Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-07098/USCOURTS-ca10-92-07098-0/pdf.json

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

---

Fl L .L~ ;) l 

'ted States Col.rt of Appea ~ 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

Unt Tenth Circuit 

NOV 13 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

JAMES EDWARD CLAYTON I ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

LARRY MEACHUM, Director; GARY D. ) 

MAYNARD, Warden; JIM SORRELS; BOBBY L. ) 

BOONE, Major; W.W. MALONE, Case ) 

Manager; BOBBY BRYANT, Unit Supervisor, ) 

Their successors in interest, agents, ) 

servants and employees, individually ) 

and in official capacity; JAMES L. ) 

SAFFLE; STEVE HARGETT; JIMMY MARTIN; ) 

DANNY NACE; JOHN DOE; JOE DOE; RAY ) 

DOE; BOB DOE; ROB DOE; SAY DOE, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 92-7098 

(D.C. No. 87-66-C) 

(E.D. Oklahoma) 

Before MOORE, TACHA and BRORBY, Circuit Judges . 

Mr. Clayton, an inmate in a state prison and a pro se 

litigant, appeals the grant of an adverse summary judgment in his 

* 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: 92-7098 Document: 010110148683 Date Filed: 11/13/1992 Page: 1 
§ 1983 case .

1 We reverse and remand . 

This case has a lengthy history. Mr. Clayton commenced this 

litigation in 1987 when he sued six penitentiary officials 

alleging retaliation for exercising his rights to access the 

court, to petition the government for redress, and to file 

lawsuits. Mr . Clayton supported these allegations with factual 

statements. The trial court ordered a Martinez report which set 

forth a factual statement differing from Mr. Clayton's. The trial 

court, utilizing the facts as set forth in the Martinez report, 

concluded Mr. Clayton's suit was frivolous and dismissed. In 1990 

this court reversed that decision, concluding it was error for the 

trial court to resolve disputed factual matters by relying upon 

the information contained in the Martinez report. See Clayton v. 

Meachum, No. 88-1084, Order & Judgment, Mar. 12, 1990. 

Upon remand, the parties engaged in a war of motions. 

Insofar as is relevant to our decision, the penitentiary officials 

filed a motion for summary judgment, which was not supported by 

factual materials, asserting the defense of qualified immunity. 

Mr. Clayton, who had by this time amended his complaint, filed his 

motion for summary judgment, which was supported with numerous 

factual matters. The penitentiary officials responded by 

1 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. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-7098 Document: 010110148683 Date Filed: 11/13/1992 Page: 2 
complaining that the length of Mr. Clayton's brief violated 

district court rules, and filed numerous evidentiary exhibits 

supporting their version of the facts. 

The matter was referred to a magistrate judge who again 

resolved some factual disputes by the use of documents filed. The 

following quotation from the magistrate judge's report is 

illustrative: 

Plaintiff admits that he was a "spokesman" for the 

inmates participating in the riot of December 17, 1985. 

For his participation, Plaintiff was found guilty by a 

vote of 3-0 of group disruption. Plaintiff makes the 

allegation that he was "not allowed witnesses, documents 

or other elements of due process." The Offense Report 

that Plaintiff received gave the description of the 

incident as follows: "On 12-17-85 at approximately 6:15 

p.m., inmate James Clayton 73937, participated in a riot 

on Unit A, which resulted in substantial property 

damages and five hostages being taken." Thus, it 

contained the date, time, and activity. Clearly, this 

notice was more than adequate. A review of the Special 

Report reveals that the appropriate due process was 

afforded to Plaintiff. Plaintiff was given advance 

written notice of the charge, as well as an Inmate/Staff 

Representation Request Form. Plaintiff was permitted to 

use witness testimony at his hearing, and was furnished 

with a Disciplinary Hearing Action Form. 

This report concluded by recommending the grant of the 

penitentiary officials' motion for summary judgment. Due process 

requires an inmate be given the opportunity to call witnesses and 

present documentary evidence. woiff v. McDonneii, 418 U.S. 539, 

556 (1974). As the above reveals, the factual dispute was 

resolved in a conclusory fashion by the acceptance of one document 

over another, and, in particular, the magistrate judge credited 

defendants' statement that Mr. Clayton was allowed to call 

witnesses over Mr. Clayton's statement that he was not. The issue 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-7098 Document: 010110148683 Date Filed: 11/13/1992 Page: 3 
of Mr. Clayton's being denied the right to use documents was not 

addressed. 

Objections were filed to the magistrate judge's report, and 

Mr. Clayton continued to file aggressively various motions which 

were referred to the magistrate judge. Ultimately, Mr. Clayton's 

amended complaint was ordered served, additional parties and 

claims were added, and Mr. Clayton continued to bombard the court 

and the penitentiary officials with a barrage of motions. 

It is necessary to examine Mr. Clayton's amended complaint, 

which is thirty-eight pages in length and purports to set forth 

sixteen separate causes of action. The underlying factual 

foundation supporting this complaint commences with a prison riot 

wherein hostages were taken, guards were severely injured and 

property was destroyed. The prison officials imposed various 

disciplines upon Mr. Clayton for his "involvement" in this riot. 

Mr. Clayton's position is that he was a model prisoner and was not 

involved in the riot. 

for the hostage takers . 

hearing was flawed. 

He contends he merely acted as a spokesman 

Mr . Clayton alleges the disciplinary 

He contends there existed no substantial 

evidence; he was unfairly surprised by some of the evidence; he 

was denied access to the prison records; he was denied the right 

to call rebuttal witnesses; there was no written record; and his 

conduct was not proscribed by prison rules. Mr. Clayton also 

complains his property was stolen from his cell by two of the 

defendants when he was hospitalized; he alleges the defendants 

-4-

Appellate Case: 92-7098 Document: 010110148683 Date Filed: 11/13/1992 Page: 4 
have court records necessary to his appeal which they are 

wrongfully withholding; he complains of being wrongfully held in 

administrative segregation; and he sets forth numerous additional 

similar complaints. It is important to note the amended complaint 

raises numerous issues that were not addressed by the magistrate 

judge in his initial report, nor could they have been as the 

amended complaint came thereafter. 

The trial court, obviously weary of the flood of filings by 

Mr. Clayton, in a short order adopted the magistrate judge's 

findings and recommendations which concluded that summary judgment 

should be granted in favor of the penitentiary officials. The 

district court reasoned the amended complaint merely provided 

"more specificity" and did not recognize the additional causes of 

action. Mr. Clayton appeals this decision raising nineteen 

claimed errors of law. 

This appeal illustrates most of, if not all, the problems 

inherent in prose litigation. Mr. Clayton has obviously spent 

much time researching the law but has achieved an imperfect 

understanding of the many rights afforded him by the law. The 

penitentiary officials, rather than spend the time and money 

necessary to deal precisely with the litigation, resort to a 

shortcut by claiming qualified immunity while offering no case law 

to show Mr. Clayton's rights were not clearly established, i.e., 

meaningful access to the courts and minimum due process for 

prisoner discipline. Both parties throw numerous factual 

-5-

Appellate Case: 92-7098 Document: 010110148683 Date Filed: 11/13/1992 Page: 5 
materials into the hopper, thus creating factual disputes. Mr. 

Clayton files numerous motions, many being frivolous. Against 

this backdrop and with little help from the parties, the 

magistrate judge attempted to sort the wheat from the chaff. The 

district judge then faced countless hours of reviewing all these 

matters de novo. We, in turn, receive this pile of paper and are 

expected to spend hours in an attempt to assure Mr. Clayton has 

been extended the rights to which he is entitled. 

We now turn our attention to the record on appeal. In 

reviewing a grant of summary judgment, our review is de novo. We 

look first to see if there is a genuine issue of material fact. 

If we find none, we then look to see if the substantive law was 

correctly applied. Genuine issues of material fact do exist and 

the grant of summary judgment was improper. 

We initially turn to Mr. Clayton's allegation that the 

administrative segregation was punishment for his filing of law 

suits. In Mr. Clayton's first appeal to this court Judge McKay, 

writing for this court, said: 

In his affidavit, among other things, he has alleged 

that some defendants told him that administrative 

segregation was in effect punishment for filing 

lawsuits. This, among other matters, sets up a fact 

dispute which cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss. 

In addition, much of what is contained in the Martinez 

report is merely conclusory and is not sufficient to 

overcome specific allegations or plaintiff's verified 

factual statements attached to his response to the 

Martinez report. 

Clayton v. Meachum, Order & Judgrnentat 3. 

subsequently filed to remove this factual dispute. 

-6-

Nothing was 

An affidavit 

Appellate Case: 92-7098 Document: 010110148683 Date Filed: 11/13/1992 Page: 6 
stating Mr. Clayton was segregated for his own safety and welfare 

was subsequently filed. This fails to remove and, in fact, 

compounds the factual dispute into one involving reasons or 

motivation for Mr. Clayton's segregation. 

Because we reverse and remand, we do not address all Mr. 

Clayton's asserted errors, nor do we identify all the factual 

disputes. We do reverse the summary judgment in its entirety for 

the reason that the magistrate judge failed to consider the 

allegations of the amended complaint and the factual material 

relating thereto that was offered by the parties. 

The district court's conclusion that the amended complaint 

merely added specificity to the allegations of the original 

complaint is inaccurate, and to the extent it may be accurate, 

factual conflicts were created. 

As Mr. Clayton is a prose litigator, we suggest to counsel 

for the penitentiary officials that she can render invaluable aid 

to the district court by simplifying the issues. Mr. Clayton's 

verified complaint raises numerous issues. The first step should 

be to weed out those allegations that fail to state a claim. The 

second step should be to identify those issues that are supported 

only by conclusory allegations as opposed to facts. The third 

step is to try those issues remaining where there exists a genuine 

issue of material fact. 

-7-

Appellate Case: 92-7098 Document: 010110148683 Date Filed: 11/13/1992 Page: 7 
This court is fully cognizant of the burdens imposed upon the 

judiciary by the prose litigator. Our dislike of these burdens 

does not justify shortcuts, nor does it excuse disbelief of the 

pro se litigant's verified facts. Factual disputes concerning 

genuine and material issues may only be resolved by the trier of 

fact; they may not be resolved by balancing an affidavit against a 

Martinez report. 

The judgment of the district court is REVERSED and this 

matter is REMANDED for such further proceedings as may be just and 

proper. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

-8-

Appellate Case: 92-7098 Document: 010110148683 Date Filed: 11/13/1992 Page: 8