Martinez v. Turner

Decision Date08 October 1992
Docket NumberNo. 91-3714,91-3714
Citation977 F.2d 421
PartiesJorge L. MARTINEZ, Appellant, v. C.A. TURNER, Warden, Medical Center for Federal Prisoners; D. Counts, Unit Manager, Medical Center for Federal Prisoners; Jack Smith, Case Manager, Federal Medical Center for Federal Prisoners; L.J. Daugherty, Counselor, Medical Center for Federal Prisoners; W. Hensley, Lieutenant, Medical Center for Federal Prisoners; A. Clark, Lieutenant, Medical Center for Federal Prisoners; G. Martinia, Lieutenant, Medical Center for Federal Prisoners; Shaw, Correctional Officer, Medical Center for Federal Prisoners; Crom, Correctional Officer, Medical Center for Federal Prisoners; E.J. Blades, Correctional Officer, Medical Center for Federal Prisoners; Dr. William Francis, Medical Center for Federal Prisoners; George Cordivin, Dr., Medical Center for Federal Prisoners; E. Wetzel, Dr., Medical Center for Federal Prisoners; J.W. Clawson, Dr., Medical Center for Federal Prisoners; G. Rose, Nurse, Medical Center for Federal Prisoners; Coursen, Nurse, Medical Center for Federal Prisoners; G. Diullo, Physical Therapist, Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Appellant proceeded pro se.

Alleen S. Castellani, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., argued, for appellees.

Before BEAM, Circuit Judge, BRIGHT, Senior Circuit Judge, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

BRIGHT, Senior Circuit Judge.

Jorge L. Martinez appeals the district court's order dismissing his pro se complaint, before service of process, as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1988). We affirm in part and reverse in part.

Martinez asserted in his Bivens-type 1 complaint that his due process rights as a pretrial detainee confined in the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners (USMCFP) were violated when USMCFP officials (1) failed to provide proper medical care for a dislocated shoulder; (2) placed him in administrative segregation after he refused a work assignment because of his shoulder and his status as a pretrial detainee; and (3) ordered that he be force-fed after the seventh day of his hunger strike. 2 Martinez sought leave to file his complaint in forma pauperis. The district court denied Martinez leave and dismissed his complaint for "lack of any substantial merit."

A district court may dismiss a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) if it is frivolous. A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1831, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). It lacks an arguable basis in law if the claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory. Id. at 327, 109 S.Ct. at 1832. A district court's section 1915(d) dismissal is reviewed by this court for abuse of discretion. Denton v. Hernandez, --- U.S. ----, ----, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1734, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992).

Martinez's first and third claims lack an arguable basis in law. To state a constitutional claim for inadequate medical care, Martinez must demonstrate that the officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 292, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). Attachments to Martinez's pleadings reveal that Martinez's shoulder was treated. Although Martinez may disagree with the treatment he received, an inmate's mere disagreement with the course of medical treatment does not give rise to a constitutional claim. Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1339 (8th Cir.1985).

Martinez's claim that he was force-fed also fails to state a constitutional claim. The mere allegation of forced-feeding does not describe a constitutional violation. Bureau of Prison regulations authorize medical officers to force-feed an inmate if they determine that the inmate's life or permanent health is in danger. See 28 C.F.R. § 549.60-549.66 (1991). Attachments to Martinez's pleadings reveal that USMCFP medical officers determined that forced-feeding was necessary to his health. Martinez's allegation that a district court ordered the forced-feedings discontinued is unfounded; the record reveals that the district court merely issued an order deleting, without explanation, a paragraph from a previous order requiring that Martinez be force-fed.

Martinez's second claim--that he was denied due process when placed in administrative segregation for refusing to work--does not lack an arguable basis in law and, therefore, should not have been dismissed prior to service of process. Pretrial detainees are presumed innocent and may not be punished. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1871, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). The determination whether a particular restriction or condition accompanying pretrial detention is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
108 cases
  • Owino v. Corecivic, Inc., Case No.: 17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • May 14, 2018
    ...F.2d 423, 424-25 (7th Cir. 1978) (per curiam); and citing Hause v. Vaught, 993 F.2d 1079, 1085 4th Cir. 1993); and Martinez v. Turner, 977 F.2d 421, 423 (8th Cir. 1992)).) Defendant argues that construing 18 U.S.C. § 1589 to criminalize housekeeping tasks required by Defendant would also cr......
  • Woods v. Com
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • August 26, 2004
    ...even able to make a choice to refuse to eat because the State will force-feed them to preserve their health. See, e.g., Martinez v. Turner, 977 F.2d 421 (8th Cir.1992) (rejecting constitutional challenge to decision by prison officials to force-feed an inmate on hunger strike). However, the......
  • Scott v. Benson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • December 17, 2015
    ...(due process does not prevent prison officials from forcing a prisoner to undergo treatment for tuberculosis ); Martinez v. Turner , 977 F.2d 421, 423 (8th Cir.1992) (rejecting constitutional challenge to decision by prison officials to force-feed a detainee to preserve his health after a h......
  • Williamson v. Stirling
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • December 21, 2018
    ...merit hearings before "they are restrained for reasons other than to assure their appearance at trial"); see also Martinez v. Turner , 977 F.2d 421, 423 (8th Cir. 1992) (preserving pretrial detainee’s procedural due process claim because administrative segregation "is punishment"). A third ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT