Peterson v. Creany, 680 F. App'x 692

Peterson, a Colorado state prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs after adverse reactions to anticonvulsant/psychiatric medications (Tegretol/Carbamazepine) and inadequate follow-up care.
He named multiple defendants: Drs. Creany, Miller, Beatte, Tessier (Health Services Administrator), Warden Archuleta, nurse Meicer, medical assistant Wienpahl, and an unnamed nurse (Jane Doe).
District court denied appointment of counsel, dismissed claims against Tessier, Archuleta, Creany, Miller, Beatte, and Jane Doe for failure to state a claim, and granted summary judgment for Wienpahl and Meicer for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; Peterson appealed.
Allegations: initial prescription of Tegretol despite hepatitis; Creany later stopped Tegretol after tests; Miller/Beatte allegedly prescribed the generic (Carbamazepine) causing severe symptoms; Meicer allegedly refused outside pain medication for cost; Wienpahl allegedly ignored visible symptoms.
Appeals court reviewed denial of counsel for abuse of discretion, dismissal de novo under Rule 12(b)(6), and summary judgment de novo under Rule 56; it affirmed all district-court rulings and granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis but denied waiver of partial fee payments.

Issue	Peterson's Argument	Defendants' Argument	Held
Appointment of counsel	Case merits and complexity justify appointed counsel; library access and trial concerns need counsel	Court cannot force counsel; case not sufficiently complex; petitioner capable of presenting claims	Denied — district court did not abuse discretion
Supervisory liability (Archuleta, Tessier)	Warden/policy and HSA’s failure to supervise caused harm	Plaintiff pleaded only conclusory supervisory allegations, no personal involvement or notice	Dismissed — supervisory status alone insufficient; no plausible facts showing personal participation
Deliberate indifference by treating clinicians (Creany, Miller, Beatte, Jane Doe)	Prescriptions and dismissive responses amounted to deliberate indifference to serious medical needs	Actions show at most negligence or reasonable medical judgment; timely testing and discontinuation or inadvertent mistakes	Dismissed — allegations support negligence not the Eighth Amendment’s deliberate indifference standard
Exhaustion of administrative remedies (Wienpahl, Meicer)	Final administrative response and prison rules blocked further grievance filings; plaintiff exhausted available remedies	Grievance focused on prescribing clinicians; did not fairly apprise officials of Wienpahl/Meicer claims	Summary judgment for defendants — plaintiff failed to exhaust claims against Wienpahl and Meicer

Rachel v. Troutt, 820 F.3d 390 (10th Cir. 2016) (standard and factors for appointment of counsel in civil cases)
Thomas v. Kaven, 765 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2014) (Rule 12(b)(6) de novo review and pleading plausibility)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: plausibility and requirement of nonconclusory factual allegations)
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference requires disregard of excessive risk)
Kikumura v. Osagie, 461 F.3d 1269 (10th Cir. 2006) (grievance exhaustion requires notice sufficient for officials to investigate)
Dodds v. Richardson, 614 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir. 2010) (supervisory liability under § 1983 requires more than status)
Schneider v. City of Grand Junction Police Dep’t, 717 F.3d 760 (10th Cir. 2013) (link between supervisor breach and constitutional violation required)
Johnson v. Stephan, 6 F.3d 691 (10th Cir. 1993) (medical malpractice or an improper prescription does not necessarily state an Eighth Amendment claim)
Fields v. City of Tulsa, 753 F.3d 1000 (10th Cir. 2014) (summary-judgment review standards)