McBride v. Deer

• Decision Date: 01 March 2001
• Docket Number: No. 00-6152,00-6152
• Citation: 240 F.3d 1287
• Parties: (10th Cir. 2001) JOE R. MCBRIDE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RUSSELL DEER, Major; SONNY BRIGGS; DR. HARVEY; NURSE HERBIT; NURSE SNYDER; NURSE POTER; COURTNEY O'CONNOR; OFFICER PERRY, Detention Officer; OFFICER SEBER, Detention Officer; SGT. FLEMMING; SGT. SAILIAS; SGT. CAMBRIDGE; SGT. WADE, Defendants - Appellees
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

Page 1287

240 F.3d 1287 (10th Cir. 2001)

JOE R. MCBRIDE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RUSSELL DEER, Major; SONNY BRIGGS; DR. HARVEY; NURSE HERBIT; NURSE SNYDER; NURSE POTER; COURTNEY O'CONNOR; OFFICER PERRY, Detention Officer; OFFICER SEBER, Detention Officer; SGT. FLEMMING; SGT. SAILIAS; SGT. CAMBRIDGE; SGT. WADE, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 00-6152

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT

March 01, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THEWESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA. (D.C. NO. CIV-99-274-M)

Joe R. McBride, pro se.

Don G. Pope, Attorney at Law, Norman, Oklahoma, and Richard Mann, District Attorney's Office, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for the Defendants-Appellees.

Before HENRY, BALDOCK, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.¹

HENRY, Circuit Judge.

Joe R. McBride, a state prisoner, brought suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Integrity Health Care, Inc., Wexford Health Services, and various employees of the Oklahoma County Detention Center ("OCDC"), arguing that his constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated at the OCDC. During the proceedings below, the district court granted summary judgment to some of the defendants and dismissed others on the basis of failure to state a claim. Mr. McBride now appeals. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

I. DISCUSSION

On appeal, Mr. McBride asserts three arguments: (1) that his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when he was denied proper medical care; (2) that his First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when he was deprived of access to the courts; and (3) that his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when he was forced to live in unsanitary conditions for three days. Because Mr. McBride is proceeding pro se, we liberally construe his pleadings. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).

A. Standard of Review

We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. See Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Slater, 228 F.3d 1147, 1161 (10th Cir. 2000). We also review de novo an order dismissing a prisoner's case for failure to state a claim. See Perkins v. Kansas Dep't of Corrections, 165 F.3d 803, 806 (10th Cir. 1999) (establishing de novo standard of review for a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim); see also Sanders v. Sheahan, 198 F.3d 626, 626 (7th Cir. 1999) (noting the same standard of review for a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. 1915A for failure to state a claim). Notably, "[i]n reviewing the dismissal of a complaint, [a]ll well-pleaded facts, as distinguished from conclusory allegations, must be taken as true. In addition, we will take the allegations in [the] plaintiff's objections to the magistrate's report [and recommendation] as true." Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1190 (10th Cir. 1989) (emphasis added) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

B. Medical Care

Mr. McBride's first argument is that defendant Dr. Harvey violated his constitutional rights two different times: first, by failing to give proper medical care and, second, by delaying in providing medical care. As to the first part of the claim (i.e., failure to give proper medical care), we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment: Mr. McBride never demonstrated deliberate indifference on the part of Dr. Harvey. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) ("In order to state a cognizable claim, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. It is only such indifference that can offend evolving standards of decency in violation of the Eighth Amendment.") (internal quotation marks omitted).

However, as to the second part of the claim (i.e., delay in providing medical care), we conclude that the district court erred. Mr. McBride alleged the following facts in his complaint and objections to the magistrate's report and recommendation: (1) Prior to being incarcerated at the OCDC, Mr. McBride suffered a gunshot wound to the leg and underwent surgery; (2) once at the OCDC, Mr. McBride was treated by Dr. Harvey on April 10, 1997, because of pain in his leg; (3) after being treated, Mr. McBride continued to experience pain; (4) consequently, Mr. McBride filed multiple grievances and sick call slips informing Dr. Harvey, among others, of the pain; (5) Dr. Harvey did not see Mr. McBride again until May 30, 1997; and (6) Mr. McBride no longer has "full functions of [his] leg to this day." Rec., doc. 45, at 3.

