F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FEB 24 1998
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
EDWARD RICHARD NEWTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 97-1372
OFFICER ABEYTA, in her individual (D.C. No. 97-D-1285)
capacity; OFFICER ORTHON, in his (D. COLO.)
individual capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before BALDOCK, EBEL, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.**
Plaintiff Edward Richard Newton, appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s
order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as “legally frivolous and for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted.” Specifically, Plaintiff argues that the district
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
**
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered
submitted without oral argument.
court erroneously concluded that Defendants did not subject him to cruel and unusual
punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Our jurisdiction arises under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s dismissal de novo, Sutton v. United Air
Lines, Inc., 130 F.3d 893, 896 (10th Cir. 1997), and dismiss Plaintiff’s appeal as legally
frivolous.1
Plaintiff is incarcerated at the Colorado Territorial Correctional Facility in Cañon
City, Colorado. He alleges that on or about September 16, 1996, for purposes of
harassing and molesting him, Defendants conducted a shakedown of his cell. Plaintiff
contends that during the course of the shakedown, Defendants “deliberately walked all
over [his] bed with soiled infectious shoes that they just used to walk all over the Dairy
Farm.” Plaintiff claims that after sleeping on the allegedly contaminated bed, certain
surgical lacerations on his body became infected and caused him unnecessary physical
and emotional pain. Plaintiff contends that Defendants knew that walking on his bed
could possibly cause infection. Therefore, he argues that Defendants’ actions violated his
Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and that each
Defendant should be forced to pay him $50,000 in compensatory damages and $50,000 in
punitive damages.
We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, pleadings, and the entire record before us.
For substantially the same reasons set forth in its order dismissing Plaintiff’s claim, we
1
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied.
2
agree with the district court that Plaintiff’s claim is legally frivolous and does not state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. We further conclude that this appeal is frivolous
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and therefore constitutes a “prior occasion” within the
meaning of that section.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Entered for the Court,
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
3