OpenJurist

931 F2d 896 Bertram v. Deukmejian

931 F.2d 896

Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

John Ronald BERTRAM, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
George DEUKMEJIAN, Governor, James Rowland, Acting Director
of the California Department of Corrections, Daniel
McCarthy, Director, California Department of Corrections,
Nadim Khoury, M.D., Chief Medical Services, Eddie Ylst,
Superintendent, California Medical Facility, Kenneth
Sheppard, M.D., M.D. Medical Director, California Medical
Facility, Nicholas Poulos, M.D., Chief Physician and
Surgeon, California Medical Facility, Dr. Lacuna, M.D., Joy
Rindland, N.P., as individuals and in their capacity as
agents and employees of California Department of
Corrections, California Medical Facility for Men,
Defendants-Appellees.
John Ronald BERTRAM, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
George DEUKMEJIAN, Governor, James Rowland, Acting Director
of the California Department of Corrections, Daniel J.
McCarthy, Director, Ex-Director of the California Department
of Corrections, Eddie Ylst, Supt., Superintendent,
California Medical Facility, Kenneth Sheppard, M.D., Medical
Director, California Medical Facility, Nicholas Poulos,
M.D., Chief Physician and Surgeon, California Medical
Facility, Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 89-15607, 89-15623.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 8, 1991.*
Decided April 24, 1991.

Before WALLACE, Chief Judge, and GOODWIN and FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

1

MEMORANDUM**

2

John R. Bertram, a state prisoner, sued the governor and various state officials connected with prison administration for damages and injunctive relief from alleged failure to provide proper medical care. He appeals a summary judgment in favor of the defendants and an order imposing sanctions for frivolous filings.

3

Bertram was committed to state correctional custody in 1985 following a twenty-year medical history of back, foot, and hypertensive problems for which he had been treated by various private physicians. His condition did not improve while in custody, and a difference of opinion apparently developed between Bertram and various prison doctors concerning the appropriate treatment regime for his complaints. The record reveals no evidence of the kind of deliberate indifference to a prisoner's medical needs that the courts have found necessary to sustain a claim of deprivation of federal constitutional rights. The trial court correctly terminated this litigation by granting summary judgment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-106 (1976).

4

The only remaining question is whether this prisoner, filing his claims pro se and without legal advice, should have been sanctioned for his repetitive and legally unwarranted motions and other papers filed in court. It would be difficult to say that the trial judge abused his discretion in awarding the state defendants $587.60 in sanctions for Bertram's filing of manifestly frivolous papers to which the government had to respond. The sanctions were required under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11, because Bertram's papers contained false statements which Bertram had to know were false. Ordinarily, when a prisoner proceeds as his own attorney the courts have taken a charitable view toward fictitious allegations in order to avoid the chilling effect that promiscuous employment of sanctions might have on meritorious claims. However, prisoners proceeding pro se have no right by virture of their status willfully to abuse the judicial process to vex and harass their keepers.

5

Other claims were briefed but none merit discussion.

6

AFFIRMED.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for submission on the record and briefs and without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3