Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02139/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02139-0/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 

Tenth Cimiit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 2 6 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk BUFORD· MACDONALD, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

GEORGE SULLIVAN, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-2139 

(D.C. Civil No. 89-0460 SC) 

(D. New Mexico) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK, and EBEL, 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. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellant is a former Colorado prisoner. While on parole, 

and living in Texas, appellant wrote a letter to a friend still 

incarcerated in the Colorado prison. That letter was screened by 

the prison and found to contain incriminating statements. 

Thereafter, the letter was sent to Texas authorities, which lead 

to an investigation and conviction for child molestation. 

Appellant now brings this action under 28 u.s.c. §1983 claiming 

* 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: 90-2139 Document: 010110097352 Date Filed: 12/26/1990 Page: 1 
4 

• 

,, 

that his liberty interests were violated by the prison officials 

who underlined the relevant portion of the letter which 

" ... resulted in the arrest of appellant and a heavier Texas Prison 

Sentence ..•. " See Appellant's Opening Br. at 1. 

This is the third time we address complaints by the appellant 

concerning his letter. This latest complaint was dismissed with 

prejudice by the district court which did a thorough job of 

treating the appellant's §1983 claim. The lower court cited Evans 

v. Mosely, 455 F.2d 1084 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 889 

(1972), and found that 

[i]t is well established that the regulation of 

mail to and from a penal institution is basically an 

administrative matter .... Plaintiff did not have a 

constitutional right to mail a letter to an inmate, to 

have prison authorities not screen his letter, and to 

not have prison authorities advise the proper 

authorities about the substance of the said letter. 

We agree with the court on these points. Additionally, we agree 

that because appellant "has a lengthy history of criminal sexual 

contact with a child ••.. , the letter which mentioned ·an eight year 

old neighbor boy who fulfills 'all my other needs,' would most 

likely have triggered an investigation regardless of whether or 

not the words were underlined." Id. We cannot discern in this 

case a violation of any liberty interest which the appellant might 

have. Here, the underlining of words, "do[es] not rise to a 

violation of any constitutional rights." Id., citing Wells v. 

Ward, 470 F.2d 1185 (10th Cir. 1972). 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-2139 Document: 010110097352 Date Filed: 12/26/1990 Page: 2