Burns claims defendants deprived him of adequate medical care
in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment.*fn2
To state a claim for the deprivation of medical care, a
prisoner must allege "deliberate indifference to serious
medical needs." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct.
285, 291, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976).*fn3 In applying that test
the court considers such factors as the severity of the medical
problem, the potential for harm if medical care is denied or
delayed and whether any such harm actually resulted from the
lack of medical attention. See Thomas v. Pate, 493 F.2d 151,
158 (7th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 877, 96 S.Ct.
149, 46 L.Ed.2d 110 (1975). Judged by those standards, Burns's
complaints about his medical care do not raise a claim of
constitutional dimension cognizable under Section 1983.
Burns first challenges defendants' decision to take him off
certain medications, because he "suffered great medical anguish
and severe physical damages as a result of not being given the
proper medication." But the propriety of a certain course of
medical treatment is not a proper subject for review in a civil
rights action. Disagreements between an inmate and his prison
physician as to the quality of medical care do not constitute
the deliberate indifference to serious medical needs required
to turn a claim of medical malpractice into a constitutional
tort. Ferranti v. Moran, 618 F.2d 888, 890-91 (1st Cir.
1980); Smart v. Villar, 547 F.2d 112, 114 (10th Cir. 1976).
Exercising his professional judgment, a doctor made the
decision to discontinue Burn's prescription for certain drugs.
Although Burns disputes the decision, his quarrel is not
actionable under Section 1983.
Burns also cavils at his cell placement, because he says
jailors would not have had time to get his nitroglycerin to him
if he had experienced a seizure. But the mere, possibility of
remote or speculative future injury will not support a Section
1983 claim for damages. See Reichenberger v. Pritchard,
660 F.2d 280, 285 (7th Cir. 1981). Based on purely conjectural
allegations of injury, Burns's complaint about cell location is
Finally Burns assails defendants' failure to provide him
medicine when needed. He alleges at times defendants either ran
out of medicine or were late in delivering his medicine to him.
No inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical care shows
deliberate indifference. See Gibson v. McEvers, 631 F.2d 95,
98 (7th Cir. 1980). Burns alleges only an occasional oversight,
which he himself attributes to defendants' negligence.
Moreover, as with Burns' other claims of medical mistreatment,
he fails to allege any harm from defendants' acts or omissions.
In this Circuit resulting harm is an essential element to a
claim of constitutionally inadequate medical care. Thomas,
493 F.2d at 158.
Accordingly this Court finds Burns's Complaint "frivolous" in
the sense of Wartman v. Milwaukee County Court, 510 F.2d 130,
134 (7th Cir. 1975). It denies Burns's motions for leave to
file in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel.