Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01408/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01408-0/pdf.json

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

---

L . ' D 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Until~ c~~ Arocci3 

. T~···.~-'" ( , .... ~ .. ;-1: 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

FREDDIE HARRISON, named: Freddie L . 

Harrison, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

JULO 9 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v . ) No . 91-1408 

JOHN R. ENRIGHT, FRANKO . GUNTER, 

Defendants-Appellees . 

) (D.C. ~o . 91-F-1185) 

) ( D. Colo. ) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGANr EBEL 6 and KELLY, C.ircuit Judges . 

After examining the briefs and appellate re ord e this panel 

-- has determined unanimously that ora l argument woul not materially 

assi st the determination of this appeal . ed o R. App. P . 

34 (a ): 10th Cir. R. 34 . 1.9. 

submitte .. withou t oral argument . 

The case is therefore ordered 

Pla "ntiff Freddie L. Harrison appeals from an order of the 

district court dismissing wit h prejudice his action filed pursuant 

to 42 u.s.c. § 1983. We affirm. 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-1408 Document: 010110270389 Date Filed: 07/09/1992 Page: 1
Harrison, a prisoner at an Arkansas correctional facility, 

alleged that defendant Enright, chairman of the State Parole 

Board, and defenda.nt Gunter, director o f the State Prison, 

violated his right to equal protection a n due process by their 

»p olicies and p ract i es." Harrison alleged tha these p licies 

caused defendants ' employees to improperly c alculat e h is "time 

credits" fo parole consideration, thereby v iolating stat law. 

R. Vol . I 6 tab 3 at 3(a) . Harrison requested $5 , 000 . 00 for eac h 

day he was de nied p a role review and $1, 000 ; 000. 00 for m ntal 

anguish, to be assessed ind ividually again st each defendant; and 

"[a]ll relief which pJ a int:iff is justly e ntitled to r eceive 

inc udi ng· a declaratm::.y judgment that defendants have v-iol ated 

pla i n -iff ' s civil :right.s . " Id. at 5. 

1

I1he c ase was eferred to a magistrate judge who reco:mm"" nded 

dismi s s l n -h , g .. _ounds tha· defendants were ent "tle t El venth 

.Amendmen - immuni y in the ... official c apa i ·i es . He a lso 

con.cl de d tha ·, .in thei per~ nal capacities, Enright wa.:, e nti t led 

to absolute inununity and Gunt r could not be eld liable un e · a 

t heory o f r e spondeat super i or. After review of Ha:r: · · on ' s 

ob jec i s v •• he district court adopted the re mmendati on . 

On PP "'a. 

"indiv.iduall •· 

Harrison argues that he can sue def _ndants 

H. asserts that he has a con stitution .1 right to 

due process and equal protection, and that defenda nts 

discriminated against him by denying him the right to t imely 

parole review under Colo . 

17-22.5-104. 

Rev. 

2 

Stat. §§ 17-2-204(1) and 

Appellate Case: 91-1408 Document: 010110270389 Date Filed: 07/09/1992 Page: 2
Both defendants are st ate officials. "A s uit against a state 

official in his or he r o ffi cial c apacity is not a suit against the 

offi cial but r a t he r i s a sui t a gainst t he offic ial's office. As 

such, it is no d ifferent f r om a s uit agains t the State itself." 

Will v. Michigan Dep 't of State Police , 491 U. S . 58, 71 (1989) ; 

see also Me ade v . Gr ubbs 6 841 F . 2d 1512, 1524-25 (10th Cir. 1988). 

States are prot e cte d from sui t by the Eleventh Amendment. See 

Edelman v . J or dan 6 415 U. S . 65 1, 66 3 (197 4 ). (Eleventh Amendment 

bars s uits in fede r al court by "pr i vate parti es seeking to impose 

a l i ab i l ity which must be paid from publi c f unds in the state 

treasury" ) . 

capacities . 

De f e nda nt s are protect ed from suit i n their official 

Har r ison argue s that he also sue d def endants in their 

ind i vidua l c a pa ~ties . Su i t s against state o fficials in thei r 

i ndi i dua l c apac ·ti es are not barre d by t he Eleventh Amendment . 

Hafer v . Melo , 112 s . Ct . 358 , 365 ( 199 1 ) . The refore, we must 

de t e nn · ne wt e the Ha:rri son shoul d be permi t t e d t o proceed wit h 

these 1 i ms. 

Ha 1s n alleged that defendants' "po "cies and practices " 

r esult d i n h is be i ng den i ed t i mel y c onsi de ati on for parole i n 

vio lati on o f s tat e la,. Harri son a r gues tha defendants were 

respons i l e f or i ns ur i ng the i r empl oyees c omplied with state law 

when comp t i ng his parol e e ligibi l ity . Appe llant 's Br. at 3. He 

also asser t s tha t defendants were "directly" r esponsible for the 

proper training and supervisi on of thei r employees who compute 

"time credits " and "cannot hide behind a shield of ignorance or 

indifference .... " Id. at 4. Harrison alleges that defendants 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-1408 Document: 010110270389 Date Filed: 07/09/1992 Page: 3
improperly supervised and trained their employees . " '[T]here is 

no concept of strict supervisor liability under section 1983.'" 

Ruark v. Solano 1 928 F.2d 947, 950 (10th Cir. 199 1 )(quoting Harris 

v. Greer, 750 F . 2d 61 7, 618 (7th Cir. 1984)). A plaintiff must 

show an affirmative link between the supervisor's conduct and the 

constitutional deprivation alleged; "liability based upon 

respondeat superior will not do. " Snell v. Tunnell , 920 F.2d 673, 

7 00 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 111 S . Ct . 1622 ( 19 91). 

Harrison's complaint does not allege the required l'nk between 

defendants' actions and a constitutional violation . Therefore, 

defendant s cannot be held liable i n their s1perv · s ry c apacity. 

To the extent t hat Harrison allege pers nal ·nvolvement by 

defend a n·s, that claim also must fail . Harrison alleged t hat 

defendant failed t o c omply with state law; this claim does not 

rise ·o the level of a constit utional iola ion cogn i zable in 

fede r al ourt. See Adickes v . S. H. Kress & Co .. r 398 U. S . 144 , 

150 (19 70)(plaintif must prove defendan depr·ved h " fright 

secure by the Constitu· ion and aws of the Unite St tes) . 

Harrison's mere reci ation of the words "due p ocess'" and "e qual 

protect · on" is insuffici ent to a llege a const · tu i na. v"olati on. 

Harrison also r equested a de c laratory judgme n '-hat his civil 

rights were violated by defendants' misapplication of state law. 

This claim is not c ognizable in federal court. See id. 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-1408 Document: 010110270389 Date Filed: 07/09/1992 Page: 4
The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Colorado is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

5 

Appellate Case: 91-1408 Document: 010110270389 Date Filed: 07/09/1992 Page: 5