Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06375/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06375-0/pdf.json

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

---

DOUGLAS COUPAR, 

Plaintiff, 

and 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APR O i 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKEE 

Clerl~ 

DAVID B. HAYNIE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

) No. 91-6375 

v. 

A.F. BEELER, Warden of FCI El Reno, 

Oklahoma, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) (D.C. No. CIV-91-323-C) 

) (W.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TACHA., and BRORBY, 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. 

Appellants Douglas Coupar and David Haynie appeal an order of 

the district court dismissing their complaint. In their 

complaint, the appellants asserted that the conditions at 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 estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-6375 Document: 010110239113 Date Filed: 04/01/1992 Page: 1 
Federal Correctional Institution in El Reno, Oklahoma are 

unconstitutional. The district court dismissed Coupar's complaint 

as moot because he was transferred to a different facility. 

Haynie's complaint was dismissed for failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 u.s.c . 

S 1291 and dismiss for lack of standing. 

Appellants' complaint challenges the conditions at the 

federal correctional facility, but fails to allege that they have 

suffered any injury themselves. Rather, appellants assert that 

the operation of the institution subjects the prisoners as a group 

to unconstitutional conditions. Nowhere in the complaint do the 

appellants specify an injury that they have suffered from these 

unconstitutional conditions. In order to have standing, the 

appellants must allege that they have suffered a "distinct and 

palpable injury" that is traceable to the challenged conduct . See 

Warth Y.!.. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1975) . Because appellants do 

not demonstrate a distinct and palpable injury, they do not have 

standing to challenge the allegedly unconstitutional conditions. 

Therefore, the appeal is DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue 

forthwith. 

-2-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-6375 Document: 010110239113 Date Filed: 04/01/1992 Page: 2