Johnson v. Stephan, 93-3108
Decision Date | 22 September 1993 |
Docket Number | No. 93-3108,93-3108 |
Citation | 6 F.3d 691 |
Parties | Walter R. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert T. STEPHAN; Gary Stotts; Raymond Roberts; Richard Koerner; William L. Cummings; William Miskell; Dave McCune; Tabor Madill; Rudy Stupar; John Callison; Doctor Hoang; Phyllis Warder; Gay Savino; Mary Ann, Nurse; Roger Werholtz, Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Walter R. Johnson, pro se.
Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON and EBEL, Circuit Judges.
Walter Johnson, an inmate at Lansing Correctional Facility, Lansing, Kansas, brought this action pro se alleging that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in violation of his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Mr. Johnson further complains that prison officials denied television news personnel access to the prison to conduct a face-to-face interview with him in violation of the First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. After a Martinez report was ordered and received, the district court dismissed both claims as frivolous. Johnson v. Stephan, 816 F.Supp. 677 (1993). 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d) (1988). We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm. 1
Mr. Johnson complained of leg cramps and swelling, and was prescribed a leg stocking. He asserts that the stocking was too tight and cut off his circulation. He contends that the leg stocking, designed to improve circulation, was an improper prescription for his condition. Mr. Johnson's medical records reveal that he has received consistent medical care at the Lansing Institution. As the district court noted, Mr. Johnson's complaint amounts to a difference of opinion with the medical staff, which does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. See rec., vol. I, doc. 10, at 1-2. We affirm the dismissal of this claim as frivolous. SeeRamos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 575 (10th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1041, 101 S.Ct. 1759, 68 L.Ed.2d 239 (1981); Smart v. Villar, 547 F.2d 112, 114 (10th Cir.1976).
Mr. Johnson's second complaint concerns the denial of media access to the prison for the purpose of interviewing him. The television news program Hard Copy requested permission to conduct a face-to-face interview with Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson has communicated with program representatives by telephone and through the mail. After initially being denied access to the prison, Hard Copy reiterated its request in a letter. The prison responded by again denying access. Mr. Johnson complains that this constitutes a violation of the First Amendment.
Mr. Johnson has no standing to assert the First Amendment rights of Hard Copy. Moreover, the media has "no constitutional right of access to prisons or their inmates beyond that afforded the general public." Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 834, 94 S.Ct. 2800, 2810, 41 L.Ed.2d 495 (1974); see alsoSaxbe v. Washington Post Co., 417 U.S. 843, 94 S.Ct. 2811, 41 L.Ed.2d 514 (1974) ( ); Oklahoma Hosp. Ass'n v. Oklahoma Publishing Co., 748 F.2d 1421, 1425 (10th Cir.1984) (, )cert. denied, 473 U.S. 905, 105 S.Ct. 3528, 87 L.Ed.2d 652 (1985).
With regard to Mr. Johnson's own First Amendment rights, the record shows that the prison exercised its discretion in denying the interview. SeeSeattle-Tacoma Newspaper Guild, Local # 82 v. Parker, 480 F.2d 1062 (9th Cir.1973). In a letter to Hard Copy, the prison stated it had examined the request ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gee v. Pacheco
...particular method of treatment, without more, does not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation. See id.; Johnson v. Stephan, 6 F.3d 691, 692 (10th Cir.1993). Mr. Gee also complains that Dr. Coyle refused to recognize or treat a sleepwalking disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder......
-
Baxter v. Adam
...Thigpen, 941 F.2d 1495, 1505 (11th Cir.1991), citing Waldrop v. Evans, 871 F.2d 1030, 1033 (11th Cir.1989). See also Johnson v. Stephan, 6 F.3d 691, 692 (10th Cir.1993). For example, in Estelle, the prisoner received treatment for his back injury (bed rest, muscle relaxants and pain relieve......
-
Hogan v. Terrebonne Parish Criminal Justice Complex, CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-1258 SECTION "I" (2)
...to write to his lawyer, and that his lawyer also visited with him personally at the jail on several occasions. Cf. Johnson v. Stephan, 6 F.3d 691, 692 (10th Cir. 1993) (no violation of prisoner's First Amendment rights by denying him on-camera interview with reporter when alternative means ......
-
Luttrell v. Grote
...See Riddle v. Mondragon, 83 F.3d 1197, 1203 (10th Cir. 1996); Olson v. Stotts, 9 F.3d 1475, 1477 (10th Cir. 1993); Johnson v. Stephan, 6 F.3d 691, 692 (10th Cir. 1993); Ramos, 639 F.2d at 575; Smart v. Villar, 547 F.2d 112, 114 (10th Cir. 1976); Jones, 959 F. Supp. at 1406. A medical need i......
-
Managed health care in prisons as cruel and unusual punishment.
...in favor of prison where officials interfered with inmate's ability to take medication on recommended schedule); Johnson v. Stephan, 6 F.3d 691, 692 (10th Cir. 1993) (finding no deliberate indifference where inmate alleged that leg stocking provided for cramping was improper size); Smith v.......