Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01084/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01084-0/pdf.json

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

---

" 

FI LED 

Uoited States Court of Appeals 

T~nt.h Cirr-i.1ir 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

MAR 12 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk JAMES EDWARD CLAYTON, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

LARRY MEACHUM, Director; GARY ) 

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, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 88-1084 

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

( E. D. Ok la. ) 

Before MCKAY, SEYMOUR, 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. The case is therefore ordered 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 of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 88-1084 Document: 01019966089 Date Filed: 03/12/1990 Page: 1 
\ 

In this case, James Edward Clayton, an inmate at the Oklahoma 

State Penitentiary, filed an action against defendants under 42 

U.S.C. S 1983 (1982). Plaintiff claimed that his constitutional 

rights had been violated in the following ways: 

(1) Defendants wrongfully punished plaintiff for exercising 

his right of access to the courts by transferring him to 

another state prison following a riot at the OSP; 

(2) Defendants failed to provide plaintiff with meaningful 

access to the courts in that they have not provided an 

operational copy machine nor given him adequate physical 

access to library materials; 

(3) Defendants failed to afford plaintiff due process in 

disciplining him for his alleged involvement in a riot 

at OSP. 

After plaintiff filed his claim, the district court ordered the 

Oklahoma Department of Corrections to file a special report 

addressing plaintiff's claims in accordance with Martinez v. 

Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1978). After reviewing the special 

report along with several accompanying attachments and affidavits, 

the district court dismissed plaintiff's action as frivolous under 

28 u.s.c. S 1915(d) (1982). 

It is clear that the trial court resolved factual disputes by 

relying on information contained in the Martinez report. We have 

repeatedly made clear that to the extent it is necessary to 

resolve disputed facts in order to dismiss an action, the court 

-2-

Appellate Case: 88-1084 Document: 01019966089 Date Filed: 03/12/1990 Page: 2 
may not rely on the Martinez report or decide the case on a motion 

to dismiss where there are conflicting affidavits. 

The pleading in this case is not frivolous on its face. In 

his response to the Martinez report, plaintiff controverts iignificant portions of that report. The court may only dismiss if 

the facts admitted by plaintiff show clearly that he could prove 

no facts which would entitle him to relief. Sampley v. Rutgiers, 

704 F.2d 491 (10th Cir. 1983); Johnson v. Parke, 642 F.2d 377 

(10th Cir. 1981). 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 mo.tion to dismiss. In addition, ~uch 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. 

We conclude that plaintiff's case, on the record before us, 

is sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss as frivolous under 28 

u.s.c. § 1915(d) (1982). The judgment of dismissal is REVERSED 

and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings. The mandate shall 

issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 88-1084 Document: 01019966089 Date Filed: 03/12/1990 Page: 3