Martin v. Schnurr

── Martin v. Schnurr ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: May 01, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 26-3005 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 05/01/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 1, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court PATRICK E. MARTIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 26-3005 (D.C. No. 5:25-CV-03049-JWL) DAN SCHNURR; MISTY KROEKER; (D. Kan.) JEREMY BELL; ELIZABETH ALLEN, Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before MATHESON, MURPHY, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Patrick Martin, a Kansas Department of Corrections (“KDOC”) inmate, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials failed to protect him from another inmate’s attack. The district court dismissed the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Mr. Martin now appeals. * 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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: 26-3005 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 05/01/2026 Page: 2 Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. I. BACKGROUND A. Screening Original Complaint Mr. Martin sued six Hutchinson Correctional Facility (“HCF”) officials. The complaint alleged three claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including one claiming that the defendants violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to prevent inmate Dawson Slater’s attack on Mr. Martin. The district court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(a). It concluded that Mr. Martin’s Eighth Amendment claim was deficient because the complaint “provide[d] no indication that any defendant knew that [Mr.] Slater posed a significant risk to [Mr. Martin] but disregarded that knowledge.” ROA, Vol. 1 at 40. The court directed Mr. Martin “to show good cause why [his] Complaint should not be dismissed for th[is] reason[],” and afforded him “the opportunity to file a complete and proper amended complaint . . . that cure[d] . . . the [identified] deficiencies.” Id. at 45. B. Amended Complaint Mr. Martin responded by filing an amended complaint naming four HCF officials as defendants and asserting a single claim for “deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” Id. at 52 (capitalization omitted). Mr. Martin’s amended complaint alleged: 2  Appellate Case: 26-3005 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 05/01/2026 Page: 3 On March 26, 2023, Mr.