Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06060/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06060-0/pdf.json

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

---

.. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F I LCoErt fDAp-.,,.alR United State& u o .,....... 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT T•nth circuit 

JAMES NAUM, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; 

FIRE MARSHAL OF OKLAHOMA; 

COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH OF 

OKLAHOMA; OKLAHOMA BOARD OF 

CORRECTIONS, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

SEP O 7 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-6060 

(D. C. No. CIV-89-1344-A) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, MOORE, and BRORBY, 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(1); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

* 

be 

for 

res 

Mr. Naum appeals the dismissal of his prose complaint. 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

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

Appellate Case: 90-6060 Document: 010110041931 Date Filed: 09/07/1990 Page: 1 
Mr. Naum has been held as an inmate in the Oklahoma prison 

system since 1978. In August, 1989, Mr. Naum filed a complaint 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We quote portions of this complaint: 

The plaintiff ... has suffered from 

"overcrowding" and related 

incarceration .... 

the conditions 

evils, since 

of 

his 

••• [T]he said FIRE MARSHAL is ignoring the 

applicable state laws, and the states COMMISSIONER OF 

HEALTH has been likewise been winking at the unhealthy 

conditions associated with such overcrowding, and not 

enforcing the appropriate state remedies 

Furthermore, in violation of the plaintiff's 

Constitutional and Civil rights, the United States of 

America is collecting and spending taxes, through the 

Internal Revenue Service and is using the funds 

collected for "welfare" to support illegal activities of 

the state ••• by funding the _construction and running of 

Oklahoma's Prisons.... The conditions within the 

Oklahoma prison system ... are the direct result of the 

Board of Corrections ... . 

The complaint is lengthy and rambling. Giving this complaint 

a fair reading, as we are obliged to do, it accuses the state 

parties of failing to enforce their own laws, and it accuses the 

United States and the Internal Revenue Service of violating the 

Eighth , and Fourteenth Amendments by providing tax monies to the 

State of Oklahoma for use in the operation of the Oklahoma 

prisons. Mr. Naum seeks over $100,000 in damages and asks for an 

injunction prohibiting the State of Oklahoma from admitting 

further prisoners; an injunction prohibiting reprisals against Mr. 

Naum; and the immediate release of "a sufficient number of 

prisoners to bring the system into complete and total compliance 

with Health and Building Codes." 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6060 Document: 010110041931 Date Filed: 09/07/1990 Page: 2 
The defendants all filed motions to dismiss and asserted the 

complaint failed to state a claim. Mr. Naum responded in part by 

accusing defendants of delay and harassment. 

Mr. Naum then filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 455 to 

disqualify the district judge. This motion alleged that Mr. Naum 

had filed a previous case1 against the district judge and that 

case "alleges the judge ... is conspiring with state employees 

to deprive •.. plaintiff and other prisoners of their civil and 

constitutional rights and ... plaintiff cannot believe that 

[the district judge] can be impartial." The district court, after 

noting that the applicable standard under 28 U.S.C. § 455 is 

"whether a reasonable man would deem the judge's impartiality to 

be genuinely in question," denied the motions, and stated: 

Judges are used to criticism of their decisions from 

losing litigants and lawyers, some of it vitriolic; and 

this judge holds that the average, reasonable man in the 

street would not doubt the judicious capacity of one to 

continue to sit because a nuisance law suit has been 

filed against him by a loser .... Certainly a reasonable 

man would not countenance a system in which judges could 

be disqualified willy-nilly by the device of whimsical 

law suits against them. 

