UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Filed 12/13/96
TENTH CIRCUIT
RONALD DEAN LOWE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
No. 96-6217
v.
(D.C. No. 96-CV-729-L)
(Western District of Oklahoma)
WESLEY GIBSON; RUST EDDY,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR, KELLY and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a
denial of adequate medical care when he was a pretrial detainee. He named as
defendants two employees of the Oklahoma Indigent Defense System (OIDS):
Rust Eddy, an OIDS investigator, and Wesley Gibson, an OIDS attorney. Plaintiff
alleges that he never received medical and neurological exams that were
*
The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument pursuant to
Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
prescribed in Eddy’s presence. The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the
complaint as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, because plaintiff failed to
allege that defendants had any duty to monitor plaintiff’s medical care or were
otherwise involved in the purported denial of care. The district court adopted the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. We review the § 1915 dismissal
for abuse of discretion. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). We
affirm.
Plaintiff claims the district court erred by: (1) denying his recusal motion;
(2) failing to construe his complaint liberally; (3) dismissing his case before the
complaint had been amended or served; and (4) ruling that he failed to state a
nonfrivolous claim. Plaintiff’s recusal motion asked the district and magistrate
judges to whom his case had been assigned to recuse themselves on account of
their previous denial of his habeas petition. The motion alleged that the district
and magistrate judges “deliberately and maliciously confused” the record in
another proceeding so as to deny him habeas relief. R. doc. 7 at 1.
We find no abuse of discretion, Nichols v. Alley, 71 F.3d 347, 350 (10th
Cir. 1995), in the denial of the recusal motion. A judge’s prior rulings rarely
provide valid grounds for recusal. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555
(1994); see also Lopez v. Behles (In re American Ready Mix, Inc.), 14 F.3d 1497,
1501 (10th Cir. 1994) (“Adverse rulings alone are insufficient grounds for
-2-
disqualification.”). Prior rulings or opinions “do not constitute a basis for a bias
or partiality motion unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism
that would make fair judgment impossible.” Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555. Nothing in
the record suggests that the district or magistrate judge displayed such favoritism
or antagonism. Plaintiff’s allegations of bias are unsupported. See In re
American Ready Mix, Inc., 14 F.3d at 1501 (“A judge should not recuse . . . on
unsupported, irrational, or highly tenuous speculation.” (quotation omitted)).
We also reject plaintiff’s remaining arguments. It is well settled that 28
U.S.C. § 1915 authorizes the dismissal of a complaint filed in forma pauperis if
the action is frivolous. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). Such
dismissals frequently occur before the complaint has been served on defendants.
Id. A frivolous complaint is one based on an “indisputably meritless legal theory”
or “clearly baseless” facts. Id. at 327.
Even liberally construing plaintiff’s complaint, see Haines v. Kerner, 404
U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), it is evident that his claim against the OIDS employees
for inadequate medical care lacks an arguable legal basis. We affirm the § 1915
dismissal substantially for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge and adopted
by the district court.
AFFIRMED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
-3-
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-4-