Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03220/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03220-0/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 ~ D 

U-u.i 5t-. Courtr!. Appeals TENTH CIRCUIT .. Tenth CircUlt 

THEODORE S. BLEDSOE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

LOUISE. BRUCE, STEVEN J . DAVIES, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

M~R3 1 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-3220 

(D. Kansas) 

(No. 90-3342-S) 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON, and BALDOCK, 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(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument . 

This is an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of the 

defendants in this civil rights action. The summary judgment was 

entered in response to a motion for summary judgment filed on 

April 4 , 1991 , on behalf of the defendants, by their counsel, the 

Attorney General of the State of Kansas. 

* 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 estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

-----------

Appellate Case: 92-3220 Document: 010110199143 Date Filed: 03/31/1993 Page: 1 
On December 11, 1992, we directed the attorney general to 

file a brief on appeal and to respond to questions set out in the 

order. A copy of the order is attached hereto and made a part 

hereof. 

The brief which we received in response is not submitted by 

the attorney general, but by private counsel. That lawyer has not 

entered an appearance on appeal in this case. The only appearance 

is by an assistant attorney general, whose name is not on the 

brief. The brief itself was returned twice by the clerk of court 

for noncompliance with the rules of the court. In order to not 

further prolong this matter, we will treat the brief as the 

attorney general's response to our order. 

Among the questions to which a response was directed, the 

attorney general was asked to explain the propriety of seeking a 

summary judgment when more than 100 pages of exhibits, 

unauthenticated by affidavit or otherwise, were included. We also 

asked how such exhibits could properly have been considered by the 

district court. In the brief filed in response two answers are 

given to this question: (1) Mr. Bledsoe stipulated to the 

authenticity of the exhibits during the pretrial conference, as 

shown by the pretrial order entered on July 1, 1991; and (2) the 

district court did not grant the motion for summary judgment but, 

rather, dismissed Mr. Bledsoe's complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12 (b) (6). Under this latter theory, according to the brief, all 

of the exhibits attached to the answer were properly considered by 

the district court as part of the "pleadings." Neither answer 

addresses the question directly, and both are trivial. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-3220 Document: 010110199143 Date Filed: 03/31/1993 Page: 2 
The pretrial order contains the following stipulation at 

paragraph 6: "[P]laintiff's medical records may be received in 

evidence without foundation proof." (Emphasis added). The same 

is said with respect to "institutional records." That stipulation 

not only did not identify specific documents which may be admitted 

without foundation, or how each exhibit attached to the 

defendants' answer did or did not relate (paragraph 10 of the 

pretrial order required both sides to exchange proposed exhibits 

twenty days prior to trial), it was referring to the admission of 

exhibits at trial, and then only if offered, i.e., they were not 

yet "received in evidence." 

Any disposition under Rule 12(b) (6) requires the district 

court to regard "the factual allegations in the complaint [as] 

true .... " Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326 (1989). 

See,~. Northington v. Jackson, 973 F.2d 1518, 1522 (10th Cir. 

1992) (" [A] complaint may not be dismissed pursuant to Rule 

12(b) (6) 'unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can 

prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle 

him to relief. ' See Conley [v. Gibson], 355 U.S. [41] at 45-46. 

The court is to accept all allegations as true and make a 

legal determination regarding whether the allegations state a 

claim."). The allegations of the complaint are to be construed 

"in the light most favorable" to the plaintiff. Brower v. Inyo 

County, 489 U.S. 593, 598 (1989) . And, the rule itself explains 

how it converts to a Rule 56 proceeding when matters outside "the 

pleading" are presented to and considered by the district court. 

The rule is so clear, and these principles are so well 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-3220 Document: 010110199143 Date Filed: 03/31/1993 Page: 3 
established, and so obvious, that they should not require 

repeating here for the benefit of counsel. 

It is frivolous to contend that Mr. Bledsoe's complaint 

cannot survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12 (b ) (6 ) . It is 

equally frivolous to argue that the more than 100 pages of 

exhibits from which appellees' counsel, both below and in this 

court, make repeated arguments on disputed facts, were properly 

before the district court for purposes of either Fed . R. Civ. P. 

12 (b )( 6) or 56. 

Other answers submitted in the appellees' brief in response 

to our order are equally unsatisfactory, and some of our questions 

were either not answered directly or not answered at all. 

However, we need not pursue the matter further. The judgment 

entered by the district court in this case was improper. 

Mr . Bledsoe's motion to proceed on appeal without prepayment 

of costs or fees is GRANTED. The district court's judgment in 

favor of the defendants is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED for 

further proceedings. On remand, the district court is urged to 

review the state of this file from its inception, including 

counsel's noncompliance with the rules, and the quality of 

counsel's representations made to the district court. The clerk 

of this court is directed to place a copy of the appellees' brief 

on appeal in the district court file, and to mail a copy of this 

Order and Judgment, and the said brief, to Robert T . Stephan, 

- 4 -

Appellate Case: 92-3220 Document: 010110199143 Date Filed: 03/31/1993 Page: 4 
Attorney General of the State of Kansas, marked for his personal 

attention. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-5 -

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-3220 Document: 010110199143 Date Filed: 03/31/1993 Page: 5 
Appellate Case: 92-3220 Document: 010110199143 Date Filed: 03/31/1993 Page: 6 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

THEODORE S . BLEDSOE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

LOUISE. BRUCE, STEVEN J. DAVIES, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDER 

Filed December 11, 1992. 

