Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-95-01215/USCOURTS-ca10-95-01215-0/pdf.json

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

---

PUBLISH 

FILED 

lJDited States Court or Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 21 1996 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

DAVID WlllTE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

V. 

MELANIE GREGORY, Technical Services 

Manager, Director; PENNY BROWN, Jail 

Director, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

No. 95-1215 

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

(D.C. No. 94-N-2575) 

Submitted on the Briefs: • 

David C. White, prose, Delta, Colorado, on the brief for Plaintiff-Appellant. 

Robert J. Loew and Marlene T. Gresh, Brighton, Colorado, on the brief for Defendants-Appellees. 

Before BRORBY, EBEL and HENRY, Circuit Judges. 

BRORBY, Circuit Judge. 

• After examining the briefs and the appellate recad, this three-judge panel has detennined unanimously 

that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the detennination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34( a); I Oth Cir. R. 34 .1. 9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 95-1215 Document: 01019279554 Date Filed: 06/21/1996 Page: 1 
PlaintiffDavid C. White, a Colorado state prisoner, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, alleging Melanie Gregory, the Technical Services Manager at the Adams County Detention 

Facility, Penny Brown, the Director of the Adams County Detention Facility, and SheriffEd Camp 

violated his federal constitutional rights by denying his request for additional time in the jail's law 

library. A magistrate judge granted Mr. White leave to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered 

service of process. The magistrate judge subsequently issued a recommendation that the district court 

grant the defendants' motion for summary judgment. After reviewing the magistrate's 

recommendation and Mr. White's written objections thereto, the district court entered summary 

judgment in favor of the defendants. The district court gave the following reason for its decision: 

Having reviewed the materials attached to the motion for summary judgment, 

the magistrate judge suggests that those materials do not support any finding that the 

policies of the detention facility, taken as a whole, are unconstitutional. I agree. 

There is nothing in this record to indicate that the restrictions which defendants have 

placed on plaintiff's use of the library facilities are unreasonable ones. 

This appeal followed. 

I 

As a threshold matter, we must determine whether Mr. White is entitled to proceed in forma 

pauperis in the court of appeals. As noted above, the magistrate judge granted Mr. White leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis in district court. On May 24, 1995, Mr. White filed both a notice of 

appeal and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. See 28 U.S. C. § 1915(a); 

Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). The district court denied the motion and certified that the appeal was not 

taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Fed. R App. P. 24(a). Mr. White then filed a motion 

in this court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S. C. § 1915(a); Fed. R App. P. 24(a). 

2 

Appellate Case: 95-1215 Document: 01019279554 Date Filed: 06/21/1996 Page: 2 
Although Mr. White did not file his motion within thirty days after service of the district court's order 

certifying that the appeal was not taken in good faith, see id, we will accept his motion as timely. 

See Fed. R App. P. 26(b); 9 J. Moore, Federal Practice~ 224.02, p. 24-9, n. 13 (thirty-day period 

prescribed in Fed. R App. P. 24(a) subject to enlargement under Fed. R App. P. 26(b)). 

Our handling of Mr. White's motion depends heavily on whether the recent amendments to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915, enacted as part ofthePrisonLitigationReformAct ofl995, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 

Title VIII,§§ 801-10, 110 Stat. 1321, ~have any impact on Mr. White's fee status in this court. 

See Pub. L. No. 104-134, Title VIII,§§ 804-05, 110 Stat. at . Our review of the Act leads us to 

conclude the amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 do not apply when, as in this case, the 

prisoner/appellant filed his notice of appeal before April 26, 1996, the date President Clinton signed 

the Act into law. 1 We therefore apply the law in effect prior to April 26, 1996, and consider whether 

Mr. White has demonstrated "a financial inability to pay the required filing fees and the existence of 

a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the issues raised on appeal." 

DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502, 505 (lOth Cir. 1991); see Coppedge v. United States, 369 

U.S. 438, 445-48 (1962); Ragan v. Cox, 305 F.2d 58 (lOth Cir. 1962). We conclude Mr. White has 

sustained this burden and grant his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

n 

1 We have no occasion to consider under what circumstances, if any, the amendments to 28 U.S. C. 

§ 1915 apply if the prisoner commenced his action in district court before April 26, 1996, but filed notice of 

appeal after April26, 1996. 

3 

Appellate Case: 95-1215 Document: 01019279554 Date Filed: 06/21/1996 Page: 3 
We now tum to the merits of this appeal Mr. White first contends the district court erred in 

granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants on his claim he was unconstitutionally denied 

access to the jail law library. We disagree. The sole basis ofMr. White's claim is that he was allowed 

to use the hbrary only two hours per week. Prisoners are not entitled to unlimited access to the law 

hbrary, Petrickv. Maynard, 11 F.3d 991, 994 (lOth Cir. 1993); Twyman v. Crisp, 584 F.2d 352, 358 

(lOth Cir. 1978), and we agree with the district court's conclusion the limitation on Mr. White's 

access did not amount to a constitutional violation. Second, Mr. White contends the district court 

erred in failing to rule on his two motions to alter or amend the judgment. Mr. White is incorrect: 

the district court considered and denied his motions in a written order dated January 22, 1996. 

Finally, Mr. White contends "[t]he court should have added Ed Camp to the complaint because he 

was included in the initial complaint." Assuming Mr. White's position is that the district court 

somehow lost sight of or failed to address his claim against Sheriff Camp in its summary judgment 

order, we see no basis in the record for such a contention. 

AFFIRMED. 

4 

Appellate Case: 95-1215 Document: 01019279554 Date Filed: 06/21/1996 Page: 4