Summary
In Commonwealth ex rel. Gatewood v. Hendrick, 368 F.2d 179, 180 (3 Cir. 1966), cert. den., Gatewood v. Hendrick, 386 U.S. 925, 87 S.Ct. 899, 17 L.Ed.2d 797 (1967), this Court held that allegations of improper medical treatment by prison officials did not assert "a denial of rights secured by the federal Constitution or laws."
Summary of this case from Gittlemacker v. PrasseOpinion
No. 15872.
Submitted October 20, 1966.
Decided November 2, 1966. Certiorari Denied February 13, 1967. See 87 S.Ct. 899.
Robert Gatewood, pro se.
Matthew W. Bullock, Jr., Edward G. Bauer, Jr., City Sol., Philadelphia, Pa., (Beryl E. Hoffman, Asst. City Sol., Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellees.
Before MARIS, McLAUGHLIN and KALODNER, Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
This is in effect a civil action, quite improperly captioned, by Robert Gatewood, a prisoner in the Philadelphia County Prison, for damages under section 1979 of the Revised Statutes, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, for alleged deprivation under color of state law of rights secured by the federal Constitution and laws. What Gatewood complains of is alleged improper medical treatment by the prison authorities. This, however, if true was not a denial of rights secured by the federal Constitution or laws. Threatt v. State of North Carolina, D.C.N.C. 1963, 221 F. Supp. 858. Gatewood's claim is, therefore, not cognizable under section 1979 of the Revised Statutes, the Civil Rights Act of 1871, as the district court quite properly held. United States ex rel. Lawrence v. Ragen, 7 Cir. 1963, 323 F.2d 410; Snow v. Gladden, 9 Cir. 1964, 338 F.2d 999.
The order of the district court will be affirmed.