According to the district court, Mr. McBride failed to state a claim because he did not allege substantial harm as a result of Dr. Harvey's delay. See Olson v. Stotts, 9 F.3d 1475, 1477 (10th Cir. 1993) (noting that a "[d]elay in medical care can only constitute an Eighth Amendment violation if there has been deliberate indifference which results in substantial harm") (internal quotation marks omitted). However, as noted above, Mr. McBride stated explicitly that Dr. Harvey's delay caused him "not to have full functions of [his] leg to this day." Rec., doc. 45, at 2-3. Because officials may be "held liable when [a] delay results in a lifelong handicap or a permanent loss," Hunt v. Uphoff, 199 F.3d 1220 1224 (10th Cir. 1999), we fail to see how Mr. McBride did not allege substantial harm. See also id. ("Delays that courts have found to violate the Eighth Amendment have [also] frequently involved life-threatening situations and instances in which it is apparent that delay would exacerbate the prisoner's medical problems."). Of course, whether Mr. McBride will in fact be able to prove substantial harm or a "sufficiently serious" medical need, Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) is a different question; but, for the purposes of this appeal, our concern is otherwise. We need only ask whether Mr. McBride, proceeding pro se, has alleged sufficient facts to overcome the pleading hurdle.

C. Access to Courts

Mr. McBride next contends that defendants Major Dear and Sgt. Wade violated his constitutional rights by failing to act on his requests to have checks issued to the Oklahoma County court clerk and law library so as to obtain legal materials. The district court held that Mr. McBride failed to state a claim because he did not allege, in his complaint, actual injury as a result of the defendants' inaction. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996) ("Because [there is not] an abstract, freestanding right to a law library or legal assistance, an inmate cannot establish relevant actual injury simply by establishing that his prison's law library or legal assistance program is subpar in some theoretical sense. That would be the precise analog of the healthy inmate claiming constitutional violation because of the inadequacy of the prison infirmary. Insofar as the right is concerned, meaningful access to the courts is the touchstone, and the inmate therefore must go one step further and demonstrate that the alleged shortcomings in the library or legal assistance program hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim.") (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

We hold that the district court properly dismissed this claim. Admittedly, Mr. McBride claimed, in his objections to the report and recommendation, that he suffered actual injury because the defendants' actions prevented him from filing pretrial motions on his criminal charges: "I repeatedly requested to [Major] Dear and [Sgt.] Wade to make me a check for the purpose of getting legal material, but one was never made, therefore, I was deprived of meaningful access to the courts, for I had no way of knowing how to file a pre trial motion, nor how to file an appeal after I was convicted, I lost my appeal because of this denial, and could not file illegal search and seizour [sic] motions." Rec., doc. 45, at 5. However, Mr. McBride still failed to allege sufficient facts to satisfy the actual injury requirement: For example, he did not describe sufficiently the legal materials he was seeking, see Petrick v. Maynard, 11 F.3d 991, 995 (10th Cir. 1993) (noting that "a prisoner must do more than make a mere conclusory allegation of need for unspecified or unlimited materials"); he did not clarify that the OCDC library and its resources were inadequate for his needs, see id. (noting that the library and its resources were "inadequate" for the plaintiff's "legitimate queries"); and he did not explain that his legal claim was nonfrivolous. See Penrod v. Zavaras, 94 F.3d 1399, 1403 (10th Cir. 1996) (holding that the "[p]laintiff failed to allege that the library restrictions placed on unassigned prisoners hindered his effort to pursue a nonfrivolous legal claim"). Although "pro se complaints, like the one involved here, are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers," Dunn, 880 F.2d at 1190 (internal quotation marks omitted), the pleading hurdle is not automatically overcome.

D. Living Conditions

Finally, Mr. McBride argues that defendants Major Dear, Sgt. Salilis, and Sgt. Cambridge ² violated his constitutional rights by forcing him to live in squalor more specifically, a feces-covered cell for three days.³ Under the Eighth Amendment, jail officials must

provide humane conditions of confinement by ensuring inmates receive the basic necessities of adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care and by taking reasonable measures to guarantee the inmates' safety. To hold a jailer personally liable for violating an inmate's right to humane conditions of confinement, a plaintiff must satisfy two requirements, consisting of an objective and subjective component.

The objective component requires that the alleged deprivation be sufficiently serious. . ..

The subjective component requires the jail official to have a sufficiently culpable state of mind. In the context of prison-conditions claims, the required state of mind is one of deliberate indifference to inmate...