Erickson v. Pardus , 238 F. App'x 335 ( 2007 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
June 7, 2007
FO R TH E TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
W ILLIA M ER IC KSO N ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 06-1114
(D.C. No. 05-CV-405-LTB-M JW )
BARRY J. PA RDUS, Assistant (D . Colo.)
Clinical Director, in his individual
and official capacity; ANITA BLOOR,
L.C.F. M edical Staff, individually
and in her official capacity,
Defendants-Appellees.
OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT *
Before O’BRIEN, PO RFILIO, and A ND ER SO N, Circuit Judges.
On June 4, 2007, the United States Supreme Court issued a per curiam
opinion vacating the order and judgment that this court entered in this appeal on
September 14, 2006, and the Court remanded the case to this court “for further
proceedings consistent with [its] opinion.” See Erickson v. Pardus, 511 U.S.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
__ (2007); Slip Opinion at 6. In its opinion, the C ourt addressed only M r.
Erickson’s claim that his Eighth Amendment rights have been violated as a result
of his removal from the prison’s hepatitis C treatment program, see Slip Opinion
at 1, and the Court did not address M r. Erickson’s related procedural due process
claim or his separate Eighth Amendment claim relating to an alleged deprivation
of hygiene items. W e therefore REINSTATE the portions of our prior order and
judgment that addressed the latter claims. See Order and Judgment dated
September 14, 2006, at 9-12.
In its opinion, the Court held that M r. Erickson’s allegations “concerning
[the] harm caused by the termination of his medication” are not “too conclusory
to establish for pleading purposes that he has suffered a ‘cognizable independent
harm’ as a result of his removal from the hepatitis C treatment program.”
Erickson v. Pardus, 511 U.S. __ (2007); Slip Opinion at 5. In light of the C ourt’s
holding and having carefully considered the Court’s discussion of Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a)(2), see id. at 5-6 (emphasizing the liberal pleading standards set forth by
Rule 8(a)(2), and stating that the standards are of particular importance in pro se
cases), w e conclude that M r. Erickson has pled sufficient facts to state a claim
under the objective component of the Eighth Amendment’s deliberate indifference
standard. W e also conclude that he has pled sufficient facts to state a claim under
the subjective component of the deliberate indifference standard. Accordingly,
we VAC ATE the portions of the order entered by the district court on M arch 13,
-2-
2006, that addressed M r. Erickson’s Eighth Amendment claim pertaining to his
removal from the hepatitis C treatment program, and the case is REM AND ED to
the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s
opinion and this order and judgment.
Entered for the Court
Stephen H. Anderson
Circuit Judge
-3-