Parnisi v. Colorado State Hosp.
| Citation | 1993 WL 118860,992 F.2d 1223 |
| Parties | NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of |
| Decision Date | 29 November 1993 |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit) |
Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. *
ORDER AND JUDGEMENT **
In this pro se appeal, the appellant challenges the district court's order dismissing his § 1983 complaint against the Colorado State Hospital in Pueblo, Colorado, 1 where the defendant is currently a patient, and three of its physicians. The appellant filed his complaint in forma pauperis, alleging that the appellees violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights, as well as his Eighth and Ninth Amendment rights, by denying him medical treatment for his damaged heart and brain and by falsifying medical records to cover up their denial of medical treatment. 2 The district court found the appellant's allegations to be frivolous and dismissed the appellant's complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The federal in forma pauperis statute is designed to ensure that indigent litigants have meaningful access to the federal courts. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) permits an indigent litigant to commence a civil or criminal suit without prepayment of fees or costs. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). To prevent abusive litigation, however, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) allows an in forma pauperis suit to be dismissed if the suit is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). A suit is frivolous if it is based on "an indisputably meritless legal theory" or a "fanciful factual allegation." Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325, 327. A factual allegation is fanciful if it is so "fantastic or delusional" as to be "clearly baseless." Id. at 327, 328. Since dismissal under § 1915(d) is discretionary, we review such a dismissal under an abuse of discretion standard. Denton v. Hernandez, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1734 (1992); Yellen v. Cooper, 828 F.2d 1471, 1475 (10th Cir.1987).
We agree with the district court's conclusion that the appellant's Fifth and Ninth Amendment claims are frivolous. The Fifth Amendment due process clause only protects against due process violations caused by the federal government. See Public Utilities Comm'n v. Polak, 343 U.S. 451, 461 (1952); Gomez v. North Dakota Rural Development Corporation, 704 F.2d 1056, 1058 (8th Cir.1983); Brown v. D.C. Transit System, 523 F.2d 725, 727 (D.C.Cir.1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 862 (1975); Lawrence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law, § 10-7, at 663 (2d ed. 1988). In the instant case, there is no allegation of federal government involvement in the deprivation of medical care or the falsification of medical records claimed by the appellant. The hospital where the defendant is a patient is a state hospital and its physicians are state employees. State actors are subject to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Fifth Amendment. See United States ex rel. Cole v. Gramley, 750 F.Supp. 1385, 1388 (N.D.Ill.1990); Tribe, § 10-7, at 663. The due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment is discussed above in footnote two.
Although the Ninth Amendment may restrict the activities of state actors, see Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965); id. at 486-94 (Goldberg., J., concurring), it has never been applied to prevent the denial of medical treatment to prisoners. Indeed, such an application would be inappropriate, since the Ninth Amendment only protects those rights not otherwise "enumerat[ed] in the Constitution," U.S. Const. amend. IX, and the Eighth Amendment specifically addresses itself to the mistreatment of prisoners, see Hudson v. McMillan, 112 S.Ct. 995 (1992). We conclude, therefore, that the appellant's Fifth and Ninth Amendment claims are based on indisputably meritless legal theories and thus were properly dismissed by the district court under § 1915(d).
However, we find that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the appellant's Eighth Amendment claim as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. It is well-established that the denial of medical care to a prisoner may amount to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment if it amounts to "deliberate indifference." See Wilson v. Seiter, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 2323 (1991); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). In the instant case, the appellant clearly alleges that the appellees have acted with deliberate indifference. Not only does he claim that the appellees have purposefully refused to treat his brain and heart condition, but he also claims that they have sought to cover-up their refusal to treat him by falsifying his medical records. Accordingly, we do not believe it can be said that the appellant's claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.
Nor do we believe the appellant's factual allegations may be characterized as fanciful. While it may be unlikely that three doctors at the Colorado State Hospital have conspired to deny the appellant medical care, this factual scenario is not so fantastic or delusional as to be clearly baseless. 3 We conclude, therefore, that the appellant's Eighth Amendment claim should not have been dismissed under § 1915(d) and remand this claim to the district court for further proceedings.
The judgment of the district court dismissing the appellant's Fifth and Ninth Amendment claims is AFFIRMED. The judgment of the district court dismissing the appellant's Eighth Amendment claim is reversed and this claim is REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. Therefore, the case is ordered submitted without oral argument.
** This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not be cited, or used by any court within...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Green v. Branson, 95-7075
...rise to an Eighth Amendment violation and is cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Parnisi v. Colorado State Hospital, 992 F.2d 1223, 1993 WL 118860, at * 2 (10th Cir., Apr.15, 1993) (unpublished decision) (reversing a dismissal of an Eighth Amendment claim based on alleged refusal to trea......
-
Brown v. Idaho Dep't of Corr.
...Amendment. However, because Defendants are all state actors, the Fifth Amendment is inapplicable. Parsini v. Colo. State Hosp., 992 F.2d 1223, 1993 WL 118860, at *1 (10th Cir. Apr. 15, 1993) ("State actors are subject to the due processs clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Fifth Ame......
-
Al Kalashnikov v. Herbert
...clause only protects against due process violations caused by the federal government." Parnisi v. Colo. State Hosp., 992 F.2d 1223 (Table), 1993 WL 118860, at *1 (10th Cir. April 15, 1993). None of Mr. Kalashnikov's allegations involve any federal actors. Thus, Mr. Kalashnikov's Fifth Amend......
-
Bunch v. Snow
...the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, and not the 5th Amendment, applies. See Parnisi v. Colorado State Hosp., 992 F.2d 1223 (Table), 1993 WL 118860, at *1 (10th Cir. April 15, 1993). 15. The record shows that prior to towing Mr. Bunch's vehicle, Officer Trenery attempted to have Ms......