FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 28, 2020 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court MAXIMINO ARRIAGA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 19-4053 (D.C. No. 2:16-CV-00031-RJS) SIDNEY ROBERTS; TONY (D. Utah) WASHINGTON; BRUCE BURNHAM, Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before BRISCOE, LUCERO, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Maximino Arriaga, a Utah state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants on his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. Arriaga alleged in his amended complaint that defendants denied him medication for pain in his lower back because he is an illegal alien. Defendants * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. moved for summary judgment. The district court held that the following facts were undisputed: During a medical appointment, Sidney Roberts, a doctor at the Utah State Prison (USP), denied Arriaga’s request for Neurontin because he believed that drug was not medically indicated. Roberts instead offered ibuprofen or Tylenol, which Arriaga declined. Roberts was not aware of Arriaga’s immigration status. Tony Washington is the administrator of the medical department at USP. He does not provide medical treatment or give input regarding clinical decisions for patients. Washington has never met Arriaga and is not otherwise familiar with him. Bruce Burnham was the USP medical director at the relevant time, but he did not treat Arriaga. Based on these undisputed facts, the district court held that, although Arriaga had identified Washington and Burnham as supervisors, he failed to point to any material facts linking them to his claims. The court therefore dismissed Arriaga’s claims against these defendants. See Mitchell v. Maynard, 80 F.3d 1433, 1441 (10th Cir. 1996) (“[S]upervisor status by itself is insufficient to support liability.”); Bennett v. Passic, 545 F.2d 1260, 1262-63 (10th Cir. 1976) (“Personal participation is an essential allegation in a § 1983 claim.”).1 The district court then held that Roberts was entitled to qualified immunity on Arriaga’s claim alleging inadequate medical care because the undisputed facts failed to demonstrate a constitutional violation, which is one of the two prongs of the 1 Although the district court stated the claims against Washington and Burnham were “dismissed,” R., Vol. I at 141, we construe the court’s order as granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on these claims. 2 qualified-immunity test. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009). Absent any evidence that ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals