Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 14 views

    No. 95-1379, 95-S-1039, 83 F.3d 432, 10th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1. Paul McKnight, a prisoner, sued prison officials under Section 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights related to being stabbed by another inmate and receiving inadequate medical care. 2. The district court dismissed McKnight's claims as frivolous. The appellate court affirmed, finding that McKnight failed to establish that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs or safety, as required for an Eighth Amendment violation. 3. The appellate court also found that McKnight was not entitled to leave to amend his complaint since his factual allegations could not remedy the legal deficiencies in his claims.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    No. 95-1379, 95-S-1039, 83 F.3d 432, 10th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    14 views5 pages
    1. Paul McKnight, a prisoner, sued prison officials under Section 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights related to being stabbed by another inmate and receiving inadequate medical care. 2. The district court dismissed McKnight's claims as frivolous. The appellate court affirmed, finding that McKnight failed to establish that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs or safety, as required for an Eighth Amendment violation. 3. The appellate court also found that McKnight was not entitled to leave to amend his complaint since his factual allegations could not remedy the legal deficiencies in his claims.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-04-24 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 83 F.3d 432 Docket: 432

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Paul McKnight, a prisoner, sued prison officials under Section 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights related to being stabbed by another inmate and receiving inadequate medical care. 2. The district court dismissed McKnight's claims as frivolous. The appellate court affirmed, finding that McKnight failed to establish that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs or safety, as required for an Eighth Amendment violation. 3. The appellate court also found that McKnight was not entitled to leave to amend his complaint since his factual allegations could not remedy the legal deficiencies in his claims.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    14 views5 pages

    No. 95-1379, 95-S-1039, 83 F.3d 432, 10th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1. Paul McKnight, a prisoner, sued prison officials under Section 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights related to being stabbed by another inmate and receiving inadequate medical care. 2. The district court dismissed McKnight's claims as frivolous. The appellate court affirmed, finding that McKnight failed to establish that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs or safety, as required for an Eighth Amendment violation. 3. The appellate court also found that McKnight was not entitled to leave to amend his complaint since his factual allegations could not remedy the legal deficiencies in his claims.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 5

    83 F.

    3d 432
    NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored,
    unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a
    material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral
    argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of
    November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or
    further order.
    Paul Delano MCKNIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    Aristedes ZAVARAS, Colorado Department of Corrections, in
    his official capacity for preliminary injunction only; Lou
    Hesse, Warden/Superintendent of Centennial Correctional
    Facility; Irving Jacquez, Major of Housing at Centennial
    Correctional Facility; Major Foshee, Major of Security at
    Centennial Correctional Facility; Mike Theison, Lieutenant,
    Security Shift Commander between 3:00 pm and 11:00 pm on or
    about July 2, 1993 at Centennial Correctional Facility;
    Captain Holditch, B Unit Supervisor at Centennial
    Correctional Facility; Lieutenant Bardazona, B Unit
    Lieutenant at Centennial Correctional Facility; Sergeant
    Directo, B Unit Sergeant at Centennial Correctional
    Facility; Officer Paula (last name unknown), B Unit
    Correctional Officer at Centennial Correctional Facility;
    Jane Doe, medical Doctor at St. Thomas Moore in Canon City,
    Colorado on duty July 1, 1993 between 10:00 pm ato 11:00 pm;
    Thomas Cooper, Warden/Superintendent of Colorado
    Territorial Correctional Facility; John and/or Jane Doe,
    infirmary security officer at Colorado Territorial
    Correctional Facility and Jane Doe, Nurse on duty July 1 and
    2, 1993 between 11:00 pm and 7:00 am at Colorado Territorial
    Correctional Facility Infirmary, Defendants-Appellees.

    No. 95-1379, 95-S-1039.


    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    April 24, 1996.

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

    ORDER AND JUDGMENT*


    SEYMOUR, Chief Judge.

    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has unanimously
    determined that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
    this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is
    therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

    Paul Delano McKnight,1 a state prisoner, brought a pro se civil rights action
    under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against various prison officials for violations of his
    constitutional rights. Sua sponte, the district court dismissed his claims as
    frivolous under 28 U.S.C. 1915(d). He appeals and we affirm.

    Mr. McKnight contends that defendants violated his constitutional rights during
    events surrounding his stabbing by another inmate. We recount his version of
    what happened, which we accept as true for the purposes of this appeal. Mr.
    McKnight, who is black and a devout Muslim, was stabbed in the abdomen by
    another inmate, a known white separatist, who attached a crude knife to a
    broomstick and attacked Mr. McKnight through the food tray slot on his cell
    door. Mr. McKnight received prompt medical attention. He was seen by a nurse
    at the correctional facility, and then transported by ambulance to a local
    hospital with which the prison had contracted to treat inmates. A doctor
    examined the wound but provided no other care. Mr. McKnight was then
    returned to the prison infirmary. Throughout that night, Mr. McKnight
    complained of pain, bleeding and other symptoms, but the nurse on duty only
    offered to provide aspirin or Tylenol. When a different nurse came on duty in
    the morning, she examined him and summoned a physician's assistant, who
    started an intravenous tube and arranged for an ambulance to transport Mr.
    McKnight back to the hospital. Upon his return to the hospital, he was told that
    his injury was life-threatening and that he needed immediate surgery.

