Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03002/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03002-0/pdf.json

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

---

WILLIE 

v. 

LARRY 

FIL E D 

Unit.ed States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

STEVENSON, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

) 

) 

SMITH and FRED ALLENBRAND, ) (D.C. 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

NOV 1 8 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

Nos. 91-3384 

& 

92-3002 

No. 91-CV-3357) 

(D. Kan.) 

Before McKAY, Chief Judge, and BARRETT, Circuit Judge, and 

BRIMMER,** District Judge. 

**Honorable Clarence A. 

District Court for the 

designation. 

Brimmer, 

District 

District Judge, United States 

of Wyoming, sitting by 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 

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

submitted without oral argument. 

The cases are therefore ordered 

* 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: 92-3002 Document: 010110149186 Date Filed: 11/18/1992 Page: 1 
Plaintiff Willie Stevenson filed an action under 42 u.s.c. 

§§ 1981, 1983, and 1985(3), based on his pretrial detention at the 

Johnson County Adult Detention Center in Olathe, 1 Kansas. The 

district court dismissed the complaint because Plaintiff's claims 

were conclusory and without factual and legal support. Plaintiff 

filed a document entitled "Petition for a Writ of Mandamus," which 

purports to request this court to accept a notice of appeal from a 

district court order accepting his plea of guilty. That issue was 

not raised in his complaint, and will not be addressed here. 

Hicks v. Gates Rubber Co., 928 F.2d 966, 970 (10th Cir. 1991). 

Plaintiff's prose complaint sought declaratory, injunctive, 

and damage relief against the warden and a subordinate officer at 

the detention center. 2 Plaintiff alleged violations of his First, 

Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights including 

(1) restriction of mail; (2) lack of programs, such as religious 

programs and Alcoholics Anonymous programs; (3) restrictions on 

his ability to prepare legal papers, including delays in obtaining 

copies, lack of carbon paper, and being required to pay for 

copies; (4) lack of heat for five days; (5) denial of socks and 

underwear; (6) denial of adequate opportunity for fresh air and 

exercise; (7) denial of vitamins; (8) requirement to pay for 

haircuts; (9) denial of due process when he was placed in 

1 The incidents of which Plaintiff complains occurred in late 

1991. He stated he was sentenced on January 10, 1992. Therefore, 

we assume he was a pretrial detainee when his claims arose. 

2 We will consider abandoned Plaintiff's claims on behalf of 

other inmates because he did not raise those claims on appeal. 

Abercrombie v. City of Catoosa, 896 F.2d 1228, 1231 (10th Cir. 

1990) . 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-3002 Document: 010110149186 Date Filed: 11/18/1992 Page: 2 
isolation for twelve days; and (10) denial of statutory good 

t . 3 1me. 

After his civil rights complaint was dismissed, Plaintiff 

moved to amend his complaint to assert claims that he was arrested 

and detained illegally. 4 The district court denied the motions, 

treating them as a request to reconsider the dismissal. "The 

standard of review for the denial of a motion for reconsideration 

depends on the nature of the underlying decision." Johnson ex 

rel. v. Thompson, 971 F.2d 1487, 1498 (10th Cir. 1992). Here, the 

underlying decision, dismissal under 28 u.s.c. § 1915(d), is 

reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Yellen v. Cooper, 828 F.2d 

1471, 1475 (10th Cir. 1987). Similarly, a district court's 

decision to grant or deny leave to amend a complaint is reviewed 

for an abuse of discretion. Snider v. Circle K. Corp., 923 F.2d 

1404, 1409 (10th Cir. 1991). We, therefore, find no abuse of 

discretion in the district court's denial of leave to state a new 

and different cause of action under the guise of an amendment, 

particularly where the amendment would not cure the defects in the 

original complaint. See Ketchum v. Cruz, 961 F.2d 916, 920-21 

3 The record reflects grievances filed by Plaintiff on other 

matters not contained in his complaint; we do not address them. 

See Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 

969 F.2d 943, 948 n.5 (10th Cir. 1992) (issue not raised in 

district court; "we decline to consider it for the first time on 

appeal"). 

4 We note Plaintiff's notice of appeal filed before disposition 

of his motions to amend the complaint was null and void. Wagoner 

v. Wagoner, 938 F.2d 1120, 1122 (10th Cir. 1991). Because he 

filed another notice of appeal after the district court denied his 

motions, this court has jurisdiction. See id. 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-3002 Document: 010110149186 Date Filed: 11/18/1992 Page: 3 
(10th Cir. 1992) (motion to amend complaint properly denied where 

amendment included no factual allegations to support claim). 

