Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01721/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01721-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

MAR O 31989 

RONALD LEE REECE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

HAROLD B. JOHNSON; JOHN SCHMIDT, 

Case Manager, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

> Clerk 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 88-1721 

) (D.C. No. 86-Z-2407) 

) (D. Colo.) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and ROGERS, District 

Judge.** 

**The Honorable Richard D. Rogers, United States District Judge 

for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materi a l l y 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without ora l argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

*This order and 

be cited, or 

for purposes of 

res judicata, 

judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 88-1721 Document: 010110023902 Date Filed: 03/03/1989 Page: 1 
Plaintiff, a prose prisoner, appeals from the dismissal of 

his civil rights action as inadequately pleaded. We have reviewed 

the allegations in the original complaint and the amended 

complaint that plaintiff filed in response to the magistrate's 

recommendation, and we agree with the determinations of the 

district court in all respects except the dismissal of the first 

claim for relief in the amended complaint. Liberally construed, 

that claim charges that defendants violated plaintiff's right of 

access to the courts when they seized and refused to return to 

plaintiff various legal materials. These allegations are 

sufficient to state a violation of a substantive constitutional 

right, and further factual development of the record is required. 

Morello v. James, 810 F.2d 344, 346-47 (2d Cir. 1987); Simmons v. 

Dickhaut, 804 F.2d 182, 184-86 (1st Cir. 1986). We express no 

opinion about the success on 

allegations. 

the merits of plaintiff's 

Accordingly, the judgment of the United States District Court 

for the District of Colorado is AFFIRMED in all respects save the 

dismissal of the first claim in the amended complaint, which is 

VACATED and the case is REMANDED for the limited purpose of 

determining whether plaintiff can provide a factual basis for that 

claim. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-1721 Document: 010110023902 Date Filed: 03/03/1989 Page: 2