Boles v. Fenton Securities ( 1999 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
DEC 6 1999
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
RUSSELL M. BOLES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 99-1062
(D.C. No. 97-B-1742)
FENTON SECURITY, INC. OF (D. Colo.)
COLORADO, KERRY BYNES, and
HARVEY DOOLEY,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON , BARRETT , and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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. 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.
Plaintiff-appellant Russell M. Boles, appearing pro se , appeals from the
dismissal with prejudice of his civil rights claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We review de novo the dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) of a
prisoner civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim . See Riddle v.
Mondragon , 83 F.3d 1197, 1201 (10th Cir. 1996). A complaint should not be
dismissed under this rule “unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff could
prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief.” Id.In making this determination, a court presumes all of plaintiff's factual allegations
are true, construing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See id. at
1202. If the plaintiff is pro se , a court construes his pleadings liberally, holding
them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See
id.The broad reading of the plaintiff's complaint does not relieve the
plaintiff of the burden of alleging sufficient facts on which a
recognized legal claim could be based. Not every fact must be
described in specific detail, . . . and the plaintiff whose factual
allegations are close to stating a claim but are missing some
important element that may not have occurred to him, should be
allowed to amend his complaint . . . . Nevertheless, conclusory
allegations without supporting factual averments are insufficient to
state a claim on which relief can be based.
Id. (quoting Hall v. Bellmon , 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citations
omitted)).
-2-
Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Park County Detention facility for
approximately four months in 1996. The facility is owned by defendant Fenton
Security, Inc., and the other two defendants were the chief administrator and
assistant chief administrator at the time relevant to the complaint. Plaintiff filed
his original complaint in September 1997. To avoid dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (1997 Supp.), the district court outlined in detail the flaws in the
complaint and directed him to amend it. See R. Doc. 21. Plaintiff attempted to
do so, filing an amended complaint in February 1998.
In plaintiff’s amended complaint, he raised four claims. They include:
(1) his right of access to courts was denied because some of his legal papers were
confiscated when he was transferred to the facility; (2) while at the facility, he
was denied adequate medical treatment for his colitis and altitude sickness in
violation of the Eighth Amendment; (3) he was exposed to unsanitary and
dangerous conditions in regard to food preparation while at the facility; and (4)
his personal safety was jeopardized while housed there. Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
The motion to dismiss was referred to a magistrate judge, who carefully
reviewed the amended complaint and recommended dismissal of all claims except
for the claims against defendants Dooley and Bynes concerning plaintiff’s diet.
See R. Doc. 53, at 13-14. Plaintiff, Dooley, and Bynes filed objections to the
-3-
recommendations. The district court adopted the recommendations for dismissal
but rejected the recommendation that the diet claim not be dismissed. The court
concluded that the complaint failed to allege a sufficiently serious deprivation of
medical care and a sufficiently culpable state of mind, and did not meet the
deliberate indifference standard set forth by Estelle v. Gamble , 429 U.S. 97, 104
(1976). See R. Doc. 62. We agree.
In the amended complaint, plaintiff alleged that the facility’s doctor agreed
that a “diet high in ‘organic fiber’, low in fat, low starch, and low carbohydrates”
was proper treatment for his colitis and “ordered it be administered.” R. Doc. 22,
at 6. Plaintiff, who is Jewish, stated that the diet was “remarkably similar in
many respects to a strict Kosher diet,” id. , and requested that the facility provide
him with Kosher foods. See R. Doc. 4, attachment 4. The complaint does not
allege, however, that the doctor prescribed a Kosher diet, and the documents
submitted with plaintiff’s complaint indicate only that defendant Bynes rejected
plaintiff’s request for a Kosher diet. See id. The amended complaint states that
defendants Dooley and Bynes, “both concurring, denied the doctor ordered diet
. . . because of cost” but allowed him to prepare his own food. R. Doc. 22, at 7.
The amended complaint alleges that his inability to get a consistent and adequate
diet put him “on a never ending roller-coaster of sickness in varying degrees” for
which the facility doctor could not find the “nature of the problem.” Id. Thus,
-4-
according to plaintiff’s statement of the facts, it appears that the doctors did not
specifically connect plaintiff’s health problems with diet.
The complaint also alleges that, although a doctor recommended that he be
immediately transferred to a medical facility for further diagnosis, he was not
transferred for two months. The complaint alleges that doctors at the diagnostic
facility determined that his breathing problem was likely caused by altitude
sickness, which, to plaintiff, meant that he had been placed in danger of death
while at the Park County facility. See id. at 7-8. We disagree with plaintiff’s
conclusion. Significantly, however, the complaint does not allege that any harm
arose from the two-month delay in transfer.
“[D]eliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes
the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,’ . . . proscribed by the Eighth
Amendment.” Estelle , 429 U.S. at 104 (citation omitted). To state a cognizable
Eighth Amendment claim, a prisoner “must allege acts or omissions sufficiently
harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. It is only
such indifference that can offend ‘evolving standards of decency’ in violation of
the Eighth Amendment.” Id. at 106. We agree with the district court that
plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted in
regard to his medical needs. For substantially the same reasons as stated in the
-5-
magistrate judge’s recommendations, we also conclude that the district court
properly dismissed the rest of plaintiff’s claims.
Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of
costs or fees is GRANTED. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Circuit Judge
-6-