Williams v. Trammell
678 F. App'x 668
10th Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiff David K. Williams, an Oklahoma state prison inmate, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging: problems selecting uncontaminated food trays, inadequate medical care for a broken left little finger and pepper-spray exposure, a transient episode of brown urine, and interference with use of the prison mail/grievance process.
- The district court reviewed Williams’ complaint and a Martinez report from defendants and dismissed parts of the complaint for failure to state a claim and the remainder for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
- Warden Anita Trammell and Dr. John Marlar were dismissed for lack of personal participation in the alleged constitutional violations.
- The court found medical claims deficient because (1) allegations of staff collusion were speculative, (2) Williams did not timely notify medical staff about the finger and pepper-spray injuries, and (3) the urine episode was transient and adequately addressed the same day; later grievances did not cure the absence of an initial request for further care.
- Other claims were dismissed for failure to exhaust: informal requests not followed by grievances, grievances missing required documents, and grievance denials not appealed. Williams’ general claim that staff interfered with mail/grievances lacked the specificity needed to excuse exhaustion.
- The magistrate judge denied Williams’ motion for default against Bill Thibodeaux because Thibodeaux was not properly served, later waived service, and filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion; Williams did not obtain district-court review of that magistrate order on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to state a medical care claim (food-tray contamination / collusion) | Williams alleged staff mishandled trays and medical staff colluded or ignored contamination risk. | Defendants: allegations are speculative and do not show deliberate indifference. | Dismissed: speculative accusations do not state an Eighth Amendment claim. |
| Failure to state a medical care claim (finger break & pepper spray) | Williams argued inadequate medical attention for broken finger and pepper spray effects. | Defendants: Williams did not notify medical staff or pursue timely requests for care. | Dismissed: no allegation he informed medical staff; absence of follow-up means no deliberate indifference shown. |
| Medical claim for transient brown urine/burning symptoms | Williams contends inadequate follow-up care caused continued symptoms. | Defendants: staff responded initially, vitals taken, color normalized same day; no further request for care was made. | Dismissed: initial response was not deliberately indifferent and later grievance did not establish that staff knew of and ignored a serious need. |
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies under § 1997e(a) for remaining claims (mail, grievances, other alleged incidents) | Williams asserts interference with mail/grievances and general exhaustion obstacles; seeks to excuse non-exhaustion. | Defendants: specific exhaustion failures (no grievance, missing attachments, no appeals) prevented proper exhaustion. | Dismissed for failure to exhaust: generalized allegations of interference lacked the specificity to excuse unexhausted claims. |
| Personal participation of Warden Trammell & Dr. Marlar | Williams included them in suit; argues liability. | Defendants: no actionable allegations linking them to constitutional violations. | Dismissed: complaint failed to allege personal participation by these officials. |
| Motion for default against Thibodeaux / magistrate authority | Williams sought default; contends magistrate lacked authority and service was proper. | Defendants: Thibodeaux was not properly served, waived service, and filed a 12(b)(6) motion; magistrate acted appropriately. | Magistrate order denying default not reviewable on appeal (Williams did not seek district-court review); court affirms and rejects the preserved-jurisdiction argument. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Parker, 672 F.3d 1182 (10th Cir. 2012) (assessing strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g))
- Gallagher v. Shelton, 587 F.3d 1063 (10th Cir. 2009) (use of Martinez report and standards for dismissal/exhaustion)
- Nixon v. City & Cty. of Denver, 784 F.3d 1364 (10th Cir. 2015) (appellant’s burden to explain district court error)
- Cummings v. Evans, 161 F.3d 610 (10th Cir. 1998) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
- Walters v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 703 F.3d 1167 (10th Cir. 2013) (court will not advocate for pro se litigants)
- S.E.C. v. Merrill Scott & Assocs., Ltd., 600 F.3d 1262 (10th Cir. 2010) (appellate jurisdiction limits review)
- Lang v. Lang (In re Lang), 414 F.3d 1191 (10th Cir. 2005) (appellate jurisdiction required to review lower-court decisions)
- Clark v. Poulton, 963 F.2d 1361 (10th Cir. 1992) (objections to magistrate authority may be forfeited if not preserved)