No. 92-3220 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

The defendants/appellees, through their attorney, the 

Attorney General of the State of Kansas, are directed to file by 

January 11, 1993, an answer brief to the plaintiff/appellant's 

brief on appeal. The appellant, Theodore S. Bledsoe, is 

permitted, but not required, to file a reply to the appellees' 

brief no later than January 29, 1993. 

In addition to other issues addressed by the appellees in 

their answer brief, the appellees shall respond to the following: 

1. Cite and explain the authority permitting the appellees, 

in their motion and argument on summary judgment in the 

district court, to incorporate into the record by 

reference to their answer, more than 100 pages of 

exhibits unauthenticated by affidavit or otherwise; and 

Appellate Case: 92-3220 Document: 010110199143 Date Filed: 03/31/1993 Page: 7 
the authority which permitted the district court to 

consider such material in reaching its decision. See, 

~, Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (e) ; Canada v . Blaine's 

Helicopters, Inc., 831 F.2d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 1987) ; 

Cummings v. Roberts, 628 F.2d 1065, 1068 (8th Cir. 

1980); lOA C. Wright, A. Miller & M. Kane, Federal 

Practice and Procedure§ 2722 at 58-60 (2d ed. 1983). 

2. The record shows that on August 30, 1990, the appellant 

filed a document seeking to prevent the district judge 

who handled this case from sitting on the case due to 

alleged bias, and other reasons. This pleading is in 

substance a motion to recuse. The record does not 

disclose any ruling with respect to this pleading. 

Explain why the court was not required to dispose of 

that motion before proceeding further. See,~, Bell 

v. Chandler, 569 F.2d 556, 559 (10th Cir. 1978 ); Hinman 

v. Rogers, 831 F .2d 937, 938-40 (10th Cir. 1987). 

3. In his complaint the appellant alleges that he was 

transferred twice, once in December, 1989, and once on 

o r about July 12, 1990, solely to interfere with his 

access to the state courts. (See also Appellant's 

affidavit in the district court, filed April 19, 1991). 

Identify in the r ecord the specific exhibits or 

affidavits showing that those transfers were made at the 

appellant's request, or for specified treatment, or for 

any other valid penological reason, as shown on the face 

of the exhibit or affidavit. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-3220 Document: 010110199143 Date Filed: 03/31/1993 Page: 8 
4. In pleadings and other materials filed subsequent to the 

complaint, appellant amplified his claims. For example, 

in his answer to the motion to dismiss (contained in the 

prayer for relief in the defendant's answer to the 

complaint), appellant alleges that as a result of being 

forced to do work beyond his capacity due to disability, 

he now must use crutches. Some other allegations are: 

he was forced to work eight hours a day for five months 

mopping floors, and later, manual labor laundry work . 

(Response to Pretrial Order) . He was denied an 

examination by a doctor for twenty-two months, despite 

requests; medical records have been falsified; he has 

been made a cripple by forced labor and denial of 

treatment, etc . 

Motion). 

(Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' 

May and should these additional allegations be 

taken into account: as amendments to or otherwise part 

of the complaint? As the equivalent of affidavits which 

the district court was required to consider in ruling on 

the motion for summary judgment? 

5 . The file indicates that appellant was designated for 

light work "without long standing or lifting," due to 

his physical condition, on various occasions, beginning 

as early as December 30, 1988 . See,~. memo to unit 

team 2/8/89. What exhibits or affidavits demonstrate no 

genuine issue of material fact regarding appellant's 

contention that he was forced to do manual labor most of 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-3220 Document: 010110199143 Date Filed: 03/31/1993 Page: 9 
1989 and several months into 1990, which labor was 

beyond his capacity due to disability and caused him 

suffering, and (if it may be inferred) an abnormal 

degeneration of his physical condition to the point of 

becoming a cripple forced to use crutches. 

6. What exhibits, including affidavits, show appellant 

received medical care, evaluation and treatment for his 

back condition during the period from January, 1989, 

through June, 1990? What exhibits show specific 

requests for such care? 

7. What authority controls the weight to be given previous 

total disability ratings by state and federal agencies, 

in evaluating allegations such as those made by the 

appellant in this case? 

8. The district court's Memorandum and Order filed June 5, 

1992, states that appellant failed to state a claim upon 

which relief could be granted, citing Fed. R. Civ. P . 

12(b) (6). The court then concludes that therefore 

summary judgment is granted. Is the ruling of the 

district court to be construed under 12(b) (6) standards? 

9. The district court's order, referred to above, grants 

qualified immunity. State what authority and facts 

directly support a grant of qualified immunity in this 

case, where Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976), and 

Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977 ) , issues are 

raised. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 92-3220 Document: 010110199143 Date Filed: 03/31/1993 Page: 10 
The record in this case is being returned to the clerk of the 

district court for use by the parties in preparing their briefs. 

The clerk of the district court shall transmit the record back to 

the clerk of this court no later than February 1, 1993. 

-5-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-3220 Document: 010110199143 Date Filed: 03/31/1993 Page: 11 
Appellate Case: 92-3220 Document: 010110199143 Date Filed: 03/31/1993 Page: 12