TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Robert Courtney v. Dr. Carl Adams

Robert COURTNEY, Appellant, v. Dr. Carl ADAMS, Appellee

Courtney v. Adams, 528 F.2d 1056 (8th Cir. 1976)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
March 5, 1976
Docket
No. 75--1616
Judges
Lay, Per Curiam, Stephenson, Webster
Citations
528 F.2d 10561976 U.S. App. LEXIS 12530

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

This is a pro se civil rights action 1

brought by Robert Courtney, an inmate at Cummins Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction. His petition alleged the deprivation of needed medical care, and named as respondent Dr. Carl Adams, a prison physician. Acting pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (d), the district court 2

dismissed the petition as frivolous. Petitioner has taken this appeal.

In his petition Courtney alleged that he has a growth, next to his heart which “seemed to be enlarging,” and that he has been scheduled for a major operation. In order to relieve the continuous pain he allegedly experiences, petitioner sought from Dr. Adams a prescription for pain-killing medication and an advance in the date of his operation. Petitioner alleges that the doctor prescribed a medicine only “about the same as aspirin” and that the date for his operation was not advanced.

*1057 As grounds for dismissing the petition, Judge Eisele held that it evidenced “a mere disagreement with the prison physician as to what is necessary and proper for the petitioner’s medical care.” We concur in this characterization of the petition. Since the law is clear that such a medical disagreement fails to state a claim for relief, Mason v. Ciccone, 517 F.2d 73 (8th Cir. 1975);

Jones v. Lockhart, 484 F.2d 1192 (8th Cir. 1973);

Cates v. Ciccone, 422 F.2d 926 (8th Cir. 1970), the district court proceeded correctly in dismissing the petition.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

1

. The petition was filed as a “supplemental Pleading Amendment” to a class action then pending in the district court. The district court held that petitioner had already “rested his case” in the class suit, and thus treated the pleading as a separate civil rights action.

Petitioner contends that this procedural decision by the district court was error. However, in view of petitioner’s failure to state a claim for relief, see discussion infra, the merits of this contention need not be reached.

2

. The Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1976: 11979: 11986: 119762026peak 1976 · 1

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Cates v. P. J. Ciccone, Dir., United States Med. Ctr. for Fed. Prisoners, 422 F.2d 926 (8th Cir. 1970) 58
Jones v. A. L. Lockhart, 484 F.2d 1192 (8th Cir. 1973) 29
Mason v. P. J. Ciccone, Dir., United States Med. Ctr. for Fed. Prisoners, Springfield, Mo., 517 F.2d 73 (8th Cir. 1975) 7

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list