Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-07049/USCOURTS-ca10-90-07049-0/pdf.json

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

---

• ¥tLtl) 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL§c,itecl Stire~ (;:i,m~t "'!£ Appeals 

1'enth Orcutt 

WILLIE F. WILLIAMS, JR., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JIM HART and THOMAS GUILIOLI, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

l'tiAR 2 2 1gs, 

:ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-7049 

(D.C. No. 89-493-C) 

( E . D . Okla. ) 

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 Willie Williams appeals a district court 

order dismissing his claims against defendants-appellees Jim Hart, 

Sheriff of Okmulgee County, Oklahoma, and Thomas Guilioli, 

District Attorney of Okmulgee County, in a suit seeking equitable 

relief and money damages for alleged consitutional violations 

pursuant to 42 u.s.c. S 1983. On appeal, Williams argues the 

district court erred in considering a report prepared by the 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-7049 Document: 010110031295 Date Filed: 03/22/1991 Page: 1 
.. 

sheriff's office about Williams' treatment in the county jail. He 

further argues the court erred in dismissing Williams' claims 

against Hart based on (1) jail officials subjecting Williams to 

unconstitutional jail conditions, (2) officials striking Williams 

with a chair, (3) officials intentionally depriving him of his 

Bible in violation of the first amendment, (4) officials placing 

Williams in "lockdown" in violation of the due process clause, and 

(5) jail officials denying him access to a law library. Williams 

also contends the court erred in dismissing his claim that Hart 

violated Williams' constitutional rights when jail officials 

exposed Williams to AIDS through the use of contaminated razors, 

tampered with his personal belongings, and improperly demanded 

personal information, and when Hart himself made Williams attend a 

"bogus" hearing. Finally, Williams argues the court erred in 

dismissing his claims against Giulioli because Giulioli's actions 

in the courtroom were prosecutorial acts performed within the 

scope of his duties as district attorney, thereby entitling him to 

absolute immunity. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 u.s.c. S 

1291, waive fees, and affirm. 

Williams first contends the district court should not have 

considered a special report prepared by the sheriff's office about 

his treatment in the county jail. We disagree. In Martinez Y..!.. 

Aaron, 570 F.2d 317, 318-19 (10th Cir. 1978) (en bane), we held it 

is not error for a district court to order prison officials to 

investigate alleged misconduct in the prison and prepare a written 

report. We explained an investigation may be necessary to 

construct an administrative record so that a district court can 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-7049 Document: 010110031295 Date Filed: 03/22/1991 Page: 2 
consider preliminary issues. Id. Here, the record indicates the 

district court ordered jail officials to file a special report as 

authorized by Martinez. We hold that the district court did not 

err in considering information contained in a special report that 

was sworn and signed by the acting sheriff. 

Williams next contends Hart violated the eighth amendment 

because prison officials subjected Williams to unconstitutional 

conditions of confinement in the county jail. We disagree. A 

supervisor cannot be liable in either an official or personal 

capacity unless an "affirmative link" exists between an alleged 

constitutional violation and the supervisor's exercise of control 

or direction, or his failure to supervise. McKay Y.!.. Hammock, 730 

F.2d 1367, 1374 (10th Cir. 1984) (quoting Rizzo Y.!.. Goode, 423 U.S. 

362 (1976)); see Ybarra Y.!.. Reno Thunderbird Mobile Home Village, 

723 F.2d 675, 680 (10th Cir. 1984). A supervisor may be held 

liable when there is a complete failure to train subordinates or 

training that is so reckless or grossly negligent that future 

misconduct is almost inevitable. See Meade Y.!.. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 

1512, 1528 (10th Cir. 1988) (citing Hays Y.!.. Jefferson County, 688 

F.2d 869, 873-74 (6th Cir.)'. cert. denied, 489 U.S. 833 (1982)). 

Additionally, a supervisor may be liable when he knew or should 

have known of subordinates' misconduct and failed to prevent 

future harm. Anthony Y.!.. Baker, 767 F.2d 657, 666 (10th Cir. 

1985) . 

Construing the complaint liberally, see Haines Y.!.. Kerner, 404 

U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), we find it nowhere alleges that Hart knew 

or should have known of deprivations of toilet facilities, 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-7049 Document: 010110031295 Date Filed: 03/22/1991 Page: 3 
clothing, blankets, mattresses, clean towels, or showers or he 

inadequately trained subordinates who failed to provide these 

basis human needs to Williams. Likewise, the complaint nowhere 

alleges Hart knew of or inadequately trained jail officials who 

struck Williams with a chair and allegedly prevented Williams from 

seeing a doctor for his resulting injuries. 

Williams also contends Hart violated his first amendment 

rights because jail officials deprived him of his Bible and other 

religious materials. We disagree. Williams nowhere alleges Hart 

knew or should have known of or inadequately trained subordinates 

who engaged in this unconstitutional conduct. Likewise, Williams 

nowhere alleges Hart knew or should have known of or inadequately 

trained subordinates who were responsible for violating Williams' 

due process rights by housing him in lockdown or not allowing him 

access to a law library. 

We conclude none of Williams' allegations against Hart in 

either an official or personal capacity contain the requisite 

"affirmative link" between a constitutional violation and Hart's 

supervisory responsiblities. This case is unlike the situtation 

in Hammock, 730 F.2d at 1374, where the plaintiff alleged the 

sheriff knowingly was involved in constitutional deprivations, or 

the situtation in Grubbs, 841 F.2d at 1528, where the plaintiff 

alleged a sheriff customarily failed to supervise deputies and was 

deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff's constitutional rights. 

Therefore, we dismiss all these claims against Hart under Rule 

12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as "a matter of 

law because 'it is clear that no relief could be granted under any 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-7049 Document: 010110031295 Date Filed: 03/22/1991 Page: 4 
set of facts that could be proved consistent with the 

allegations.'" Neitzke Y..!.. Williams, 109 s. Ct. 1827, 1832 (1989) 

(quoting Hishon Y..!.. King k Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984)). 

Williams also contends Hart was responsible for jail 

officials exposing him to AIDS through the use of contaminated 

razors. Although the basis of this claim is unclear in the 

complaint, the Martinez report helps to clarify Williams' 

allegations. The report explains Williams was provided with a 

fresh new razor three times a week that jail officials kept 

separate from other prisoners' razors until new ones were issued. 

According to the report, there have been no cases of AIDS in the 

county jail. Evidently, Williams is convinced jail officials 

mixed his razors with razors used by other inmates who might have 

exposed him to AIDS. Because we find Williams' claim about 

intentional exposure to AIDS describes a "fantastic or delusional 

scenario[]", Neitzke, 109 S. Ct. at 1833, we dismiss it as 

frivolous under 28 u.s.c. S 1915. Likewise, we dismiss as 

frivolous under section 1915 Williams' claims against Hart for 

possible "tampering" with Williams' personal belongings, 

improperly demanding personal information, and forcing him to 

attend a "bogus" hearing. 

Additionally, Williams contends the district court should not 

have dismissed his constitutional claims against Guilioli for 

requesting identification at a court hearing and recommending 

bail. We disagree. A prosecutor is absolutely immune from 

liability for money damages under section 1983 for activities 

associated with "initiating a prosecution [and] presenting the 

5 

Appellate Case: 90-7049 Document: 010110031295 Date Filed: 03/22/1991 Page: 5 
• 

State's case." Imbler Y.:.. Pachtman, 424 u.s. 409, 430-31 (1976); 

~ also Rex Y.:.. Teeples, 753 F.2d 840, 843 (10th Cir.), cert. 

denied, 474 U.S. 967 (1985). The district attorney's actions 

during the court hearing clearly are associated with initiating a 

prosecution and presenting the state's case. Thus, Guilioli's 

actions are protected from liability under section 1983 for money 

damages by the doctrine of absolute immunity. We conclude it was 

proper for the district court to dismiss Williams' claims for 

money damages against Guilioli under 28 u.s.c. S 1915. Further, 

we are convinced Williams' claims for equitable relief against 

Guilioli also should be dismissed as frivolous under section 1915. 

Finally, we di.amiss as frivolous under section 1983 Williams' 

claim that Guilioli somehow was responsible for Williams being 

denied medical attention. 

We find Williams has not advanced a reasoned argument on 

either the law or facts in support of his claims. See Coppedge Y.:.. 

United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962); Ragan Y.:.. Cox, 305 F.2d 58 

(10th Cir. 1962). However, we WAIVE the fees, address the merits 

of these claims, and DISMISS the appeal. The mandate shall issue 

forthwith. 

6 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-7049 Document: 010110031295 Date Filed: 03/22/1991 Page: 6