White v. Kansas Department of Corrections
664 F. App'x 734
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Pro se prisoner Bobby Bruce White sued KDOC, KDOC officials, and private medical contractors alleging injuries during a March 1, 2013 cell extraction and inadequate medical care, plus later claims of retaliation and denial of access to courts.
- District court screened pleadings, allowed amendment limited to inadequate medical care claims arising from the March 2013 extraction, and dismissed other unrelated allegations as improperly joined.
- White filed a second amended complaint raising six counts (municipal/policy liability, multiple deliberate-indifference claims against KDOC and private providers, and claims against individual medical staff), and also attempted to add later-occurring retaliation and access claims without leave.
- The district court dismissed the second amended complaint for failure to state a claim, finding White did not plausibly plead the subjective element of deliberate indifference and that many allegations were conclusory or unrelated; it also dismissed claims against unnamed medical employees for lack of identifying facts.
- White appealed; the Tenth Circuit reviewed de novo the dismissal for failure to state a claim and for abuse of discretion the refusal to permit amendment, and affirmed the district court in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | White's Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether White pleaded Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs | White contended he suffered serious injuries during the March 2013 extraction and that Defendants denied adequate and timely treatment | Defendants argued the complaint showed he received medical attention and alleged at most disagreement with treatment or negligence, not deliberate indifference | Affirmed dismissal: allegations did not plausibly show defendants knew of and consciously disregarded a substantial risk (subjective prong unmet) |
| Whether the district court abused discretion by refusing to consider later retaliation and denial-of-access claims | White argued the additional allegations showed a continuing pattern tied to his original inadequate-care claim and should have been considered | Defendants/district court treated the later incidents as unrelated, improperly joined claims that required leave to amend | Affirmed: district court permissibly limited amendments to claims related to March 2013; unrelated claims belong in separate suits and denial of amendment was not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether district court erred by dismissing claims against unnamed CCS/Corizon employees instead of aiding identification/service under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 | White urged the court to help identify/serve unnamed medical staff (citing duty under in forma pauperis statute) | District court screened and dismissed because complaint lacked specific acts or information to identify defendants; screening before service is authorized | Affirmed: screening prior to service is permissible; allegations were conclusory and provided no basis to identify or serve unnamed defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state a plausible claim)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (subjective knowledge and disregard standard for deliberate indifference)
- Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991) (negligent medical care insufficient for Eighth Amendment)
- Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2007) (standards for dismissal under §1915 and Rule 12(b)(6))
- Riddle v. Mondragon, 83 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 1996) (conclusory allegations insufficient to show deliberate indifference)