Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-95-01457/USCOURTS-ca10-95-01457-0/pdf.json

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

---

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

BRET S. KLEIN, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

FILED 

lJllited Statet Court of Appe::ls 

Tentb Cir~uit 

APR .. Z 1996 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

) No. 95-1457 

v. ) 

) 

ARISTEDES ZAVARAS; GEORGE E. ) 

SULLIVAN; ROBERT J. FURLONG; ) 

D. E. BENTLEY; LOU HESSE; ) 

SGT. HARTLESS, in their individual ) 

and official capacities, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Colorado 

(D.C. No. 94-K-508) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

Bret S. Klein, Pro Se. 

Paul S. Sanzo, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado and 

Gale A. Norton, Attorney General, for Defendants/Appellees. 

Before BRORBY, EBEL, and HENRY, Circuit Judges. 

EBEL, Circuit Judge. ·' -··--

Appellant Bret S. Klein, a prisoner incarcerated within the 

Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC), filed this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Appellees 

Appellate Case: 95-1457 Document: 01019277311 Date Filed: 04/02/1996 Page: 1 
violated his constitutional rights. Klein's claims stem from the 

fact that, in the course of his transfer from one prison facility 

to another, he was required to dispose of several items of 

personal property. The complaint, filed pro se and in forma 

pauperis,l alleged that Appellees violated his rights to due 

process of law and equal protection of the law. The complaint 

further alleged that Appellees violated the terms of certain DOC 

regulations which were adopted under the terms of a consent decree 

from a previous class action lawsuit concerning conditions in the 

DOC. On August 25, 1995, a United States Magistrate Judge 

recommended that Appellees' motion for summary judgement be 

granted as to Klein's due process and equal protection claims and 

that Appellees' motion to dismiss be granted as to Klein's § 1983 

claim for enforcement of the consent decree. On October 18, 1995, 

the United States District Court for the District of Colorado 

adopted the Magistrate's recommendation and entered judgement for 

Appellees. Klein now appeals. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and AFFIRM.2 

I. 

In February 1993, Klein was transferred from the Limon 

Correctional Facility (Limon) to the Centennial Correctional 

Facility (CCF) . CCF has a higher security classification than 

1 The district court granted Klein's motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis4 

2 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously to honor the parties' request for a 

decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34 (f) ; lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 95-1457 Document: 01019277311 Date Filed: 04/02/1996 Page: 2 
Limon, and conditions at CCF are more restrictive than at Limon. 

In the course of his transfer, Klein was required to dispose of 

several items of personal property because those items were not 

allowed at CCF. He was told he could mail the property to someone 

outside of the DOC or the items would be destroyed. Klein chose· 

to mail the property to a relative. When leaving Limon, Klein was 

required to dispose of his television set, his combination radio 

and tape player, and several cassette tapes. Upon arrival at CCF 

the following day, he was required to dispose of a desk lamp, a 

calculator, some sweatshirts, towels, and other miscellaneous 

property. 

According to Klein, DOC regulations in effect at the time of 

his transfer required the DOC to store any property not allowed at 

CCF while Klein was incarcerated there. In addition, Klein 

asserts that applicable regulations required that the property be 

returned to him upon his return to a lower security facility, 

where the items are allowed. Once Klein's property had been 

mailed out of the DOC, he could not have the property returned to 

him as long as he was incarcerated in the DOC. Appellees do not 

dispute that Klein was required to dispose of the property listed 

above in the course of his transfer, or that he could not have the 

property returned to him once it was mailed out. 

Klein brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 alleging that Appellees' actions.violated his rights to due 

process of law and equal protection of the law. He further 

alleges that Appellees' actions violated the terms of certain DOC 

regulations which were adopted under the terms of a consent decree 

-3-

Appellate Case: 95-1457 Document: 01019277311 Date Filed: 04/02/1996 Page: 3 
from a previous class action lawsuit concerning conditions in the 

Colorado Department of Corrections. See Marioneaux v. Colorado 

State Penitentiary, 465 F. Supp. 1245 (D. Colo. 1979). Klein 

contends that Appellees attempted to change DOC regulations 

concerning inmate property, and that their attempts to change the 

regulations violated the Marioneaux consent decree. 

Prior to filing this action, however, Klein filed ari action 

in Lincoln County Small Claims Division, case number 93 S 58, 

Klein v. Furlong and Bentley. There, Klein also asserted that his 

due process rights were violated by his having been forced to send 

his television, stereo and cassette tapes out of LCF. On April 

21, 1994, following trial, Klein's County Court claims were 

dismissed. The trial court did not comment on the applicability 

of the consent decree, but concluded that possession of the 

property in a prison is a privilege and that the applicable rules 

and regulations did not permit Klein to take the property in 

question with him from Limon to CCF. Relying on the County 

Court's disposition of Klein's claims there, Appellees filed a 

Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment in this action, 

arguing, inter alia, that Klein's Due Process and Equal Protection 

claims are barred by the principles of res judicata arising from 

the Lincoln County case and that the attempt to enforce the 

consent decree was misplaced in a Section 1983 civil rights 

complaint. The United States Magistrate agreed and recommended 

that judgment be entered for Appellees on these grounds. The 

-4-

Appellate Case: 95-1457 Document: 01019277311 Date Filed: 04/02/1996 Page: 4 
district court adopted the Magistrate's recommendation and 

dismissed the case. 

II. 

We review a dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) {6) de 

novo, "confining our review to the allegations in the complaint 

and accepting the facts pleaded as true." Barrett v. Tallon, 30 

F.3d 1296, 1299 (lOth Cir. 1994). Likewise, we review the summary 

judgment determination of the district court de novo, applying the 

same standard as the district court. Devery Implement Co. v. J.I. 

