Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
AUDREY L. TENNYSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RICK RAEMISCH, CDOC Director;
MICHAEL MILLER, CCCF Warden;
MELINDA McMILLIAN, CCCF
Bookkeeper; LOUIS CABLING,
CCCF Head Physician; JUDY
BREZEDINE, CCCF Health Servs.
Admin.; LAURIE KNAPP, CCCF
Clinical Supervisor; DOUG
ROBERTS, PPMU Med. Monitor; and
ANTHONY DECESARO, CDOC
Grievance Review Officer,
No. 15-1166
(D.C. No. 1:15-CV-00707-MSK-CBS)
(D. Colo.)
Defendants - Appellees.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has
decided unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 32.1 and Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1.
(...continued)
ruling can fairly be inferred by probing the notice and the other party was not
misled or prejudiced.); Nolan v. U.S. Dept of Justice, 973 F.2d 843, 846 (10th
Cir. 1992) (The requirements of Rule 3 [of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure] should be liberally construed.). In any event, even if we viewed Mr.
Tennyson as challenging the courts order denying his motion to alter or amend,
given the more rigorous standards for relief that govern such motions (i.e.,
requiring a showing of manifest errors of law or newly discovered evidence), Mr.
Tennysons failure to frame his arguments to address them, and our ultimate
conclusion that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his
preliminary-injunction motion, it is patent that the outcome that we reach here
would be the same.
4
ILC, Inc. v. Visa USA, Inc., 936 F.2d 1096, 1098 (10th Cir. 1991)). Because the
first of the factors listed abovelikelihood of success on the meritsresolves the
instant appeal, we confine our analysis to that issue. Cf. Republican Party of
N.M. v. King, 741 F.3d 1089, 1092 (10th Cir. 2013) (resolving disposition of the
injunction at the first step of our traditional test).
Mr. Tennyson argues that the defendants refusal to provide him with
personal hygiene products and Zantac free of charge constitutes a violation of the
Eighth Amendment. Under well-established law, [a] prison officials deliberate
indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate violates the Eighth
Amendment. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 828 (1994). Deliberate
indifference has both an objective and subjective component. The medical need
must be sufficiently serious to satisfy the objective component. Hunt v. Uphoff,
199 F.3d 1220, 1224 (10th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). In terms of the
subjective component, . . . a plaintiff must establish that defendant(s) knew he
faced a substantial risk of harm and disregarded that risk, by failing to take
reasonable measures to abate it. Id. (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 847). Mr.
Tennyson contends that the defendants have been deliberately indifferent to his
medical needs by refusing to provide (1) personal hygiene products, and (2) his
once-prescribed medication for GERD (i.e., Zantac). However, he fails to
demonstrate a likelihood of success under the Eighth Amendment with regard to
either.
5
Beginning with the alleged lack of access to personal hygiene products, this
court has previously made clear that [a] deprivation of hygiene items without
any corresponding injury would not state an Eighth Amendment violation.
Whitington v. Ortiz, 472 F.3d 804, 808 (10th Cir. 2007); see also Scott v. Case
Manager Owens (SCF), 80 F. Appx 640, 643 (10th Cir. 2003) (Scott has alleged
nothing that suggests he has been subjected to inhumane conditions of
confinement. . . . Although a denial of basic hygiene items might meet this
standard under extreme conditions, Scott has not come close to alleging a
substantial risk of serious harm in this case. (citations omitted)). Here, neither
Mr. Tennysons motion nor his attached declaration makes any mention of an
injury he has suffered as a result of the alleged deprivation of hygiene products.
He has thus failed to demonstrate any likelihood of success on the merits with
regard to this contention.
Turning to the alleged deprivation of Zantac, Mr. Tennyson has failed to
make any showing that might satisfy the subjective component of the deliberate
indifference test. As noted above, the subjective component requires that the
plaintiff establish that the defendants knew he faced a substantial risk of harm.
Hunt, 199 F.3d at 1224. Here, Mr. Tennysons motion makes no
argumentbeyond a bare conclusory assertion reciting the legal testthat any
defendant knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of harm resulting from his
inability to obtain Zantac. Neither does his attached declaration aver that any
6
any such medical history. Cf. McDaniels v. Lee, 405 F. Appx 456, 458 (11th Cir.
2010) ([A] plaintiff may show subjective knowledge by offering specific facts
showing that a defendant knew of a plaintiffs medical history.). In sum, Mr.
Tennyson has not shown that Dr. Cabling knew that the denial of Zantac would
cause the kind of pain that could form the basis of a claim under the Eighth
Amendment, and he thus has failed to demonstrate any likelihood of success on
the merits of his deliberate indifference claim.
For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the district courts denial of Mr.
Tennysons motion for a preliminary injunction. We note that the district court
granted Mr. Tennyson leave to proceed on appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915 on
July 6, 2015 and assessed partial payments of the appellate costs and fees. In
light of the district courts order, we DENY as moot the motion for leave to
proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs and fees that Mr. Tennyson filed
in this court on July 2, 2015, and we VACATE this courts order of July 2, 2015
assessing costs and fees. Mr. Tennyson is reminded of his obligation to continue
making partial payments of the appellate fees as ordered by the district court until
they are paid in full. 5
5
For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the district courts denial of Mr.
Tennysons motion for a preliminary injunction.
JEROME A. HOLMES
Circuit Judge
(...continued)
in our disposition of this case.
11