Smith v. Ghiassi

── Smith v. Ghiassi ── Case No.: 25-1241 Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: March 26, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-1241 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/26/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 26, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court RONALD LEE SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 25-1241 (D.C. No. 1:23-CV-01717-NRN) MARYAM GHIASSI; KIM BROWN, (D. Colo.) Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before TYMKOVICH, BALDOCK, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Ronald Lee Smith, a Colorado prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. I. BACKGROUND In July 2023, Mr. Smith sued Dr. Maryam Ghiassi, alleging that on July 28, 2021, Dr. Ghiassi, an ophthalmologist, punctured his unnumbed right eyeball with a After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined * unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.  Appellate Case: 25-1241 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 03/26/2026 Page: 2 needle, causing serious permanent damage. He further alleged that Dr. Ghiassi failed to perform a follow-up exam. Mr. Smith claimed that Dr. Ghiassi acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 1 Dr. Ghiassi moved to dismiss, arguing that Mr. Smith failed to state a plausible deliberate-indifference claim. The district court granted the motion and dismissed the case. Mr. Smith appeals. II. DISCUSSION We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Smith v. United States, 561 F.3d 1090, 1098 (10th Cir. 2009). Under this standard, we accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id. Because Mr. Smith represents himself, we construe his filings liberally, but we do not act as his advocate. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). To state a plausible claim, a plaintiff “must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Strain v. Regalado, 977 F.3d 984, 989 (10th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). This standard has both an objective and a subjective component. Id. To satisfy the objective component, the plaintiff must show that his “medical need was sufficiently serious.” Est. of Beauford v. Mesa Cnty., 35 F.4th 1248, 1262 (10th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted). A medical need is sufficiently 1 The operative complaint also purports to assert a claim against Ki