Court Opinion

ID: 9926419
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-24 18:01:26.36799+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:48.912786
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-3135     Document: 010110989167       Date Filed: 01/24/2024    Page: 1
                                                                                  FILED
                                                                      United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                         January 24, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  CHRISTOPHER GILMORE,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

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

        Defendants - Appellees.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before BACHARACH, KELLY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.**
                  _________________________________

       Plaintiff-Appellant Christopher Gilmore, appearing pro se, appeals from the

 district court’s judgment dismissing his claims for excessive force, deliberate

 indifference to serious medical needs, and a failure to train regarding Defendant-

 Appellee Vital Core, LLC. Gilmore v. Vital 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          This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines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.
        **
           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.
Appellate Case: 23-3135     Document: 010110989167        Date Filed: 01/24/2024     Page: 2

 include in its decision the facts in his complaint, his case citations, and his responses,

 all of which satisfied the requirement of a short and plain statement of the facts. See

 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). He also argues that the district court should have ordered a

 Martinez report as it did in another case.1

       We take the well-pleaded facts contained in the complaint as true and in the

 light most favorable to Mr. Gilmore. Young 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 committed 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 single claim raised on

 appeal: dismissal of Mr. Gilmore’s excessive force claim regarding his trip to the jail

 medical clinic. Gilmore v. Neph, No. 23-3134, 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 claims 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).
                                               2
Appellate Case: 23-3135    Document: 010110989167        Date Filed: 01/24/2024     Page: 3

 sufficient facts to yield a claim that is plausible on its face. See Young, 554 F.3d at

 1256. To state a claim for deliberate indifference 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 1127, 1136 (10th Cir. 2023). The subjective

 component requires the defendant to be “aware of the facts from which the inference

 of a substantial risk of serious harm could be drawn and also draw that inference.”

 Id. at 1137. The district court dismissed Mr. Gilmore’s claim concerning deliberate

 indifference to serious medical 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 incident 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 his problems with denture adhesives, the

 district court correctly focused on the gravamen of his claims — the actions

                                            3
Appellate Case: 23-3135    Document: 010110989167          Date Filed: 01/24/2024       Page: 4

 occurring on December 2 — and reasonably concluded that the facts did not

 demonstrate deliberate indifference.2

       We also agree with the district court that Mr. Gilmore’s reliance on state-law

 claims or operational regulations and policies does not provide federal claims. See

 West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (§ 1983 claims must involve a violation of a

 federal constitutional right under color of state law). Insofar as Mr. Gilmore alleges

 that Vital Core is attempting to cut costs by reducing care and failing to train its

 employees, such allegations lack the necessary facts to state a plausible claim and we

 affirm based on the lack of adequate facts tending to show a constitutional violation,

 let alone causation. See Lucas, 58 F.4th at 1144.

       AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for proceedings

 consistent with this order and judgment. We GRANT Mr. Gilmore’s motion to

 proceed on appeal without prepayment of fees 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, and this court affirmed the dismissal as to
 those claims. Gilmore v. Neph, No. 22-3316, 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 “Supplemental Affidavit” claiming that the
 Sedgwick County Sheriff’s Department has stolen from funds to be used to satisfy
 PLRA assessments. We do not consider materials not before the district court.
                                             4