Turning to the merits, in dismissing Plaintiff's complaint, 

the district court cited Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 

(1989). Although the district court did not specify the dismissal 

was frivolous under§ 1915(d), by stating that Plaintiff's claims 

were without factual support, as well as without legal support, 

the trial court evidently relied in part on§ 1915(d). 

Construing the prose complaint liberally, Haines v. Kerner, 

404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), we will dismiss it under § 1915(d) 

"if plaintiff cannot make a rational argument on the law and facts 

in support of his claim." LaFevers v. Saffle, 936 F.2d 1117, 1118 

(10th Cir. 1991). The district court has the "power to pierce the 

veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those 

claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless." Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. 

To state a cause of action under 42 u.s.c. § 1983, a claimant 

must allege "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or 

immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" of the United 

States. See Yvonne L. ex rel. Lewis v. New Mexico Dep't of Human 

Servs., 959 F.2d 883, 886 (10th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff's claims 

pertaining to denial of socks and underwear, and a requirement to 

pay for haircuts, do not allege deprivation of a protected right. 

Therefore, they were properly dismissed. 

We next address Plaintiff's various claims pertaining to 

conditions of his pretrial detention. "Due process requires that 

a pretrial detainee not be punished.'' Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 

4 

Appellate Case: 92-3002 Document: 010110149186 Date Filed: 11/18/1992 Page: 4 
520, 535 n.16 (1979); accord Littlefield v. Deland, 641 F.2d 729, 

731 (10th Cir. 1981). To determine if the conditions or 

restrictions of detention implicate the constitutional protection 

against deprivation of liberty without due process, we evaluate 

whether those conditions are tantamount to punishment of the 

detainee. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 535. While the government 

may not punish a pretrial detainee, it may impose on him 

conditions and restrictions necessary to maintain jail security. 

Id. at 540. Absent a showing that prison officials intended to 

punish, the determination of whether the restriction is punitive 

or incidental to a legitimate governmental purpose will turn on 

"'whether an alternative purpose to which [the restriction] may 

rationally be connected is assignable for it, and whether it 

appears excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned 

[to it].'" Id. at 538 (quoting Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 

U.S. 144, 168-69 ( 1963)) . 

Plaintiff's claims of restriction of mail and restrictions on 

his ability to prepare legal papers, which may be construed as a 

claim that he was denied access to the courts, are legitimately 

related to the governmental purpose of maintaining jail security. 

Therefore, Plaintiff's constitutional rights were not violated. 

See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 91-93 (1987) (prison policy to 

restrict mail between inmates at different institutions reasonably 

related to legitimate penological interests); 5 Bounds v. Smith, 

5 There is no basis to distinguish between pretrial detainees 

and convicted inmates when evaluating security practices. Bell v. 

Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 546 n.28. 

5 

Appellate Case: 92-3002 Document: 010110149186 Date Filed: 11/18/1992 Page: 5 
430 U.S. 817, 824-25 (1977) (constitutionally mandated access to 

the courts is meaningful access, not total or unlimited access); 

Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 576 (1974) (Fourteenth Amendment 

right of due process by access to the courts "has not been 

extended . to apply further than protecting the ability of an 

inmate to prepare a petition or complaint"). 

Plaintiff further claims he was deprived of an adequate 

opportunity for fresh air and exercise. A detention center may 

limit access to fresh air and exercise where necessary to further 

the legitimate purpose of maintaining jail security, see Bell v. 

Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 540, particularly for detainees in maximum 

security. Plaintiff has failed to establish that his 

constitutional rights were violated. 

Harker Heights, 112 S. ct. 1061, 

See Collins v. City of 

1070 (1992) ("the Due Process 

Clause of its own force requires that conditions of confinement 

satisfy certain minimal standards for pretrial detainees"); 

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep't of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 

200 (1989) (when the State restrains an individual's liberty, 

making him unable to care for himself, it is required to provide 

for his "basic human needs ~, food, clothing, shelter, 

medical care, and reasonable safety"); Clark v. Poulton, 963 F.2d 

1361, 1364 (10th Cir. 1992) (conditions of confinement must satisfy 

certain minimal standards for pretrial detainees). 

Plaintiff describes an incident involving the failure to 

deliver a letter to the clerk of the United States District Court 

for the District of Kansas. Prison officials investigated the 

matter and concluded the error was caused when Plaintiff 

6 

Appellate Case: 92-3002 Document: 010110149186 Date Filed: 11/18/1992 Page: 6 
misaddressed the letter. Furthermore, "an isolated incident, 

without any evidence of improper motive or resulting interference 

with [Plaintiff's] right to counsel or to access to the courts, 

does not give rise to a constitutional violation." Smith v. 

Maschner, 899 F.2d 940, 944 (10th Cir. 1990). 

Plaintiff's complaint that his cell was without heat for five 

days does not establish a constitutional violation. There is no 

showing that prison officials intended to punish. See Bell v. 

Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 538. To the contrary, the jail official 

noted that Plaintiff had two blankets, and the jail official 

requested the cell to be checked by the maintenance department to 

correct any problems with the heat. 

Plaintiff's assertion, unsupported by medical evidence, that 

he was denied vitamins does not rise to the level of ''deliberate 

indifference" to his "serious medical needs" required to establish 

a constitutional violation. See Frohmader v. Wayne, 958 F.2d 

1024, 1028 (10th Cir. 1992) (to establish constitutional violation, 

pretrial detainees, like convicted inmates, must establish 

deliberate indifference to serious medical needs). 

Plaintiff alleges he was improperly placed in isolation for 

twelve days, but he provided no factual information to support his 

claim, nor has he alleged he was denied proper procedural 

protections, except to claim he was denied due process when he was 

placed in isolation. Plaintiff did not set forth the process he 

claimed he was due, or how he was denied it. See Wise v. Bravo, 

666 F.2d 1328, 1333 (10th Cir. 1981) ("Consitutional rights 

allegedly invaded, warranting an award of damages, must be 

7 

Appellate Case: 92-3002 Document: 010110149186 Date Filed: 11/18/1992 Page: 7 
specifically identified. Conclusory allegations will not 

suffice."). In addition, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim 

that he was placed in isolation for punitive reasons. Cf. 

Brown-El v. Delo, 969 F.2d 644, 648 (8th Cir. 1992) (fact question 

established by inmate's claim that he was placed in administrative 

segregation for punitive reasons). 

Moreover, a pretrial detainee may be placed in isolation to 

maintain prison discipline. A detention center has a legitimate 

interest in segregating individual inmates from the general 

population for nonpunitive reasons, such as "where the inmate is 

held pending an investigation of misconduct charges or where there 

is a threat to the safety and security of the institution." See 

id. at 647 (citing Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 474-76 (1983)); 

see also Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 540 ("Restraints that are 

reasonably related to the institution's interest in maintaining 

jail security do not, without more, constitute unconstitutional 

punishment, even if they are discomforting and are restrictions 

that the detainee would not have experienced had he been released 

while awaiting trial."). 

Plaintiff also asserts a lack of programs, including 

religious programs, but does not provide any facts to support a 

claim that he was denied his right to practice his religion. Cf. 

McKinney v. Maynard, 952 F.2d 350, 353-54 (10th Cir. 

1991) (inmate's right to practice his religion may be restricted if 

restriction is reasonably related to legitimate penological 

interests; legitimate penological objectives do not categorically 

negate inmate's First Amendment claim). 

8 

Appellate Case: 92-3002 Document: 010110149186 Date Filed: 11/18/1992 Page: 8 
A plaintiff, even if prose, must allege sufficient facts 

about material events to preclude the need for speculation by the 

court as to whether such facts exist. Hall v. Bellmen, 935 F.2d 

1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff's conclusory allegations 

that he was placed in isolation, and denied all opportunity to 

practice his religion, are unsupported by assertions of fact. 

Therefore, they are insufficient to state a claim. See Dunn v. 

White, 880 F .. 2d 1188, 1197 ( 10th Cir. 1989) , cert. denied, 493 

U.S. 1059 (1990). 

Plaintiff asserts a constitutional violation due to "no 

statu(Jtory good time." Civil Rights Complaint at 2. "[S]tate 

prisoners' challenges to the disallowance of good time credits 

(are] a challenge to the duration of their imprisonment. 

(T]he writ of habeas corpus (is] the appropriate remedy for such 

claims." Smith v. Maschner, 899 F.2d at 951 (citing Freiser v. 

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487-90 (1973)). 

address the claim in this§ 1983 proceeding. 6 

Hence, we will not 

In conclusion, we hold the district court was correct in 

dismissing all of Plaintiff's claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), as 

lacking an arguable basis in fact or law. Therefore, Plaintiff's 

motion to accept his notice of appeal filed in the district court 

January 10, 1992, is DENIED, his motion for leave to proceed on 

6 The record reflects Plaintiff was neither convicted nor 

sentenced for the charges on which he was held at the detention 

center at the time he filed his complaint. Therefore, his claim 

is premature, as well as completely lacking in factual support. 

9 

Appellate Case: 92-3002 Document: 010110149186 Date Filed: 11/18/1992 Page: 9 
appeal in forma pauperis is GRANTED, and the judgment of the 

United States District Court for the District of Kansas is 

AFFIRMED. The mandates shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

Clarence A. Brimmer 

District Judge 

10 

Appellate Case: 92-3002 Document: 010110149186 Date Filed: 11/18/1992 Page: 10