Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01917/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01917-0/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 L E D 

United States Court of Appeals 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Tenth Circuit 

DERRICK R. PARKHURST, 

Plain~iff-Appellant, 

v. 

DUANE SHILLINGER; KIM STERCHIO; 

HELEN GERSTEIN; GEORGE SUMNER; 

JOHN SLANSKY, ' 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

. ) 

) 

) 

. ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

JAN 2? 1989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 87-1917 

(D.C. No. S6-0422J) 

( D. Wyo. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

Before BALDOCK, BRORBY, Circuit Judges, and BURCIAGA, District 

Judge.* 

*The Honorable Juan G. Burciaga, 

District Court for the District 

designation. 

District Judge, United States 

of New Mexico, sitting by 

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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to 42 u.s.c. § l983, 

alleging defendants, employees of the Nevada and Wyoming prison 

Appellate Case: 87-1917 Document: 01019962422 Date Filed: 01/27/1989 Page: 1 
systems, violated plaintiff's, and other prisoners', ._rights under 

the first, fifth, sixth, and ·fourteenth amendments. Plaintiff 

sought a declaratory judgment. 

In January, 1986, Wyoming prison officials transferred 

plaintiff, an inmate setving a life sentence, to the custody of 

Nevada prison authorities pursuant to the Western Interstate 

Transfer Compact, which provided for the transfer of prisoners 

' between member states. Plaintiff asserted Wyoming officials 

transferred plaintiff in retaliation for his iegal activism on 

behalf of himself and other inmates, in violation of plai~tiff's 

constitutionally protected right of access to the courts. 

Plaintiff also asserted a class action claim on behalf of those 

inmates in the Wyoming State Penitentiary "whom plaintiff 

Parkhurst has, is, or may have been of assistance .... " 

Defendants answered and filed motions for dismissal for failure to 

state a claim upon 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), 

which 

and 

relief 

for 

may 

summary 

be granted, 

judgment, 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Plaintiff responded to these motions. 

Defendants also filed a motion challenging venue in the 

Nevada court. In response to this motion, the Nevada district 

court transferred the § 1983 action to the District of Wyoming. 

The Wyoming court dismissed plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff 

appeals. 

Plaintiff argues that the Nevada district court improperly 

transferred the action to Wyoming. This court has jurisdiction to 

review the transfer order. In re Dalton, 733 F.2d 710, 717 (10th 

2 

Appellate Case: 87-1917 Document: 01019962422 Date Filed: 01/27/1989 Page: 2 
Cir. 1984), cert. dismissed, 469 U.S. 1185 (1985); see Varsic v. 

' United States Dist. Court, 607 F.2d 245, 251 (9th Cir. 1979); 

Magnetic Eng'g ~Mfg.Co. v. Dings Mfg. Co., 178 F.2d 866, 868-70 

(2d Cir. 1950). · The decision to transfer an action will be left 

to the sound discretion of the district court and will not be 

disturbed on a~peal absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. 

Texas Gulf Sulphur Co. v. Ritter, 371 F.2d 145, 147 (10th Cir. 

' 1967). 

28 u.s.c. § 1404(a} allows a district court, for the 

convenience of the parties and witnesses, and in the interest of 

justice, to transfer any civil action to any other district court 

where the action could have been commenced. 28 U.S.C § 139l(b} 

provides that a plaintiff must commence a civil action not founded 

solely on diversity, as is the case with this§ 1983 action, only 

in the judicial district where all the defendants reside or in 

which the claim arose. 

In this action, there was not a single judicial district in 

which all t he defendants reside. The action, then, could have 

been commenced only in the _judicial district in which the claims 

arose. In determining where a claim arose, a court will look at 

where the substantial portion of the significant events underlying 

the claim occurred. See Sutain v. Shapiro & Lieberman, 678 F.2d 

115, 117 (9th Cir. 1982); Sharp Elec. Corp. v. Hayman Cash 

Register Co., 655 F.2d 1228, 1229 (D.C. Cir. 1981). Since a 

substantial portion of the events underlying this action occurred 

.. • 

in Wyoming, the Nevada district court did not ~rr in determining 

the cause arose in Wyoming. 

3 

Appellate Case: 87-1917 Document: 01019962422 Date Filed: 01/27/1989 Page: 3 
' A district court, in deciding whether to transfer an action, 

should consider ·such factors as plaintiff's choice of forum, 

accessibility of witnesses and other sources of proof, and any 

other practical consideration that wo~ld make trial easy, 

expeditious, and economical. Texas Gulf Sulphur, 371 F.2d at 147. 

Most of the witnesses and the documentary evidence involved in 

this matter were located in Wyoming. Nevada prison officials had 

returned custody of plaintiff to Wyoming authorities. The Nevada 

district court did not abuse its discretion in transferring 

plaintiff's cause of action to the Wyoming dJstrict court. 

Plaintiff next argues that the Wyoming district court erred 

in dismissing the§ 1983 complaint under Rule 12(b}(6} for failure 

to state a sufficient claim. In dismissing the action, the 

district court relied, not only on the allegations in the 

complaint, but also upon affidavits filed by the parties. Where a 

court relies on material outside the pleadings in dismissing an 

action, the motion for dismissal will be treated as a motion for 

su·mmary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b}. 

Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine 

issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c}. Since 

summary judgment involves legal determinations, this court will 

review the district court's order de novo, viewing the record in 

the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Ewing v. Amoco 

Oil Co., 823 F.2d 1432, 1437 (10th Cir. 1987). 

Plaintiff's first claim for relief alleged Wyoming officials 

transferred plaintiff in retaliation for the exercise 9f his right 

4 . 

Appellate Case: 87-1917 Document: 01019962422 Date Filed: 01/27/1989 Page: 4 
• 

I . 

• 

of access to the courts. Prison authorities may not impair an 

inmate's access to the courts through means of harassment or 

retaliatiori. ~, Wright v. Newsome, 795 F.2d 964, 968 (11th 

Cir . 1986); Sanders v. St. Louis County, 724 F.2d 665, 666 (8th 

Ci r . 1983). Plaintiff, however, failed to support this claim with 

sufficient evidence to enable a reason~ble jury to retuin a 

ve r d i ct in his favor. Summary judgment was, therefore, 

appropriate. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 

( 1986). 

The district court also properly dismissed plaintiff's class 

action claim. It is well established that inmates have a 

constitutionally protected right · of access to the courts. Bounds 

v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977). Such access must be adequate, 

effective, and meaningful. Id. at 822; see Johnson v. Avery, 393 

U. S. 483, 485 (1969). Inmates have the right to legal assistance 

from other inmates only where prison authorities fail to provide 

adequate alternative legal assistance. Avery, 393 U.S. at 489-90. 

Where inmates do have a right to the legal assistance of other 

inmates, ther do not have a right to the assistance of a 

particular inmate. Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th 

Cir. 1981); Smith v. Halford, 570 F. Supp. 1187, 1195 (D. Kan. 

1983). Plaintiff failed to allege that his transfer deprived 

Wyoming inmates of all available means of legal assistance. 

5 

Appellate Case: 87-1917 Document: 01019962422 Date Filed: 01/27/1989 Page: 5 
• 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

.District , of Wyo~ing is AFFIRMED. 

DENIED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

All outstanding motions are 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

6 

Appellate Case: 87-1917 Document: 01019962422 Date Filed: 01/27/1989 Page: 6