Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-04076/USCOURTS-ca10-92-04076-0/pdf.json

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

---

FIL L 0 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALsJnited s,r:fh l~~t Appeah 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JEFFREY L . ABBOTT, SR., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v . 

DANIEL AVIS, Prison Guard, 

Lieutenant; SCOTT CARVER, 

Prison Guard, Deputy Warden; 

WAYNE FREESTONE, Contract 

Attorney; JAY LESLIE, Prison 

Guard, Captain; KEN ENGLAND, 

Prison Guard; BRUCE DANIELS, 

former Prison Guard, Deputy 

Warden; GEORGE TAYLOR, Prison 

Special Operations Guard; 

AL LOLOHEA, Prison Special 

Operations Guard, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

DEC 3 0 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-4076 

(D.C. No. 92-CV-4 ) 

(D . Utah) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON, and BALDOCK, 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 ) ; 1 0 th Cir. R. 34.1 . 9. The cause is therefore ordere d 

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 o f establishing the doctrines of the law o f the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel . 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-4076 Document: 010110155927 Date Filed: 12/30/1992 Page: 1 
Jeffrey Lynn Abbott, a prose prisoner, brought this action 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) alleging numerous constitutional 

violations arising from the conduct of prison officials and prison 

contract attorneys with respect to Abbott's legal mail. Prison 

officials allegedly searched Abbott's cell in his absence, seized 

his legal mail pouch, and passed it along to the prison contract 

attorneys. The contract attorneys allegedly read the contents of 

the pouch, including some legal correspondence between Abbott and 

his court-appointed attorney, and "verbally reprimanded" Abbott 

for having some nonlegal materials in his legal mail pouch. 

Abbott recovered his materials ten days after they were 

confiscated. Abbott also alleges that the contract attorneys 

disclosed to prison officials the contents of a lawsuit that 

Abbott intended to file. 

In his complaint, Abbott alleged that: (1) his First and 

Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when defendants 

confiscated his legal materials without following their own 

procedures and without providing due process; (2) his Fourth and 

Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when defendants 

illegally searched, seized, transferred, and read his legal 

materials; (3) he was denied due process when the prison contract 

attorneys administered a "verbal reprimand" to him without giving 

him twenty-four hours notice; and (4) his Fourth and Fourteenth 

Amendment rights we re violated when the prison contract attorneys 

disclosed to prison officials that Abbott intended to file a 

lawsuit over the confiscation. 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 92-4076 Document: 010110155927 Date Filed: 12/30/1992 Page: 2 
The district court adopted the magistrates report and 

recommendations and dismissed the complaint as frivolous . In s o 

doing, the court agreed with the magistrate that the Fourth 

Amendment does not apply to the search of a prison cell; that the 

contract attorneys acted as Abbott's agent rather than under colo r 

of state law when they read his legal mail, gave him a "verbal 

reprimand," and explained to him the difference between legal and 

nonlegal materials; and that Abbott had failed to allege any 

actual interference with his right of access to the courts. 

On appeal, Abbott c ontends only that his First, Fourth, and 

Fourteenth amendment rights were violated when defendants failed 

to follow prison policy on the confiscation of legal mail pouches. 

Abbott asserts that the mandatory nature of this policy gave him a 

liberty interest in those procedures. In addition, Abbott asserts 

that the lower court erre d in concluding that the prison contract 

atto rneys were not acting under color of state law when they read 

his mail and disclosed his lawsuit to prison officials. 1 Bec ause 

we conclude that Abbott has failed to allege any cognizable 

constitutional deprivations, we do not determine whether the 

contract attorneys were acting under color of state law. 

1 

In his brief on appeal, Abbott does not raise the d i strict 

court's rejection of his Fourth Amendment search and seizure 

claim. He also does not reassert any claim arising from the 

alleged "verbal reprimand" he received from the contract 

attorneys. Accordingly, we deem these arguments abandoned . 

-3 -

Appellate Case: 92-4076 Document: 010110155927 Date Filed: 12/30/1992 Page: 3 
A claim is legally frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (d) if it 

is based on "an indisputably meritless legal theory." Denton v. 

Hernandez, 112 S. Ct. 1728, 1733 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. 

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)). Because Abbott is proceeding 

prose, we construe his pleadings liberally and hold them to a 

l ess stringent standard than that applied to formal pleadings 

drafted by lawyers. See Hall v. Bellman, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 

(10th Cir. 1991). "The broad reading of the plaintiff's complaint 

does not relieve the plaintiff of the burden of alleging 

sufficient facts on which a recognized legal claim could be 

based." Id. Under the above standards, we conclude that the 

district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing under 

section 1915(d). See Denton, 112 S. Ct. at 1734. 

Abbott's claim that he has a "liberty interest" in the 

prison's legal mail procedures themselves is indisputably without 

legal merit. "[A]n expectation of receiving process is not, 

without more, a liberty interest protected by the Due Process 

Clause. " Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 250 n.12 (1983). 

"Process is not an end in itself. Its constitutional purpose is 

to protect a substantive interest to which the individual has a 

legitimate claim of entitlement." Id. at 250. 

The prison legal mail procedures at issue here were designed 

to protect a prisoner's "constitutional right of access to the 

courts for the purpose of presenting his c laims, a right that 

prison officials cannot unreasonably obstruct and that states have 

affirmative obligations to assure." Washington v. James, 782 F . 2d 

-4-

Appellate Case: 92-4076 Document: 010110155927 Date Filed: 12/30/1992 Page: 4 
1134, 1138 (2d Cir. 1986 ) . "As a corollary of his right of 

access, a prisoner has a right to correspond with his legal 

counsel." Id. Construing Abbott's brief on appeal broadly, the 

only legally cognizable constitutional claim it presents is the 

allegation that defendants' failure to follow their policies when 

they confiscated, handled, and read his legal mail unreasonably 

interfered with his right of access to the courts. 

Although this sets out a viable constitutional claim in the 

abstract, Abbott has alleged no facts tending to show that the 

conduct about which he complains actually interfered with his 

ability to present his legal claims in court . 11 [A]n isolated 

incident, without any evidence of improper motive or resulting 

interference with [Abbott's] right to counsel or to access to the 

courts, does not give rise to a constitutional violation." Smith 

v. Maschner, 899 F.2d 940, 944 (10th Ci r . 1990 ) ; see also Twyman 

v. Crisp. 584 F.2d 352, 357-59 (10th Cir. 1978 ) (appellant must 

show that he has somehow been prejudiced in presenting his cases) . 

Absent any factual allegations tending to show that Abbott's 

ability to confer with his counsel or to pursue his litigation was 

in any way impaired by defendants' conduct, his complaint was 

properly dismissed as frivolous. 

AFFIRMED. 

-5 -

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-4076 Document: 010110155927 Date Filed: 12/30/1992 Page: 5