Kontos v. Prasse, 19389.
| Decision Date | 15 June 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 19389.,19389. |
| Citation | 444 F.2d 166 |
| Parties | Constantine Gus KONTOS, Appellant, v. Arthur T. PRASSE, Commissioner of Correction, Huntingdon, Pa., et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Constantine Gus Kontos, pro se.
J. Shane Creamer, Atty. Gen., Peter W. Brown, Deputy Atty. Gen., Department of Justice, Harrisburg, Pa., for appellees.
Before STALEY and ADAMS, Circuit Judges, and GARTH, District Judge.
Appellant seeks review of the denial of his motion for leave to file a civil rights action. He is a prisoner in the custody of the Pennsylvania Bureau of Correction and alleges that he is being denied necessary medical treatment for an ear infection. This court has held that the averment of what amounts to negligence does not constitute the deprivation of constitutional rights required for support of a civil rights action. Gittlemacker v. Prasse, 428 F.2d 1 (C.A.3, 1970).
The order of the district court will be affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ammlung v. City of Chester, Civ. A. No. 72-868.
...a claim of improper medical treatment without more does not constitute a denial of rights secured by the Constitution. Kontos v. Prasse, 444 F.2d 166 (3rd Cir. 1971); Gittlemacker v. Prasse, supra; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ex rel. Gatewood v. Hendrick, 368 F.2d 179 (3rd Cir. 1966). Agai......
-
Polite v. Diehl
...Gatewood v. Hendrick, 368 F.2d 179, 180 (3d Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 925, 87 S.Ct. 899, 17 L.Ed.2d 797 (1967).11 Kontos v. Prasse, 444 F.2d 166 (3d Cir. 1971); Gittlemacker v. Prasse, 428 F.2d 1, 5-6 (3d Cir. 1970).12 Kent v. Prasse, 385 F.2d 406, 407 (3d Cir. 1967).13 Section 20 ......
-
Howell v. Cataldi
...278, 24 L.Ed.2d 234 (1969); as was an averment of inferior medical treatment facilities for treatment of an ear infection, Kontos v. Prasse, 444 F.2d 166 (3d Cir.1971); as was an averment of being forced to work in prison on a press which was dangerous and unfit and which had previously bee......
-
Roach v. Kligman
...Federal courts follow stringent standards, and simple malpractice is not actionable as an Eighth Amendment deprivation. Kontos v. Prasse, 444 F.2d 166 (3d Cir. 1971); Martinez v. Mancusi, 443 F.2d 921 (2d Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 983, 91 S.Ct. 1202, 28 L.Ed.2d 335 (1971). The act ......