Ingram v. Clements
705 F. App'x 721
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Ingram, a Colorado prisoner, sued CDOC officials and PA Keri McKay alleging Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment, ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and state-law violations based on medical conditions worsened by work assignments, medical care, and housing.
- The district court dismissed most claims as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, leaving Eighth Amendment and some state-law claims; defendants then moved to dismiss the remainder.
- A magistrate judge recommended dismissal; Ingram sought a six-month extension to file objections (citing pain and cognitive impairment); the district court denied the extension and adopted the recommendation.
- Ingram appealed and moved for IFP on appeal; the panel considered threshold issues of § 1915(g) (three-strikes rule) and waiver for failure to object to the magistrate’s recommendation.
- The Tenth Circuit found Ingram fit the “imminent danger” exception to § 1915(g) (permitting IFP) for the purpose of appeal, excused waiver as to one Eighth Amendment claim against McKay, reversed dismissal of ADA/Rehabilitation Act claims about access to medications and the McKay Eighth Amendment claim, affirmed other rulings, and remanded those reversed claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1915(g) three-strikes bars IFP on appeal or whether imminent danger exception applies | Ingram asserted ongoing serious medical needs and that denying intervention would imminently worsen his conditions | Defendants relied on Ingram’s three prior strikes to require full prepayment | Court: imminent danger exception satisfied; IFP on appeal allowed (partial payments continue) |
| Whether Ingram waived appellate review by failing to timely object to magistrate judge’s recommendation | Ingram argued he tried to object and sought extension due to pain/cognitive limits, so waiver should be excused | Defendants invoked firm-waiver rule to bar appellate review of unobjected issues | Court: excused waiver only for Eighth Amendment claim against McKay; other objections waived/not entitled to reconsideration |
| Whether ADA/Rehabilitation Act failure-to-accommodate claim (access to prescribed medications) was adequately pleaded | Ingram alleged being required to stand in long outdoor lines contrary to medical limits, causing him to skip meds; requested accommodations | Defendants argued complaint lacked allegation of exclusion from a specific service and was essentially medical maltreatment | Court: pleadings sufficient—denial of access to prescribed meds states viable failure-to-accommodate claim; reversed dismissal and remanded |
| Whether McKay was deliberately indifferent under the Eighth Amendment by approving kitchen work contrary to medical standing restriction | Ingram alleged McKay approved kitchen duty despite medical order limiting standing to 30 minutes, causing risk of harm | Defendants argued dismissal proper; lower courts did not specifically address this claim | Court: Eighth Amendment claim against McKay plausibly pleaded; dismissal reversed and remanded; other Eighth Amendment claims left affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hafed v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 635 F.3d 1172 (10th Cir. 2011) (imminent danger exception requires specific, credible allegations of imminent serious physical harm)
- Pa. Dep’t of Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206 (1998) (ADA applies to state prisons)
- J.V. v. Albuquerque Pub. Sch., 813 F.3d 1289 (10th Cir. 2016) (elements for failure-to-accommodate claim)
- Self v. Crum, 439 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir. 2006) (deliberate indifference standard in Eighth Amendment medical/danger claims)
- Fitzgerald v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 403 F.3d 1134 (10th Cir. 2005) (medical malpractice claims generally not ADA/Rehab Act claims)
- Duffield v. Jackson, 545 F.3d 1234 (10th Cir. 2008) (interests-of-justice exception to firm-waiver rule and plain-error framework)
- Davis v. Clifford, 825 F.3d 1131 (10th Cir. 2016) (firm-waiver rule for magistrate recommendations)