West v. Saffle , 30 F. App'x 877 ( 2002 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FEB 15 2002
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
DANNY MACK WEST,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JAMES SAFFLE, JOHN GRUBBS, No. 01-7048
KAMERON HAWARNS, DELORES (D.C. No. 99-CV-515-S)
RAMSEY, DONNA BOONE, (E.D. Oklahoma)
LAWANA WALLER, ED JEWELL,
GLENN MOODY, and DEL
PALMER,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before HENRY , BRISCOE , and MURPHY , 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). The case is, therefore, ordered
submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and law of the case. 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.
Danny Mack West, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district
court’s grant of defendants’ motions to dismiss and for summary judgment as to
Mr. West’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. In his suit, Mr. West sought damages
and injunctive relief for alleged constitutional violations relating to medical
treatment and assignment of work duties while he was incarcerated at the Jackie
Brennan Correctional Facility in McAlester, Oklahoma (“JBCC”). Basically, Mr.
West argues that he did not receive appropriate medical attention and that he was
unjustly punished for his inability to perform his inmate labor detail. We exercise
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
As of 1998, Mr. West had a history of a left inguinal hernia and a
varicocele (an enlarged blood vessel in one’s testicle). Mr. West’s conditions had
warranted a surgery in 1992 for the hernia. The record indicates that Mr. West’s
medical problems were accompanied by discomfort and pain. In September of
1998, Mr. West sought treatment for pain related to his conditions. The attending
medical assistant prescribed antibiotics for a severe infection, and Mr. West's
condition apparently improved within days. That same month Mr. West saw the
same medical assistant for pain stemming from his conditions, and it appears he
was given ibuprofen to alleviate the pain.
At this time Mr. West received a special report stating medical restrictions
that included no excessive walking, bending, stooping, or lifting weights heavier
-2-
than twenty-five pounds. He was also cleared, however, to perform some work
tasks, including working in the food service facilities.
In the ensuing months, Mr. West complained of various medical problems,
and at one point he was taken to the medical clinic in a wheelchair. Because of
these incidents, Mr. West received a “medical lay-in” in March of 1999 which
assigned him to a lower bunk and allowed him to forego work for two days. In
June of 1999, Mr. West received a similar light duty medical slip and a lower
bunk. At this time he was also reassigned to work in food services as had been
approved in September of 1998. During these bouts of pain, Mr. West often
failed to show up for work, and he was consequently issued misconduct citations
in June and July of 1999.
It is undisputed that Mr. West sought medical attention at JBCC several
times and received treatment at JBCC and at Griffin Memorial Hospital.
Mr. West filed this action pursuant to § 1983 alleging constitutional
deprivations based upon the medical treatment and misconduct reports he
received. In his complaint, he suggested that he did not received appropriate
medical attention and that he was unjustly punished for his purported inability to
perform hard labor. The district court denied the complaint for failure to state a
claim for relief. The court determined that Mr. West’s allegations “[we]re vague
and conclusory” and “do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.” Rec.
-3-
doc. 61, at 9 (Dist. Ct. Order, filed Mar. 26, 2001). To the extent that Mr. West
contended the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his documented medical
needs, the court found there was evidence of medical examinations and treatment.
As to the misconduct reports that Mr. West received, the court found that prison
authorities complied with all the requirements of procedural due process
requirements. 1
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. See
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Slater, 228 F.3d 1147, 1161 (10th Cir. 2000). We
also review de novo an order dismissing a prisoner’s case for failure to state a
claim. See McBride v. Deer, 240 F.3d 1287, 1289 (10th Cir. 2001). Because Mr.
McBride is proceeding pro se, we liberally construe his pleadings. See Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) (per curiam). There appears to be some
lack of clarity in the district court order as to how it proceeded. First, the district
1
The district court noted that Mr. West’s claims for monetary relief are not
subject to 28 U.S.C.§1997e’s exhaustion requirements where prison
administrative procedures do not allow for such relief, relying upon our decisions
in Miller v. Menghini, 213 F.3d 1244, 1245-46 (10th Cir. 2000), and Garrett v.
Hawk, 127 F.3d 1263, 1267 (10th Cir. 1997). See Rec. doc. 62, at 6 (Dist. Ct.
Order, filed Mar. 26, 2001). Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision
in Booth v. Churner, 531 U.S. 956 (2001), the holdings of both Miller and
Garrett, with respect to jurisdiction over an inmate’s claims for monetary relief,
are no longer applicable. Because this court may affirm “on any grounds for
which there is a record sufficient to permit conclusions of law,” we need not
address defendants’ contention that Mr. West did not exhaust his administrative
remedies. United States v. Sandoval, 29 F.3d 537, 542 n.6 (10th Cir. 1994)
(quotation marks omitted).
-4-
court considered defendants’ special report, prepared in accordance with Martinez
v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1978), and various exhibits and supplements.
Rec. doc. 61, at 1 (Dist. Ct. Order filed Mar. 26, 2001). After its review of all the
evidence, the court concluded that the complaint contained only “vague and
conclusory” allegations that were unsupported by allegations of fact, which
suggests the district court considered the complaint standing alone. Id. at 9.
Nevertheless, it is apparent that the district court granted the defendants’ motion
for summary judgment based upon both an inadequate complaint and its
conclusion that the allegations did not rise to the level of a constitutional
violation.
We have reviewed the entire record on appeal, including Mr. West’s
appellate brief, and conclude that the district court did not err in granting the
defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Mr. West is reminded of his
obligation to continue making partial payments toward his filing fees until paid in
full. AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court,
Robert H. Henry
Circuit Judge
-5-