Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06390/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06390-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

MARTIN DAVID STEPHENSON, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant,) 

No. 89-6390 

. FILED 

Umted States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

APR :3 0 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) 

) (W.D. Okla. CIV-89-274-T) 

ROBERT ROWE, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, BRORBY, 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. 

Plaintiff Martin Stephenson appeals from the district court 

order dismissing his 42 u.s.c. § 1983 action alleging that his 

constitutional rights were violated while he was temporarily held 

in the Tillman County jail. Plaintiff had been arrested in 

Tillman County on a Tennessee felony arrest warrant. Plaintiff 

was held in the Tillman County jail until he could be returned to 

Tennessee. 

* 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: 89-6390 Document: 01019967227 Date Filed: 04/30/1990 Page: 1 
Plaintiff's complaint alleges that he had inadequate access 

to a legal library and that he was denied medical and 

psychological attention. The complaint also lists several 

conditions in the jail that were allegedly unconstitutional. 

Because plaintiff was appointed legal counsel while he was 

detained, the district court correctly found that plaintiff was 

not improperly denied access to a law library. Appointment of 

legal counsel is a reasonable alternative means of protecting a 

prisoner's constitutional right to access to the courts. See Love 

v. Summit County, 776 F.2d 908, 914-15 (10th Cir. 1985), cert. 

denied, 479 U.S. 814 (1986). 

With respect to Plaintiff's complaints about the ventilation 

of the jail, the availability of drinking water, inadequacy of the 

jail's plumbing, holes in the jail's ceilings, nonexistent 

grievance procedures, lack of exercise space, mail being opened 

and telephone calls being listened to, restriction of telephone 

privileges, unavailability of reading materials and personal 

hygiene items, unavailability of a dietician, limited 

opportunities to shower, and inmate visitation rights, plaintiff 

has either failed to state that defendant personally participated 

in the alleged constitutional violation or has failed to allege 

more than mere negligence. An allegation of personal 

participation is essential to a§ 1983 claim. See Bennett v. 

Passic, 545 F.2d 1260, 1262-63 (10th Cir. 1976). A§ 1983 

plaintiff must also allege more than negligence on the part of the 

defendant. See Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344 (1986). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-6390 Document: 01019967227 Date Filed: 04/30/1990 Page: 2 
• 

Therefore, the district court's dismissal as to those allegations 

is affirmed. 

Plaintiff complained that he was improperly denied needed 

medical and psychological care. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 

(1976). The district court dismissed this claim because it found 

that plaintiff had merely alleged negligence, because plaintiff 

did not allege that the defendant personally denied the plaintiff 

the care needed, and because under the facts of the case the 

actions taken by the custodial officials were reasonable. We have 

reviewed the complaint and agree that it is deficient for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Accordingly, we affirm the 

dismissal of that allegation. 

Because plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege a§ 1983 

cause of action in his complaint, we AFFIRM the district court's 

dismissal of plaintiff's cause of action. The mandate s hall issue 

forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-6390 Document: 01019967227 Date Filed: 04/30/1990 Page: 3