Horne v. Hershberger ( 1997 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
OCT 7 1997
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
CURTIS D. HORNE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
No. 97-1173
(D.C. No. 97-D-72)
G. L. HERSHBERGER, ADX Warden;
(District of Colorado)
DR. C.A. STRATMAN, Clinical
Director; B. JETT, Medical
Administrator,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA, BALDOCK and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
Curtis D. Horne, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial
of his pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). In his
complaint, Mr. Horne alleged that defendants violated the Eight Amendment to
*
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 This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
the United States Constitution by being “deliberately indifferent” to the “serious
medical need” posed by his hemorrhoids. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,
104-06.
The district court denied Mr. Horne the relief he sought. Judge Daniel
found that appellant was proceeding in forma pauperis, then dismissed Mr.
Horne’s complaint sua sponte under the amended federal in forma pauperis
statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), as legally frivolous and for failing to state a
claim upon which relief might be granted.
Reviewing the materials submitted by Mr. Horne, we are convinced that for
the reasons it stated, the district court was correct to find his claim frivolous and
legally insufficient. But the district court appears to have erred in finding that
appellant was proceeding in forma pauperis. The record before us indicates that
Mr. Horne paid the full filing fee on 31 January, 1997. Thus, the district court
erred in relying on 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to dismiss the appellant’s action. However,
this administrative error is of no consequence. We may affirm the district court
on any grounds supported by the record. See United States v. Sandoval, 29 F.3d
537, 542 n.6 (10th Cir. 1994). A district court may dismiss a claim sua sponte
when, as here, “it is patently obvious that the plaintiff could not prevail on the
facts alleged.” McKinney v. Oklahoma Dept. of Human Servs., 925 F.2d 363,
365 (10th Cir. 1991) (internal quotation and citation omitted). For the reasons
-2-
stated by the district court, the allegations contained in Mr. Horne’s complaint are
entirely insufficient to support his claim.
AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-3-