Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01163/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01163-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

DEC 3 0 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

DOUGLAS RUBINS, Clerk 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

RANDALL FOSHEE, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 90-1163 

(D.C. No. 89-C-1272) 

(D. Col.) 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and TACHA, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

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

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff-appellant Douglas Rubins appeals the district 

court's dismissal of his civil rights action pursuant to 28 u.s.c. 

S 191S(d) as frivolous. Because we conclude that the plaintiff's 

right of access to the courts was not violated by a Department of 

Corrections regulation limiting the amount of personal property he 

may possess while housed in a segregation unit, we affirm. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-1163 Document: 010110097284 Date Filed: 12/20/1990 Page: 1 
The plaintiff is an inmate in the custody of the Colorado 

Department of Corrections. In May, 1989, he was transferred to 

the segregation unit at Territorial Correctional Facility. 

Department of Corrections regulations limit the property an inmate 

may transport into the segregation unit to the contents of one 

duffel bag, certain electrical appliances, and one box of legal 

papers. The plaintiff was supplied with a duffel bag and a box in 

which to pack his possessions. He refused to pack his belongings, 

stating that if he could not take all of his property, he would 

not take any of it. The plaintiff was subsequently given numerous 

opportunities to select items of his property he wanted to have, 

but each of these offers was refused on the same grounds. 

The plaintiff filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. S 1983, asserting that his right of access to the courts 

had been violated because he was not permitted to retain all of 

his legal papers. This complaint was delivered to a United States 

Magistrate for review in accordance with 28 u.s.c. S 1915. After 

an evidentiary hearing, the magistrate determined that this case 

should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S 1915(d). The district 

court adopted the recommendation of the magistrate as the order of 

the court in this case. 

The district court's ruling that a plaintiff's claim is 

frivolous is a discretionary ruling. In reviewing such a 

dismissal, however, we must examine the prose allegations to 

determine whether they are sufficient. See Byrd Y..!.. Wilson, 701 

F.2d 592, 594 (6th Cir. 1983). We will assume the factual 

allegations of the complaint are true. All reasonable inferences 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-1163 Document: 010110097284 Date Filed: 12/20/1990 Page: 2 
will be drawn in favor of the plaintiff. The complaint will stand 

unless the plaintiff can prove no set of facts to support his 

claim for relief. Id. 

We agree with the district court's determination that the 

plaintiff's complaint is frivolous. The Department of Corrections 

regulation limiting the amount of materials a prisoner may have in 

the segregation unit does not violate the prisoner's right of 

access to the courts. The plaintiff was not deprived of the right 

to possess his legal papers. He was only required to limit the 

amount of materials he had in his possession while he was in the 

segregation unit. Such a regulation is not unreasonable. A 

prisoner's right of access to the courts is not unlimited. 

Restrictions may be imposed if they do not effectively eliminate a 

prisoner's ability to meaningfully exercise this right. See 

Harrell~ Keohane, 621 F.2d 1059, 1061 (10th Cir. 1980). 

In this case, the plaintiff was given numerous opportunities 

to retrieve materials from storage, all of which he refused. The 

plaintiff thus failed to establish he was prejudiced by this 

regulation. We therefore conclude that the plaintiff's right of 

access to the courts has not been violated. See Bruscino~ 

Carlson, 854 F.2d 162, 167 (7th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 109 s. 

Ct. 3193 (1989). 

The plaintiff also raises the issue of meaningful access to 

the correctional facility law library. This issue, however, is 

raised for the first time on appeal and therefore cannot be 

considered by this court. See United States~ Pettit, 903 F.2d 

1336, 1340 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 s. Ct. 197 (1990). We 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-1163 Document: 010110097284 Date Filed: 12/20/1990 Page: 3 
also deny plaintiff's application for relief by replevin and 

related motions filed with this court on November 9, 1990. We 

AFFIRM the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's petition 

pursuant to 28 u.s.c. S 191S(d) as frivolous. The mandate shall 

issue forthwith. 

-4-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-1163 Document: 010110097284 Date Filed: 12/20/1990 Page: 4