The district court then entered a memorandum opinion setting 

forth its reasons for concluding that Mr. Naum's complaint was 

inadequate under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The reasons may be briefly 

1 In fact, this law suit was a RICO action alleging the district 

court had unlawfully accepted a bribe from unknown employees of 

the Oklahoma Attorney General's office in exchange for dismissal 

of one of Mr. Naum's previous civil rights actions. The RICO suit 

was dismissed by the district court as meritless pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(d), and this court affirmed in an unpublished 

opinion. See Naum v. Alley, No. 89-6353 (filed April 24, 1990). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-6060 Document: 010110041931 Date Filed: 09/07/1990 Page: 3 
summarized by stating: (1) the federal defendants were not 

alleged to have acted under state law; (2) under the Eleventh 

Amendment, the Board of Corrections is immune from liability for 

damages in an action brought against it; (3) as the State Fire 

Marshal and the Commissioner of Health were sued only in their 

official capacities, they are "likewise immune"; (4) that Oklahoma 

law provides an exception to the standards imposed by the State 

Fire Marshal for detention and correction facilities in existence 

on November 1, 1985, when noncompliance would not result in lifethreatening situations, and Mr. Naum failed to allege any 

institutions in which he was being held were built after said 

date; (5) Mr. Naum failed to allege any specifics and his 

allegations were conclusory; and (6) the applicable statute of 

limitations (two years) was a bar to both damages and injunctive 

relief as Mr. Naum failed to allege a specific instance that 

occurred within two years of the filing of the complaint. The 

district court, no doubt applying the rule of liberal 

construction, also analyzed the complaint under the provisions of 

42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 (racial discrimination); 1985 (member of 

recognized class of class-based discrimination); 1986 (neglect or 

refusal to prevent conspiracy); 1988 (award of attorney fees); and 

1997 (civil actions for institutionalized persons), and concluded 

that the complaint failed to state a claim under these provisions 

as well. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-6060 Document: 010110041931 Date Filed: 09/07/1990 Page: 4 
I 

The Failure to Recuse 

Whether a judge is so connected with the litigation as to 

make it improper for him to sit is a matter confined to the judge 

himself. Shadid v. Oklahoma City, 494 F.2d 1267, 1268 (10th Cir. 

1974). The district judge applied the appropriate test in ruling 

upon Mr. Naum's motion, and in reviewing this decision we do so 

under the abuse of discretion standard. To reverse this decision 

we must be left with the definite and clear impression that a 

mistake has been made. Given the particular facts of this case, 

we cannot say that we are left with this definite and firm 

impression. Mr. Naum's motion was properly denied by the district 

judge. 

II 

The Eleventh Amendment 

Mr. Naum correctly contends that the Eleventh Amendment does 

not confer immunity from liability. The Eleventh Amendment denies 

jurisdiction to the federal court to entertain a suit against a 

state or its agencies for damages without the state's consent. 

There can be no doubt in the instant case that the state board of 

corrections and its officials acting in their official capacities 

are arms of the state. It is likewise clear that the district 

court reached the correct result even though he technically 

misstated the effect of the Eleventh Amendment. It is also clear 

that neither a state nor its officials acting in their official 

capacities are ''persons" under§ 1983. Will v. Michigan Dept. of 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-6060 Document: 010110041931 Date Filed: 09/07/1990 Page: 5 
State Police, 109 s. Ct. 2304, 2312 (1989). When the district 

court has reached the correct result, we must affirm that decision 

even though the district court set forth a technically incorrect 

reason. 

The district court correctly dismissed the claim for 

injunctive relief for substantially the same reasons set forth in 

its memorandum opinion. 

III 

Miscellaneous Assertions 

Mr. Naum makes numerous other assertions of error, including 

that the Oklahoma tort claims statute is unconstitutional and 

therefore Oklahoma has given its consent to sue; he is a member of 

a recognized class and is a victim of class-based 

and the district court's recitation of facts 

discrimination; 

were 

erroneous. We have considered these contentions and we 

clearly 

do not 

agree, either because they were not raised in the district court, 

or because they have no merit. 

We therefore AFFIRM the decisions of the district court. 

IV 

Sanctions 

The United States and the Internal Revenue Service assert 

that the appeal is frivolous and request sanctions. We agree that 

-6-

Appellate Case: 90-6060 Document: 010110041931 Date Filed: 09/07/1990 Page: 6 
insofar as these parties are concerned, this appeal is indeed 

frivolous; however, we decline to impose sanctions in this case. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-7-

Appellate Case: 90-6060 Document: 010110041931 Date Filed: 09/07/1990 Page: 7