Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-07120/USCOURTS-ca10-92-07120-0/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 l L L D 

o,urt of Al)Pe&le 

TENTH CIRCUIT United sr:th Circuit 

) 

PAUL S.C. BARNETT ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

GARY D. MAYNARD; DENISE SPEARS; ) 

JERRY MAYFIELD; KEN WILLIAMSON; ) 

JERRY GRAYSON, Sgt . ; KATHY BRITT; ) 

RUSSELL LITrLEJOHN; MARK WATTLES; ) 

GAYE BALLARD; MAX NEWBERRY; LEON ) 

MOORE, Coordinator; GARY FRANKS; ) 

DICK LADD; MALCOME DARROUGH; JANE ) 

KENNEDA; SHIRLEY TURNER, ) 

Supervisor, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

APR 2 ~ 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-7120 

(D.C. No . CIV-91-558-C) 

(Eastern District of 

Oklahoma) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, Chief Judge, SETH and BARRETT, Circuit Judges. 

The parties have agreed that this case may be submitted for 

decision on the briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 

34.1.2. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral 

argument . 

... This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not b e cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

e xcept for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

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

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-7120 Document: 010110212836 Date Filed: 04/22/1993 Page: 1 
Plaintiff brings this§ 1983 action alleging that his civil 

rights were violated during his imprisonment in Oklahoma on 

charges of child molestation. The district court dismissed the 

action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (d) (1988) . We affirm 

in part and reverse in part. 

Plaintiff initially claims that while he was employed as a 

prisoner laborer at Oklahoma State Industries, Defendants issued a 

misconduct report in retaliation for informing prison authorities 

about various improprieties in which the Defendants allegedly were 

engaging. However, in the special Martinez report that the prison 

authorities prepared, the prison was unable to find any evidence 

that such a misconduct report was ever issued. Plaintiff 

explained in a subsequent pleading that this was because the misconduct report was dismissed. We conclude from his admission that 

Plaintiff did not suffer a constitutionally congnizable harm from 

this incident. Consequently, we AFFIRM this dismissal of this 

allegation under§ 1915(d). 

Plaintiff next argues that he unknowingly and unwillingly 

participated in the theft of prison property by several of the 

Defendants. Plaintiff has not presented any evidence that he was 

harmed by this alleged incident, nor is there any suggestion that 

he faces any future prosecution arising out of this incident. 

Plaintiff's constitutional claim based on this matter is frivolous 

and was properly dismissed under§ 1915 (d). We AFFIRM the dismissal of this claim. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-7120 Document: 010110212836 Date Filed: 04/22/1993 Page: 2 
Plaintiff next argues that Defendants engaged in a wide 

variety of violations of state law and prison rules. Plaintiff 

has not shown that he was harmed in any way by these alleged violations. Plaintiff therefore is without standing to raise these 

issues. We AFFIRM the dismissal of this claim as frivolous under 

§ 1915 (d ) . 

Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Turner deliberately 

lowered his work evaluations in retaliation for his decision to 

report her alleged improprieties to prison officials. While the 

record reveals that Plaintiff continued to receive acceptable work 

evaluations, Plaintiff alleges that other inmates received more 

favorable evaluations and were awarded raises by Ms. Turner. In 

addition, Plaintiff alleges that he was eventually fired from his 

job by Ms. Turner and other defendants in retaliation for these 

reports. In short, Plaintiff alleges a direct causal link between 

his reports against Defendants and a significant pecuniary loss on 

his part. 

This allegation raises troubling First Amendment issues. In 

addition, the special Martinez report reveals that around this 

time, Ms. Turner was investigated by Internal Affairs for alleged 

misconduct, although the record does not reveal the result of the 

investigation. While the Martinez report specifically controverts 

the claim that Plaintiff had a misconduct entered against him, i t 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-7120 Document: 010110212836 Date Filed: 04/22/1993 Page: 3 
does not confirm or deny the claim that Plaintiff was fired. 1 

We are not prepared to state at this time that Plaintiff has 

presented a prima facie case, or even that Plaintiff's First 

Amendment cause of action presents a claim on which relief can be 

granted. However, we are convinced that, under the circumstances, 

Plaintiff's contentions are not frivolous and should not have been 

dismissed under§ 1915(d). We REVERSE the dismissal of this claim 

under§ 1915(d) and remand for further proceedings on this issue. 

Finally, Plaintiff claims that Defendant Turner deliberately 

attempted to incite the other inmates to abuse him because he was 

charged with child molestation. 2 Plaintiff alleges that Turner 

informed other inmates of the charges against Plaintiff, "which in 

turn did cause the other inmates to taunt, urinate in my coffee 

cup, put feces in my work clothes, take my cigarette tobacco, put 

feces in my bed while I would be at work, and threatening me with 

imminent bodily injury." (R. doc. 3 at 4.) 

It is well established that 

[t]he failure of prison officials to protect an inmate 

from attacks by other inmates may rise to the level of 

an Eighth Amendment violation . While "an express intent 

to inflict unnecessary pain is not required, . [i]t 

1 Plaintiff's work 

but they stop in June 

1992, does not reveal 

that time, and if so, 

records are attached to the Special Report, 

1991 . The Martinez report, filed in March 

whether Plaintiff's employment terminated at 

why. 

2 The record does not reveal whether Plaintiff was ever 

convicted of that charge. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 92-7120 Document: 010110212836 Date Filed: 04/22/1993 Page: 4 
is obduracy and wantonness, not inadvertance or error i n 

g ood faith, that characterize the conduct prohibited by 

the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause." 

Blankenship v. Me achum, 840 F.2d 741, 742 (10th Cir. 1988) (quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U. S . 312, 319 (1986 )) (citations 

omitted). Here, Plaintiff has alleged that Defendant Turner 

deliberat ely incited other inmates to harm him. Such an allegation clearly states a claim under the Eighth Amendment. 

In addition, we note that the deliberate indifferenc e standard requires far more than mere negligence, and that claims that 

do not present any plausible basis for concluding that the prison 

authorities were deliberately indifferent are properly dismissed 

under§ 1915 (d). Nevertheless, because of the investigation o f 

Ms. Turner and the well-known risks of assault that child 

molesters face in prison, the factual allegations, including the 

specific claim that the incitement was deliberate, are not fanci -

ful . We REVERSE the dismissal of this claim under§ 1915 {d ) . 

Whether it can survive properly conducted Summary Judgment or 

other pretrial proceedings, we make no implication. 

We AFFIRM IN PART, REVERSE IN PART, and REMAND for further 

proceedings c onsistent with this opinion. 

-5-

Entered for the Crn1rt 

Monroe G. McKay 

Chief Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-7120 Document: 010110212836 Date Filed: 04/22/1993 Page: 5 
Appellate Case: 92-7120 Document: 010110212836 Date Filed: 04/22/1993 Page: 6