Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-04072/USCOURTS-ca10-92-04072-0/pdf.json

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

---

' -' 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSuniJsJ.~afqp,.~ Tenth-Ofiicuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

RICHARD DEE THOMAS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

HAUN;) 

DAVID J. ANGERHOFER; ANDREW HUNT; 

VICKIE BRIDWALL; PAUL LARSEN; PETE 

MICHAEL R. SIBBETT; VICTORIA J. 

PALACIOS; DONALD BLANCHARD; PAUL 

BOYDEN; JAMES SEWEYE; HEATHER N. COOKE; 

PAUL SHEFFIELD; ENID 0. PINO; DEAN 

SHEFFIELD; PAUL VAN DAM, Attorney 

General, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

DECO 8 199! 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-4072 

(D.C. No. 91-CV-1283) 

(D. Utah) 

Before MOORE and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and SAFFELS,** Senior 

District Judge. 

**Honorable Dale E. Saffels, Senior District Judge, United States 

District Court 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 materially 

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

* 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: 92-4072 Document: 010110151435 Date Filed: 12/08/1992 Page: 1 
, -

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

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Plaintiff, an inmate in the Utah prison system, brought this 

civil rights suit to redress alleged constitutional violations 

arising out of his efforts to obtain release on parole. He now 

appeals from a district court order dismissing the action as 

legally frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). 

The magistrate judge and district court thoroughly analyzed 

the various claims asserted in the complaint, and we concur in the 

court's conclusion that they lack the arguable merit necessary to 

warrant further proceedings. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 

319, 327 (1989); Hall v. Bellman, 935 F.2d 1106, 1109 (10th Cir. 

1991). We add the following comments only to clarify two 

interrelated points prompting much of the discussion in 

plaintiff's appellate brief. 

First, plaintiff emphasizes repeatedly that the Utah Supreme 

Court held in Foote v. Utah Board of Pardons, 808 P.2d 734 (Utah 

1991), that the state constitution, unlike its federal 

counterpart, grants prisoners due process rights in connection 

with parole proceedings. Id. at 735; cf. Dock v. Latimer, 729 

F.2d 1287, 1289-92 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 885 

(1984) (no due process rights enforceable in Utah parole context 

under federal constitutional analysis set out in Greenholtz v. 

Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1 

(1979)); Houtz v. Deland, 718 F. Supp. 1497, 1502 (D. Utah 

1989) (same result as in Dock after amendment of Utah parole 

provisions). Second, plaintiff asserts that the absolute immunity 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-4072 Document: 010110151435 Date Filed: 12/08/1992 Page: 2 
... 

rationale employed by the district court to dismiss the 

constitutional claims asserted against the Board of Pardons 

(Board) and state Judge Sawaya for failure to comply with or 

enforce Foote does not reach the injunctive relief sought against 

these defendants. See Schepp v. Fremont County, 900 F.2d 1448, 

1452 (10th Cir. 1990) (following Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 

541-42 (1984)). Together these points comprise plaintiff's 

argument for reinstatement of his claims against these state 

defendants . 

While the Foote decision recognizes some level of procedural 

protections in favor of the inmate seeking parole, it does not 

impose any limits on the unfettered discretion vested in the Board 

with respect to its substantive decisionmaking authority. See 

Northern v . Barnes, 825 P.2d 696, 698-99 (Utah Ct. App. 1992); 

Foote, 808 P.2d at 735. Thus, Foote notwithstanding, plaintiff 

has no federal constitutionally cognizable interest in the Board's 

determination of his parole status. See Jacobs, Visconsi & 

Jacobs, Co. v. City of Lawrence, 927 F.2d 1111, 1116-19 (10th Cir. 

1991) (state procedural protections do not create interests 

implicating due process rights unless they place substantive 

limits on discretionary authority of decisionmaker); Campbell v. 

Mercer, 926 F.2d 990, 993 (10th Cir. 1991) (same); West Farms 

Assocs. v. State Traffic Comm'n, 951 F.2d 469, 472 (2d Cir. 

1991) ("the Due Process Clause does not protect against the 

deprivation of state procedural rights"), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 

1671 (1992). Plaintiff's claims based on Foote raise at most the 

possible violation of state law, and consequently lack the 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-4072 Document: 010110151435 Date Filed: 12/08/1992 Page: 3 
• I 

constitutional foundation for a civil rights violation. See 

Oberndorf v. City & County of Denver, 900 F.2d 1434, 1442 (10th 

Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 129 (1990); cf. Brinlee v. Crisp. 

608 F.2d 839, 843 (10th Cir. 1979) (state procedural errors do not 

present federal questions cognizable on habeas corpus), cert. 

denied, 444 U.S. 1047 (1980). Furthermore, these claims 

constitute, in essence, a challenge to the merits of the state 

court decision approving the procedures followed by the Board in 

plaintiff's case and, as such, seek a species of appellate review 

that is beyond the jurisdiction of the federal district court and 

this court. See Facio v. Jones, 929 F.2d 541, 543 (10th Cir. 

1991); Van Sickle v. Holloway. 791 F.2d 1431, 1436 (10th Cir. 

1986); Doe v. Pringle, 550 F.2d 596, 599 (10th Cir. 1976), cert. 

denied, 431 U.S. 916 (1977). Consequently, the limited scope of 

defendants' absolute immunity defense does not avail plaintiff, as 

he cannot, even with the aid of the Foote decision, assert an 

arguable claim necessitating invocation of the defense. 

For the reasons set out above, and those expressed by the 

district court, the judgment of the United States District Court 

for the District of Utah is AFFIRMED. Pending motions are denied, 

and the mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

4 

Appellate Case: 92-4072 Document: 010110151435 Date Filed: 12/08/1992 Page: 4 
Saffels, Senior District Judge, concurring. 

I concur in the result reached by the majority based on the 

applicable standard of appellate review for dismissals under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(d). The Supreme Court has recently noted that a 

§ 1915(d) dismissal is entrusted to the discretion of the court 

entertaining the in forrna pauperis petition. See Denton v. 

Hernandez, U.S. 112 S. Ct. 1728, 1734, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 

(1992). On appeal, a§ 1915(d) dismissal is to be reviewed for an 

abuse of that discretion. Id. In Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 

319 (1988), the Supreme Court espoused the standard to be applied 

by the district courts for§ 1915(d) dismissals on the basis of 

legal frivolousness. I cannot join the majority in concurring 

with the decision below that none of appellant's claims against 

the 15 named defendants had sufficient legal merit to warrant 

further proceedings. See Olson v. Hart, 965 F.2d 940, 942 n.3, 

943 (10th Cir. 1992) (allegations of complaint held sufficient to 

withstand dismissal under§ 1915(d) as legally frivolous); Hall v. 

Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1109 (10th Cir. 1991) (concern that pro se 

litigants have notice and opportunity to avoid dismissal of 

legitimate claims by amending and supporting their pleadings 

militates against equating § 1915(d) standards with those for 

Rule 12(b) (6) dismissal and Rule 56 summary judgment). 

Nevertheless, I cannot say that the district court abused its 

discretion in dismissing the complaint as legally frivolous. I 

therefore concur in the result reached by the majority. 

Appellate Case: 92-4072 Document: 010110151435 Date Filed: 12/08/1992 Page: 5