Helfferich v. Marcantel

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 14, 2015
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
JA'WAYNE HELFFERICH,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v. No. 14-2197
(D.C. No. 2:14-CV-00219-RB-GBW)
GREGG MARCANTEL; JERRY ROARK; (D. N.M.)
COLLEEN MCCARNEY; ROBERT
STEWARD; MICHEL HOHMAN;
HERMAN GONZALES,
Defendants – Appellees.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before HARTZ, McKAY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
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.
Appellant Ja’Wayne Helfferich, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a
complaint in which he alleges that his constitutional rights were violated by officials
involved in transporting him between New Mexico correctional facilities. Appellant
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines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.
asserts the trip consisted of nine hours in a hot, poorly ventilated transport vehicle
with eleven other inmates. He further states that the vehicle was driven carelessly
and the drivers refused to make any rest stops, all causing extreme discomfort in
violation of the Eighth Amendment. Appellant also alleges that prison officials
violated his procedural due process rights by failing to first medically evaluate his
ability to withstand the trip.
The district court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2),
which allows a district court to dismiss a complaint sua sponte if it is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim, and under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), which allows
dismissal if it is “patently obvious that the plaintiff could not prevail on the facts
alleged, and allowing him an opportunity to amend his complaint would be futile.”
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (internal quotation marks
omitted). The court found that Appellant’s claim regarding the conditions of his
transportation between correctional facilities, even if true, failed to rise to the level of
“unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain” necessary to implicate the Eighth
Amendment. See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 297 (1991). The court dismissed
Appellant’s due process claims because Appellant failed to allege any actual injury
resulting from the lack of a medical exam prior to his transport.
We review a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e) for an abuse of
discretion, see Schlicher v. Thomas, 111 F.3d 777, 779 (10th Cir. 1997), and review a
district court’s dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) de novo. Smith v. United
States, 561 F.3d 1090, 1098 (10th Cir. 2009). After careful review of Appellant’s
2
submissions to this court and the record on appeal, we agree with the district court’s
dismissal under either standard. The conditions of Appellant’s transport simply do
not rise to the level necessary to implicate the Eighth Amendment, particularly as “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 and safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,
837 (1994).
We also agree with the district court’s dismissal of Appellant’s procedural due
process claim because Appellant did not describe any actual injury from the lack of a
medical exam prior to transport between correctional facilities. See O'Shea v.
Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 493 (1974) (“Plaintiffs in the federal courts must allege some
threatened or actual injury resulting from the putatively illegal action before a federal
court may assume jurisdiction.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s denial of both of Appellant’s
claims. We GRANT Appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and
remind him of his obligation to continue making partial payments until the entire
filing fee has been paid in full.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
3