Case Co., 944 F.2d 724, 726 (lOth Cir. 1991). Summary judgment is 

appropriate if "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact 

and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter 

of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (c). 

Appellees argue on appeal, as they.did below, that Klein's 

claims in this action are barred under the doctrine of res 

judicata. "Under res judicata, a final judgment on the merits of 

an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating 

issues that were or could have been raised in that action." Allen 

v. McCur~, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980) (citing Cromwell v. County of 

Sac, 94 U.S. 351, 352 (1876)). The Supreme Court of Colorado has 

adopted this rule, holding that res judicata "bars relitigation 

not only of all issues actually decided, but of all issues that 

might have been decided." Pomeroy v. Waitkus, 517 P.2d 396, 399 

(Colo. 1973). We must give a state court judgment "the same 

preclusive effect as would be given that judgement under the law 

of the State in which the judgment was rendered." Migra v. Warren 

City School. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 81 (1984). 

-5-

Appellate Case: 95-1457 Document: 01019277311 Date Filed: 04/02/1996 Page: 5 
In the Lincoln County case, Klein alleged that Appellees 

"erroneously deprived [him] of his television, radio/cassette 

player and cassette tapes without adequate justification or due 

process." The complaint in that case was based on the fact that 

Klein had to mail out these items before he left Limon. The case 

went to trial and judgment was entered for Appellees. The record 

is clear that Klein asserted a due process claim based on the 

deprivation of his property in the course of his transfer from 

Limon to CCF. The Lincoln County Court had jurisdiction to hear 

this claim, to the extent it was independent of any claim to 

enforce the Marioneaux consent decree, and did so. Klein also 

could have raised his equal protection claim in the Lincoln County 

case, but he failed to do so. Thus, to the extent Klein attempts 

to assert due process or equal protection claims in this action, 

they are barred by res judicata, and Appellees are entitled to 

summary judgement with respect to these claims.3 

The Lincoln County Court, however, did not have jurisdiction 

to enforce the Marioneaux consent decree. That decree was entered 

by ~he United States District Court for th~ District of Colorado, 

and the Lincoln County Court did not have jurisdiction to enforce 

its terms. Therefore, to the extent.Klein has any right to seek 

3 Klein argues on appeal that the district court could not have 

adequately evaluated the res judicata effect on his claims without 

first granting his Motion for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum 

with respect to the Lincoln County Court trial transcript. As 

discussed above, Klein's complaint in the Lincoln County case 

shows that he asserted a Due Process claim in the Lincoln County 

action. In any event, the district court's Order was based upon 

the conclusion that, to the extent the claims were brought before 

or could have been brought and were not, they were barred by res 

judicata. Thus, it was not necessary for the district court to 

review the County Court transcript to draw this conclusion. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 95-1457 Document: 01019277311 Date Filed: 04/02/1996 Page: 6 
enforcement of the Marioneaux decree, this claim is not barred by 

res judicata because it could not have been asserted in the 

Lincoln County case. Nevertheless, Klein's claim for enforcement 

of the Marioneaux decree was properly dismissed below. Klein 

claims that Appellees violated the Marioneaux consent decree when 

they amended certain DOC property regulations, and when they 

required him to mail out his property. With respect to this 

claim, we adopt the view taken by the Fifth and Eight Circuits and 

. . 

hold that a § 1983 action is not an appropriate means to seek 

enforcement of a consent decree. DeGidio v. Pung, 920 F.2d 525 

(8th Cir. 1990); Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116 (5th Cir. 

1986) .4 Remedial decrees do not create or enlarge constitutional 

rights, or create "rights . secured by the laws," 42 U.S.C. § 

1983, "sufficient to serve as a basis for liability under§ 1983." 

Green, 788 F.2d at 1122-23. Allowing enforcement of consent 

decrees under § 1983. would "discourage prison officials from 

agreeing to such benefits." Id; See also Pung, 920 F.2d at 534 

("Compliance would be deterred if individual prisoners were 

allowed to seek damages for violations of every detail of the 

decree. Accordingly, we decline to hold that a consent decree may 

be enforced through a Section 1983 action."). Therefore, 

Appellees' Motion to Dismiss Klein's § 1983 claim for enforcement 

4 Klein argues on appeal that the district court should have 

construed his claim to enforce the consent decree as a properly 

filed contempt action. However, we find no abuse of discretion in 

this regard. 

-7-

Appellate Case: 95-1457 Document: 01019277311 Date Filed: 04/02/1996 Page: 7 
of the terms of the Marioneaux consent decree was properly 

granted.5 

III. 

For the foregoing reasons, the district court's Order 

dismissing Klein's claims is AFFIRMED. 

5 On appeal, Klein states that he finds it "troubling" that the 

Magistrate noted, while discussing the Marioneaux consent decree, 

that the decree was not part of the record in this case. He 

argues that the Magistrate should have taken judicial notice of 

the decree. Whether the decree was part of the record or not, the 

Magistrate's recommendation did not require a review of the decree 

because the recommendation was that Klein could not assert any 

claim to enforce the decree under § 1983. Thus, the decree was 

not necessary to the Magistrate's recommendation. Furthermore, 

judicial notice is within the court's discretion, United States v. 

Estep, 760 F.2d 1060, 1063 .. (lOth Cir. 1985), and Klein does not 

even assert on appeal that he requested that the Magistrate take 

judicial notice of the decree. 

-8-

Appellate Case: 95-1457 Document: 01019277311 Date Filed: 04/02/1996 Page: 8