Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03365/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03365-0/pdf.json

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

---

, 

FILbD 

United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

DONALD GEE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

JOHN DUNCANSON and 

WESLEY MORRIS, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

TENTH CIRCUIT MAY 2 6 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER Clerk . 

No. 92-3365 

(D.C. No. 89-CV-3294-S) 

(D. Kan.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, Chief Judge, SETH and BARRE'I"r, 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); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellant Donald Gee, presently incarcerated in Rawlins, 

Wyoming, commenced a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 while housed in Leavenworth County Jail, Leavenworth, 

Kansas. Appellant alleged that during his incarceration there he 

was beaten without provocation and suffers painful, permanent 

*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: 92-3365 Document: 010110115776 Date Filed: 05/26/1993 Page: 1 
injuries. Appellant appeals the order of the United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas granting Appellees' 

motion for summary judgment. Appellant's motion for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis is granted. We affirm for the reasons 

stated below. 

On appeal, Appellant raises two issues: first, whether the 

district court erroneously refused to sanction Appellee Duncanson 

and compel him to return to Appellant his legal files that had 

been previously confiscated; and second, whether the district 

court erroneously granted Appellees' motion for summary judgment 

without providing Appellant with notice to respond. 

On June 28, 1988, Appellee Duncanson, the jail commander, 

directed officers to secure the cells in the area of the jail in 

which Appellant was housed for maintenance work. Because 

Appellant's cell would not lock, Appellant had .to move to another 

cell. