Watson v. Caton

• Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
• Decided: January 29, 1993
• Docket: 92-1269
• Status: Published

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

January 29, 1993

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ___________________

No. 92-1269

CHARLES N. WATSON,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                C. MARK CATON, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

__________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ___________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ___________________

               Charles N. Watson, on brief pro se.
               _________________

__________________

                                 __________________ 

Per Curiam.   The appellant,  Charles N. Watson,  was an
                 __________

            inmate in the Maine  correctional system, incarcerated at the

            Downeast  Correctional Facility, and  later at the Charleston

            Correctional Facility, at all times relevant to this lawsuit.

            In November  1991 Watson filed  a complaint in  federal court

            which alleged that the defendants, all officials of the Maine

            Department  of  Correction  or  the  Downeast  or  Charleston

            prisons, had  violated his federal constitutional  rights, in

            violation of 42 U.S.C.   1983.

                 Watson's complaint contained four counts, only  three of

            which are  at issue  in this appeal.1   In  his first  count,

            Watson described injuries  he had sustained to his right hand

            before he went to prison.  The injuries had required surgery,

            and the hand continued  to cause problems.  After  he entered

            prison, beginning in February  1989, Watson sought treatment.

            The  specialists he contacted would not travel to the prison,

            and  prison  officials  would not  allow  him  to  go to  the

            doctors.    According  to  the  complaint,  defendant  Peggie

            Mitchie, a  nurse  at  the  Downeast  Correctional  Facility,

            refused  to  examine Watson's  hand  because  the injury  had

            occurred  before  he  went  to  prison,  and  she  said  that

            "therefore she was not responsible  for care or treatment  of
                                
            ____________________

                 1The  third count  of  the complaint  related to  dental
            treatment  of a broken cap on a  front tooth.  Watson did not
            challenge the dismissal of this count in his appellate brief,
            and  therefore  has  waived  the  issue.    Pignons  S.A.  de
                                                        _________________
            Mecanique  v. Polaroid Corp., 701  F.2d 1, 3  (1st Cir. 1983)
            _________     _____________
            (issues  not  presented  in  appellant's  opening  brief  are
            waived).

that hand."   Thereafter Watson says  he continued to  suffer

            and  eventually a doctor did examine the hand and recommended

            another round of surgery.

                 The second  count of  the complaint alleged  that Watson

            was injured when he fell through a weak ceiling while working

            at the Downeast  prison.  He saw a nurse,  who treated a gash

            on  his leg but declined to provide further treatment when he

            told  her that he had also injured  his back, saying that his

            back  "would be  okay."   Not  until  he transferred  to  the

            Charleston prison  did Watson receive treatment  for his back

            injury;   but  even  then,  Watson  complained,  the  doctors

            prescribed only medication and bed  rest, and failed to order

            the  physical   therapy  that   he  thought   was  necessary.

            Eventually, the  injury required surgery, and  even after the

            operation Watson's back remained "40% impaired."

                 Finally, Watson alleged in  his fourth count that, while

            housed at the Downeast  Correctional Facility, he purchased a

            number of  cassette tapes and compact disks through the mail.

            When these items arrived at the prison, officials deemed them

            "non-allowable"  and did not deliver them to Watson.  Nor did

            they provide  Watson with  a "non-allowable  property sheet,"

            which,   Watson  contends,   the  Department   of  Correction

            "normally issues" in such  situations.  A corrections officer

            destroyed  the tapes and disks, but the prison did not notify

            Watson of  either the  delivery or  the destruction until  11

-3-
                                         -3-

days had passed.

                 In  addition to  his  complaint, Watson  filed with  the

            district court  an application to proceed  in forma pauperis.
                                                       _________________

            Acting  on  this request  before  any of  the  defendants had

            responded to the complaint, the district court granted Watson

            in  forma pauperis status but dismissed  the complaint on its
            __________________

            own motion under  28 U.S.C.    1915(d) with  a short  opinion

            stating  its reasons.   After the  district court  denied his

            motion for  reconsideration  and motion  to vacate  judgment,

            Watson filed this appeal.

                 Under 28 U.S.C.    1915(d) a federal district  court may

            dismiss an in  forma pauperis complaint if  the complaint is,
                       __________________

            among  other things,  "frivolous."   A  claim is  "frivolous"

            within the meaning of section 1915(d) when it is "based on an

            indisputably  meritless  legal  theory,"  or  makes  "clearly

            baseless" factual contentions.  Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
                                            _______    ________

            319, 327 (1989).   We review a section 1915(d)  dismissal for

            "abuse of  discretion," Denton v. Hernandez, 112 S. Ct. 1728,
                                    ______    _________

            1734  (1992),   taking  into  account  the  liberal  pleading

            standards   applicable  to   complaints  filed   by  pro   se
                                                                 ________

            plaintiffs.

                 Watson's first two  counts alleged  that the  defendants

            failed to provide, or caused delays in providing, appropriate

            medical care.  The courts have consistently refused to create

            constitutional  claims out of disagreements between prisoners

-4-
                                         -4-

and doctors about the  proper course of a  prisoner's medical

            treatment, or  to  conclude that  simple medical  malpractice

            rises to the  level of  cruel and unusual  punishment.   See,
                                                                     ____

            e.g., Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976);  DesRosiers
            ___   _______    ______                            __________

            v. Moran, 949 F.2d 15, 19  (1st Cir. 1991).  However,  prison
               _____

            officials  and doctors  may violate  the Eighth  Amendment if

            they  exhibit "deliberate  indifference  to  serious  medical

            needs."  Estelle  v. Gamble,  429 U.S. at  106.  The  obvious
                     _______     ______

            case would be a  denial of needed medical treatment  in order

            to punish the inmate.   But deliberate indifference  may also

            reside in "wanton" decisions  to deny or delay care,   Wilson
                                                                   ______

            v. Seiter, 111 S. Ct. 2321, 2326 (1992), where  the action is
               ______

            recklessness,  "not  in  the  tort  law  sense  but  in   the

            appreciably  stricter  criminal-law  sense, requiring  actual

            knowledge   of   impending    harm,   easily    preventable."

            DesRosiers, 949 F.2d at 19.
            __________

                 Watson alleged in the first count of  his complaint that

            the  prison nurse refused to  treat him for  an injury, which

            proved serious enough to  require surgery, on the non-medical

            ground that the state was not responsible for injuries caused

            by  events that  occurred before  Watson entered  prison.   A

            deliberate refusal to treat a serious medical condition of  a

            prisoner  on such  a ground  could hardly  be justified  and,

            while  the  allegations  may   prove  untrue,  they  are  not

            "fantastic or delusional."   Estelle v.  Gamble, 490 U.S.  at
                                         _______     ______

-5-
                                         -5-

328.    We  conclude  that  Watson's   first  count  was  not

            frivolous,  although it  may--based on  further information--

            prove to be wholly without merit.   How and in what form that

            information is obtained is a matter for the district court to

            decide in the  first instance; we note that the state has not

            yet filed an answer to this charge.

                 Watson's  second  count  relating  to  his  back  injury

            presents  a different question.   On its face,  the facts set

            forth allege only the  kind of disagreement about the  proper

            course  of treatment  that does  not rise to  the level  of a

            constitutional  violation:  Watson wanted more attention from

            the  nurse, who said that  no treatment was  needed; he later

            wanted  physical therapy  to be ordered  by the  doctors, who

            thought that drugs and rest would do the trick.

                 To   append   labels   like  "wanton"   or   "deliberate

            indifference" to this conduct, when nothing suggests that the

            medical  judgment was  absurd or  that improper  reasons were

            given for refusing treatment, cannot alter what is in essence

            a claim of  negligence.   The difference  between failing  to

            state  a  claim  and making  a  frivolous  claim  is in  some

            situations  a question of degree.  In this case we think that

            the district court acted within  its considerable discretion,

            Wilson, 111 S.  Ct. at  2326, in concluding  that this  count
            ______

            stated no  facts suggesting  more than simple  negligence and

            that,   since  simple  negligence  is  not  a  constitutional

-6-
                                         -6-

violation, the  claim was subject to  dismissal under section

            1915(d).2

                 Watson's  fourth  count  alleged that  prison  officials

            refused to  deliver several cassette tapes  and compact discs

            to him, denying those items as "non-allowable" but failing to

            give Watson a "non-allowable  property sheet," and failing as

            well  to notify  Watson that  the items  had  been delivered.

            Instead, Watson says,  a corrections officer destroyed  them.

            Watson does not complain directly of the decision to withhold

            the property from him,  but rather of the lack  of notice and

            the resulting  destruction of  the property before  he had  a

            change  to have the items sent  back.  In other words, Watson

            has raised an issue of procedural due process.

                 The Fourteenth  Amendment says that state  officials may

            not deprive persons of property without "due process of law."

            U.S.  Const., art.  XIV.   The  process  due depends  on  the

            circumstances.    Mathews  v.  Eldridge, 424  U.S.  319,  335
                              _______      ________

            (1976).  The  cases distinguish sharply  between deprivations

            caused by  "random, unauthorized" conduct of state officials,

            and deprivations  caused by conduct "pursuant  to established

            state  procedure."  See Hudson  v. Palmer, 468  U.S. 517, 532
                                ___ ______     ______

            (1984).    For the  former,  the state  is  not automatically

____________________

                 2 Conceivably,  in the  remand in connection  with count
            one,  Watson could  move for  leave to  replead count  two to
            allege facts amounting to a constitutional violation.   If he
            did  so, we  assume  the court  would  give this  motion  due
            consideration.  See Denton, 112 S. Ct. at 1734.
                            ___ ______

                                         -7-
                                         -7-

liable;3  in the latter case there may be liability where the

            state  policy approves or directs the conduct but falls below

            constitutional standards.

                 In  this  instance, Watson  does  not  suggest that  the

            officer's conduct reflected a state policy.  His brief states

            that "a [s]upervisor took it upon his  own" to throw away the

            property without giving  Watson notice or allowing him the 30

            days permitted to prisoners to ship back non-allowable items.

            The  complaint itself  asserts  that the  lack  of notice  to

            Watson involved  the failure to furnish  him "a non-allowable

            property  sheet, which the Department of Corrections normally

            issues . . . . "   The clear inference from these allegations

            is that the action was a deviation from, and not a reflection

            of,  an established  state procedure.   Under  the precedents

            cited,  such a  claim has no  legal basis  in a  section 1983

            case.

                 We affirm  the judgment  below in dismissing  counts two
                    ______

            and four  of the  complaint.  As  to count  one, judgment  is

            vacated  and the  case  remanded for  further proceedings  in
            _______

            accordance with this opinion.

                 So Ordered.
                 __________

____________________

                 3The  officer allegedly responsible  for the destruction
            is apparently not a defendant in this case.   Watson does not
            allege that  the state refused to  provide a post-deprivation
            remedy for the alleged  wrong by the officer.   See Hudson v.
                                                            ___ ______
            Palmer, 468 U.S. at 533.
            ______

                                         -8-
                                         -8-