Background
Christopher Harrell, a Wyoming prisoner proceeding pro se, appealed the district court’s screening dismissal of his complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Harrell alleged that prison officials denied him adequate medical care and nutrition, violated his First Amendment rights through retaliation, and subjected him to unsafe conditions. His claims centered on the discontinuation of his medically necessary FODMAP diet, significant weight loss, and disciplinary actions he faced after communicating his dietary needs and grievances.
The court’s reasoning
The Tenth Circuit reviewed the complaint de novo to determine if it stated a plausible claim for relief. The court found that Harrell adequately pled the subjective component of deliberate indifference against Dr. Scott, who knew of Harrell’s dietary restrictions and removed him from the diet, and against Edna Curry, who knowingly served him prohibited foods. The court also found sufficient allegations of retaliation against Dr. Scott, whose actions followed Harrell’s open letter criticizing the medical care. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of claims against other defendants, including Dr. Church, the warden, and the Department of Corrections, finding a lack of causation, knowledge, or plausible allegations of retaliatory motive. The court also held that the Department of Corrections could not be sued for damages under a Monell theory and that the claims against the DOC were moot.
Mr. Harrell plausibly alleged deliberate indifference and retaliation against Dr. Scott, and deliberate indifference against Ms. Curry. We agree with the district court’s dismissal of the remaining claims.
Harrell v. Scott, et al., No. 25-8044 (10th Cir. May 28, 2026)
What it means going forward
The case is remanded to the district court to allow Harrell’s claims against Dr. Scott and Edna Curry to proceed to discovery and trial, while all other claims are dismissed.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download