Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-07015/USCOURTS-ca10-90-07015-0/pdf.json

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

---

• UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TEN'l'H CIRCUIT 

JAMES SCOTT HOOPER, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

FILED 

United State$ Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

NOV 141990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) 

) 

GARY MAYNARD, PRINCE MCJUNKINS, MICHAEL) 

CODY, BOB COMBS, J.B. PATTERSON, GARY ) 

GIBSON, MICHAEL W. SCOGGINS, DELORIS ) 

CAMPBELL, KAREN BLAKELY, ROBERT KROOCH, ) 

No. 90-7015 

(D.C. No. 89-284-C) 

( E • D. Okla. ) 

CHARLES HATCHER, THOMAS LOVELACE, ) 

International Affairs Director of ) 

Oklahoma Dept. of Corrections, WOODWARD,) 

Polygraph examiner for Oklahoma Dept. ) 

of Corrections, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JCJDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, MOORE, 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. 

* - 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: 90-7015 Document: 010110051281 Date Filed: 11/14/1990 Page: 1 
f 

Mr. Hooper appeals the dismissal of his prose civil rights 

complaint. 

Mr. Hooper is an inmate in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary. 

He filed pro se a complaint, an amended complaint, and a 

supplemental complaint. Summarizing these complaints, Mr. Hooper 

alleges that defendants violated various of his Constitutional 

rights by falsely labeling him a homosexual; by his being forced 

to have oral sex with one of the defendants; by removing him from 

a voluntary Bible class; by denying his request for a vegetarian 

diet; by conducting an improper disciplinary hearing; by denying 

him proper medical care; by denying him meals on several 

occasions; by improperly interrogating him; and by engaging in 

oth~r acts that amounted to Constitutional deprivations. 

The district court ordered Martinez reports, 1 which he 

received and reviewed. The district court then entered its 

written order which treated most of Mr. Hooper's allegations and 

held that: (1) the action was frivolous; (2) the allegations were 

unsubstantial; and (3) Mr. Hooper suffered no Constitutional 

deprivation of rights. The district court dismissed the action in 

response to defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. S 1915(d). 

Mr. Hooper now appeals pro se. He raises numerous 

contentions, most of which do not merit discussion; however, some 

1 Martinez v. Chavez, 574 F.2d 1043 (10th Cir. 1978). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-7015 Document: 010110051281 Date Filed: 11/14/1990 Page: 2 
r 

do. We therefore grant Mr. Hooper leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis. 

Mr. Hooper first requests that we appoint counsel to 

represent him. This we decline to do. We have carefully reviewed 

Mr. Hooper's numerous filings and the voluminous Martinez report 

and, based upon our review of these documents, we see no chance of 

Mr. Hooper prevailing on his claims. 

Mr. Hooper next complains that the district court in fact 

granted summary judgment against him and that as he specifically 

requested an opportunity to conduct discovery, the district court 

committed reversible error. The district court did refer to and 

rely upon the Martinez report. When material outside of the 

pleadings is relied upon the matter is indeed treated as a summary 

judgment. We therefore review the district court's ruling de 

novo, Goichman v. City of Aspen, 859 F.2d 1466 (10th Cir. 1988), 

applying the same standard as the district court, Gray v. Phillips 

Petroleum Co., 858 F.2d 610 (10th Cir. 1988). The applicable 

standard is "'whether any genuine issue of material fact pertinent 

to the ruling remains, and, if not, whether the substantive law 

was correctly applied.'" Setliff v. Memorial Hosp. of Sheridan 

County, 850 F.2d 1384, 1391-92 (10th Cir. 1988) (quoting McKibben 

v. Chubb, 840 F.2d 1525, 1528 (10th Cir. 1988)). Determinations 

as to whether material facts exist are made construing the record 

in favor of the party opposing the motion; however, "'conclusory 

allegations by the party opposing [the motion] are not sufficient 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-7015 Document: 010110051281 Date Filed: 11/14/1990 Page: 3 
) 

i to establish an issue of fact and defeat the motion.'" Id. at 

1392. This court "'may affirm the granting of summary judgment if 

any proper ground exists to support the district court's ruling.'" 

Id. After defendants filed their Martinez report and their motion 

to dismiss, Mr. Hooper filed his motion to deny or stay 

defendants' motion "until the plaintiff ... had an opportunity to 

obtain discovery." This was an inadequate request as Mr. Hooper 

failed to describe what discovery he desired or what he expected 

it to produce. We therefore conclude that defendant's motion was 

properly granted. 

Mr. Hooper asserts that the trial court erred by disregarding 

his second request for appointment of counsel. He argues that the 

trial court should "have done more for appellant." Given the 

facts of this case, we are not persuaded that the district court 

abused its discretion in failing to appoint counsel. 

Mr. Hooper next asserts that the trial court · .should have 

informed him of his right to file affidavits in opposition to the 

Martinez report. This assertion ignores the record. The record 

on appeal shows, following the receipt of the Martinez report, 

that a notice to respond was sent to and received by Mr. Hooper. 

The record also shows that he responded by filing at least seven 

motions with supporting briefs and three affidavits. 

Mr. Hooper also alleges that one of the defendants, a prison 

guard, forced Mr. Hooper to have oral sex with him. This 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-7015 Document: 010110051281 Date Filed: 11/14/1990 Page: 4 
t 

• allegation was denied in the Martinez report, thus creating a 

question of fact. Even assuming Mr. Hooper's allegation to be 

true, we do not view a single, isolated assault as being 

actionable under 42 u.s.c. S 1983. It may be that Mr. Hooper has 

a claim against this defendant, but given the posture of this 

case, not under 42 u.s.c. S 1983. 

Mr. Hooper has raised numerous additional issues that we do 

not believe warrant discussion. We have considered them and find 

they lack merit. 

The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate 

shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-7015 Document: 010110051281 Date Filed: 11/14/1990 Page: 5