    Mr. McKnight claims his rights under the Eighth Amendment 2 were violated in
    two distinct ways. First, he claims he received inadequate medical treatment.
    Second, he claims prison officials failed to protect him from assault by the
    other inmate. We review a dismissal under section 1915(d) for an abuse of
    discretion. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). In so doing, we
    "consider, among other things, whether the plaintiff was proceeding pro se,
    whether the court inappropriately resolved genuine issues of disputed fact,
    whether the court applied erroneous legal conclusions, whether the court has
    provided a statement explaining the dismissal that facilitates 'intelligent

    appellate review,' and whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice." Id.
    at 34 (quoting Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 n. (1982) (per curiam))
    (citations omitted).
    5

    Mr. McKnight failed to establish that his medical treatment violated his
    constitutional rights. As the Supreme Court has explained,

    a6 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. Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely
    because the victim is a prisoner. In order to state a cognizable claim, a prisoner must
    allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to
    serious medical needs.
    7

    Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Mr. McKnight was promptly
    brought to the hospital, where he was examined. The next morning, upon
    further examination, he was again brought to the hospital and treated. By his
    own version of these events, there is no sign of deliberate indifference. The
    district court properly held that Mr. McKnight's allegations established no more
    than simple negligence, if that.

    Similarly, Mr. McKnight's claim that he was not protected from the other
    inmate fails. While " 'prison officials have a duty ... to protect prisoners from
    violence at the hands of other prisoners,' " Farmer v. Brennan, 114 S.Ct. 1970,
    1976 (1994) (quoting Cortes-Quinones v. Jimenez-Nettleship, 842 F.2d 556,
    558 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 823 (1988)), the Supreme Court has "held
    that a prison official violates the Eighth Amendment only when two
    requirements are met," id. at 1977. First, "the inmate must show that he is
    incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm." Id.
    Second, a prison official must be deliberately indifferent to inmate safety. Id.
    This means "a prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth
    Amendment for denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement unless
    the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or
    safety; the 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." Id. at 1979.

    Mr. McKnight simply cannot meet these burdens. His pleadings do not suggest
    he faced any substantial risk. It is not enough for Mr. McKnight to point out
    that he is black and Muslim, or that his attacker was racist. The inmate who
    stabbed him was isolated in a cell, suggesting both that he posed little risk and
    that officials could not have effectively done more to minimize any potential

    danger. Moreover, Mr. McKnight does not suggest that officials knew of and
    disregarded any severe dangers. Another inmate found a cruel and devious way
    to attack Mr. McKnight, but prison officials cannot be said to have been
    deliberately indifferent. Although "[b]eing violently assaulted in prison is
    simply not 'part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses
    against society,' " id. at 1977 (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347
    (1981)), regrettably such assaults are not always preventable. The allegations
    set out in his pleadings do not supply a basis on which a court could grant legal
    relief.3 The court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing his complaint.
    10

    Relying on Denton, Mr. McKnight argues he should have been granted leave to
    amend. See 504 U.S. at 34. However, we are not persuaded "it appears that
    frivolous factual allegations could be remedied through more specific
    pleading." Id. Rather, Mr. McKnight set out "claims of a legal interest which
    clearly does not exist." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 318, 327 (1989). Mr.
    McKnight is correct when he complains that he was treated differently because
    he was not a paying pro se litigant, but this is a deliberate aspect of the
    legislative scheme that permits him to bring legal actions without cost. Had he
    paid a filing fee, the court would have been bound to "permit [him] to amend
    [his] complaint to overcome its deficiencies, as is [his] right under Fed.R.Civ.P.
    15(a)." Herrick v. Collins, 914 F.2d 228, 230 (11th Cir.1990) (per curiam). This
    is "[b]ecause a 1915(d) dismissal is not a dismissal on the merits, but rather
    an exercise of the court's discretion under the in forma pauperis statute."
    Denton, 504 U.S. at 34. Because Mr. McKnight proceeded in forma pauperis,
    the court did not err in dismissing his complaint sua sponte without giving him
    leave to amend.

    11

    We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

    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 10th Cir. R. 36.3

    Appellant's name is variously rendered as "McKnight" and "McKnight-El." For


    the sake of brevity, we use the former variant

    These rights were "made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth


    [Amendment]." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 101 (1976)

    Similarly, Mr. McKnight's allegations do not state a claim under the Fifth or

    Fourteenth Amendments

    You might also like