Robert Courtney v. Dr. Carl Adams

Eighth Circuit

Robert Courtney v. Dr. Carl Adams

528 F.2d 1056, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 12530

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMarch 5, 1976

Docket75--1616

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 528 F.2d 1056 (Robert Courtney v. Dr. Carl Adams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robert Courtney v. Dr. Carl Adams, 528 F.2d 1056, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 12530 (8th Cir. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a pro se civil rights action 1 brought by Robert Courtney, an inmate at Cummins Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction. His petition alleged the deprivation of needed medical care, and named as respondent Dr. Carl Adams, a prison physician. Acting pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), the district court 2 dismissed the petition as frivolous. Petitioner has taken this appeal.

In his petition Courtney alleged that he has a growth, next to his heart which “seemed to be enlarging,” and that he has been scheduled for a major operation. In order to relieve the continuous pain he allegedly experiences, petitioner sought from Dr. Adams a prescription for pain-killing medication and an advance in the date of his operation. Petitioner alleges that the doctor prescribed a medicine only “about the same as aspirin” and that the date for his operation was not advanced.

*1057 As grounds for dismissing the petition, Judge Eisele held that it evidenced “a mere disagreement with the prison physician as to what is necessary and proper for the petitioner’s medical care.” We concur in this characterization of the petition. Since the law is clear that such a medical disagreement fails to state a claim for relief, Mason v. Ciccone, 517 F.2d 73 (8th Cir. 1975); Jones v. Lockhart, 484 F.2d 1192 (8th Cir. 1973); Cates v. Ciccone, 422 F.2d 926 (8th Cir. 1970), the district court proceeded correctly in dismissing the petition.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

1

. The petition was filed as a “supplemental Pleading Amendment” to a class action then pending in the district court. The district court held that petitioner had already “rested his case” in the class suit, and thus treated the pleading as a separate civil rights action.

Petitioner contends that this procedural decision by the district court was error. However, in view of petitioner’s failure to state a claim for relief, see discussion infra, the merits of this contention need not be reached.

2

. The Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is a pro se civil rights action 1 brought by Robert Courtney, an inmate at Cummins Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction. His petition alleged the deprivation of needed medical care, and named as respondent Dr. Carl Adams, a prison physician. Acting pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), the district court 2 dismissed the petition as frivolous. Petitioner has taken this appeal.

In his petition Courtney alleged that he has a growth, next to his heart which “seemed to be enlarging,” and that he has been scheduled for a major operation. In order to relieve the continuous pain he allegedly experiences, petitioner sought from Dr. Adams a prescription for pain-killing medication and an advance in the date of his operation. Petitioner alleges that the doctor prescribed a medicine only “about the same as aspirin” and that the date for his operation was not advanced.

*1057 As grounds for dismissing the petition, Judge Eisele held that it evidenced “a mere disagreement with the prison physician as to what is necessary and proper for the petitioner’s medical care.” We concur in this characterization of the petition. Since the law is clear that such a medical disagreement fails to state a claim for relief, Mason v. Ciccone, 517 F.2d 73 (8th Cir. 1975); Jones v. Lockhart, 484 F.2d 1192 (8th Cir. 1973); Cates v. Ciccone, 422 F.2d 926 (8th Cir. 1970), the district court proceeded correctly in dismissing the petition.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

1

. The petition was filed as a “supplemental Pleading Amendment” to a class action then pending in the district court. The district court held that petitioner had already “rested his case” in the class suit, and thus treated the pleading as a separate civil rights action.

Petitioner contends that this procedural decision by the district court was error. However, in view of petitioner’s failure to state a claim for relief, see discussion infra, the merits of this contention need not be reached.

2

. The Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

528 F.2d 1056, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 12530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-courtney-v-dr-carl-adams-ca8-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack