Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-04130/USCOURTS-ca10-90-04130-0/pdf.json

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

---

13 l ~ U _ 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

United Stilt s . · urt of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

r:1:s 12 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk ROBERT HENRY WERNER, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

GARY DELAND; ELDON BARNES, Warden; ) 

RANDY LISH; LEON WALTON, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 90-4130 

(D.C. No. 90-CV-361-J) 

( D. Utah) 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument 

would not be of material assistance in the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The 

cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Mr. Werner appeals, prose, the dismissal of his prose civil 

rights complaint. 

* 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: 90-4130 Document: 010110099921 Date Filed: 02/12/1991 Page: 1 
Mr. Werner is an inmate at the Utah State Prison. He filed 

an action based upon 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Director of the 

Utah Department of Corrections (Deland); the Warden (Barnes); a 

lieutenant of the prison unit (Walton); and the inmate's attorney 

(Lish). The complaint was referred to a magistrate who set forth 

his report and recommendation that the complaint should be 

dismissed as frivolous under 28 u.s.c. § 1915(d). The district 

court agreed with the magistrate. 

Mr. Werner appeals arguing that the district court was biased 

against him and that the district court erred in dismissing his 

complaint on the basis of "an unrevealed record." 

It serves little purpose to set forth the allegations of Mr. 

Werner's complaint as the Magistrate has accurately set forth the 

essential allegations in the complaint and applied the law 

correctly. 

Having considered the arguments of Mr. Werner we AFFIRM the 

decision and judgment of the district court for substantially the 

same reasons set forth in the magistrate's Report and 

Recommendation as entered on June 14, 1990, a copy being attached. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-4130 Document: 010110099921 Date Filed: 02/12/1991 Page: 2 
MARK 

BY 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT 

CENTRAL DIVISION 

ROBERT HENRY WERNER, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) Case No. 90-C-361 J 

) 

vs. ) 

) 

GARY DE LAND, et al., ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

) 

Defendants. ) 

The plaintiff, Robert Henry Werner, an inmate at the Utah 

State Prison (U.S.P.) filed suit under 42 u.s.c. § 1983 against 

Gary W. DeLand, Director of the Utah Department of Corrections; 

M. Eldon Barnes, Warden of South Point Complex, U.S.P.; Leon 

Walton, the lieutenant of the Oquirrh-3 Unit; and Randy Lish, 

contract attorney for inmates. 

Plaintiff alleges that on February 27, 1990 plaintiff saw 

defendant Lish and plaintiff advised Lish that plaintiff was 

indigent and "needed to have 10 photo copies made of his appeal 

brief, that he had less than 20 days in which to get (sic) appeal 

brief into court." Plaintiff states that on March 9, 1990 he 

asked Lish where his brief was and Lish replied it was put in the 

prison mail. The same thing occurred on March 16, 1990. On 

March 20, 1990 plaintiff sent a letter of complaint to Barnes. 

On March 20, 1990 plaintiff wrote Lish advising him of the fact 

Appellate Case: 90-4130 Document: 010110099921 Date Filed: 02/12/1991 Page: 3 
that there was less than 20 days within which to file the brief. 

No other factual allegations are made. 

Plaintiff complains he was denied access to the courts, and 

that the U.S.P. is obligated to provide copying machines. 

Plaintiff seeks "exemplary damages" and declaratory relief. The 

case has been referred to the magistrate under 28 u.s.c. § 636 

(b) (1) (B). The issue is whether service of process should be 

allowed or the case dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). 

Plaintiff's claim against Randy Lish cannot be maintained 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That statute requires that a defendant 

act under color of state law to violate a person's civil rights 

before a violation of§ 1983 occurs. Lish is a private contract 

attorney. He provides legal services to inmates. He does not 

act under color of state law. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 

312 (1981); Brown v. Chaffee, 612 F.2d 497 {10th Cir. 1979). 

Consequently, plaintiff's complaint against Lish must be 

dismissed. 

There is absolutely no allegation of any violation of any 

constitutional right of plaintiff by Lt. Leon Walton and the case 

against him must be dismissed. 

A state adequately provides for legal access by prisoners 

where contract attorneys are made available to provide legal 

services. Nordgren v. Milliken, 762 F.2d 851, 855 {10th Cir. 

1985); Bee v. Utah State Prison, 823 F.2d 397 {10th Cir. 1987). 

However, the legal service obligation only extends to the filing 

of the first complaint. Id.; Brady v. Bott, 86-C-652 W (D.C. Utah 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-4130 Document: 010110099921 Date Filed: 02/12/1991 Page: 4 
1987). It does not encompass providing an attorney for appellate 

work. The state courts, nor the U.S.P., are obligated to provide 

counsel for a defendant on first appeal in a criminal case. 

Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (1963). There is no right to 

counsel beyond the first appeal, such as in matters of 

discretionary review, Rose v. Moffit, 417 U.S. 600 (1974), or on 

appeal in habeas corpus cases. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 

551 (1987). Therefore, plaintiff states no federal claim for 

relief against the named defendants based on the failure of 

counsel to aid him on appeal. 

In addition, when DeLand and Barnes provided a contract 

attorney they did all they were obligated to do; they are not 

obligated to nor are they in a position to monitor the service on 

each individual case. DeLand and Barnes cannot be held liable 

without showing some system wide failure which they would be 

obligated to correct. Smith v. Eley. 675 F.Supp. 1301 (D.C. Utah 

1987). Therefore, no claim is stated against DeLand or Barnes on 

this point. Further, plaintiff pointedly does not allege any 

specific harm to him. There is no allegation that he suffered an 

actual denial of access to the courts. Without some factual 

allegation of harm, plaintiff states no basis for relief. 

Harrell v. Keohane, 621 F.2d 1059 (10th Cir. 1980); Twyman v. 

Crisp, 584 F.2d 352, 357 (10th Cir. 1978); Houtz v. DeLand, 718 

F.Supp. 1497 (D.C. Utah 1989). 

Since the contract attorney agreed to aid plaintiff, and 

defendants DeLand and Barnes have provided an adequate means for 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-4130 Document: 010110099921 Date Filed: 02/12/1991 Page: 5 
inmates to have materials copies through that process, plaintiff 

has no complaint for lack of a copying machine. The plaintiff 

has no right, nor are defendant U.S.P. officers obligated, to 

provide copy machines. Harrell v. Keohane, supra; Johnson v. 

Parke, 642 F.2d 377 (10th Cir. 1981); Gerrish v. DeLand, 88-C-306 

A (D.C. Utah 1990). See also Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1169 

(9th Cir. 1989); Wanniger v. Davenport, 697 F.2d 992 (11th Cir. 

1983). As the court in Jones v. Franzen, 697 F.2d 801, 803 (11th 

Cir. 1983) observed: "[A]s broad as the concept of liberty is, it 

does not include the right to xerox." 

Therefore, plaintiff has stated no arguable federal claim 

against defendants and his case should be dismissed under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(d). IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. 

Copies of the foregoing report and recommendation are being 

mailed to the parties. They are hereby notified of their right 

to file objections hereto within 10 days from the receipt hereof. 

DATED this /4-#L day of 1990. 

N. Boyce 

States Magistrate 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-4130 Document: 010110099921 Date Filed: 02/12/1991 Page: 6 
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING 

I hereby certify that I have mailed a copy of the foregoing 

Report and Recommendation to: 

this 

Robert Henry Werner 

Utah State Prison 

P.O. Box 250 

Draper, Utah 84020 

day of June, 1990. 

5 

Appellate Case: 90-4130 Document: 010110099921 Date Filed: 02/12/1991 Page: 7