Sandifer v. Green, 10th Cir. (2005)
Sandifer v. Green, 10th Cir. (2005)
Sandifer v. Green, 10th Cir. (2005)
MAR 28 2005
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
JOHN SANDIFER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LEROY GREEN, JR.; J. B. HOPKINS,
Jail Administrator; (FNU) GAMBLE,
Jail Physician, Wyandotte County
Detention Center; PRISON HEALTH
SERVICES,
No. 04-3152
(D.C. No. 00-CV-3286-JTM)
(D. Kan.)
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
We first hold that Mr. Sandifer has not alleged the requisite actionable
conduct for 1983 liability on the part of defendants Green, Hopkins, and Prison
Health Services. [U]nder 1983, a defendant may not be held liable under a
theory of respondeat superior. Instead, a plaintiff must show that an affirmative
link exists between the constitutional deprivation and either the defendants
personal participation, his exercise of control or direction, or his failure to
supervise.
(quotations and citation omitted). Mr. Sandifer has alleged none of these
circumstances. Accordingly, summary judgment in favor of these defendants was
appropriate, and we consider Mr. Sandifers allegations only as to defendant
-2-
(10th Cir. 2000). Mr. Sandifer contracted the AIDS virus and began treatment in
1991, several years prior to the events discussed here. He was arrested on May 1,
1999, and detained at the Wyandotte County Detention Center until January 14,
2000, when he was transferred to the state penitentiary. He asserts that during the
time he was at the detention center, Dr. Gamble delayed in obtaining his required
medication, failed to administer it according to the precise schedule required, and
disregarded his complaints of pain and other serious symptoms of his condition.
Mr. Sandifer did not receive his medication for the first five or six days
after he entered the jail, despite his explanation to jail personnel that he needed
the medication every day. During the next three months, he became increasingly
ill because his medication was interrupted. In early June, Dr. Gamble ordered and
reviewed blood tests, but did not correctly interpret the results, so did not realize
that Mr. Sandifers condition had worsened. From late June to late August,
Mr. Sandifer complained of headaches, and was treated with Tylenol and
ibuprofen. Although Dr. Gamble ordered more blood tests on August 23, the tests
were not performed until August 31. Upon receiving the results, Dr. Gamble
-3-
Martinez 2 report.
Estate of
837 (1994)). Here, Mr. Sandifer has not satisfied the subjective component
because he has not demonstrated that Dr. Gamble disregarded an excessive risk to
his health.
Mr. Sandifers brief and the medical records reflect that he received
medical treatment on a regular basis throughout the time he was at the jail. He
received pain medication in response to his complaints of headaches, and when
the first medication did not relieve his pain, he was given additional pain
medication. He received blood tests and, when the results showed a need for
acute care, he was transferred immediately to the hospital. He was referred to a
medical specialist, who changed his AIDS drug regimen. He was administered
his AIDS medications, as well as other medications for various complaints of pain
and discomfort.
Mr. Sandifers allegations do not support a claim that Dr. Gamble was
-6-
Corr. , 165 F.3d 803, 811 (10th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted).
Mr. Sandifer contends that he suffered pain and his condition deteriorated
due to the delays in giving him AIDS medication between his arrest on May 1 and
May 6; and again after his hospitalization, between September 3 and September
17. He concedes that he received medication for his headache pain. His
allegation that his condition deteriorated does not demonstrate a constitutional
violation because he has not shown that the delays caused him substantial harm.
Delay in providing medical care constitutes deliberate indifference only where
the plaintiff can show that the delay resulted in substantial harm.
Sealock , 218
F.3d at 1210. As Mr. Sandifer admits, as soon as the blood test results showed
that he needed a blood transfusion, Dr. Gamble transferred him to the hospital,
where he received the transfusion and other medical treatment. After his release
from the hospital, he was referred to a medical specialist, although not as quickly
as he would have liked. Nevertheless, he has not shown substantial harm due to
the alleged delays in acquiring and dispensing his AIDS medication, and therefore
-7-
omitted), a showing he has not made. The district courts grant of summary
judgment on this claim was correct.
Leave to Amend Complaint
Mr. Sandifer asserts that the district court erred in denying him leave to
amend his complaint a second time. We review the district courts order denying
leave to amend a complaint for an abuse of discretion.
Wessel v. Albuquerque ,
prevail on the facts alleged and it would be futile to give him opportunity to
amend).
Supplemental Record on Appeal
Mr. Sandifer has submitted with his appellate brief a volume of documents
that include medical records from the jail. Defendants have moved to strike the
documents Mr. Sandifer has submitted with his brief. The motion to strike is
denied as to the jail medical records; it is granted as to the remaining documents.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Defendants motion to
strike is granted in part and denied in part. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
-9-