motion to appoint

 counsel on appeal. As a preliminary matter, we lack authority to appoint counsel;

 instead, we can only request counsel to represent Mr. Bolling. See 28 U.S.C.

 § 1915(e)(1). More to the point, Mr. Bolling has done an adequate job of explaining

 his arguments. It is not the lack of legal assistance that prevented him from obtaining

 relief; rather, it is the facts, which fail to state a plausible claim under the Eighth

 Amendment.

                                               Entered for the Court

                                               Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
                                               Circuit Judge

                                              6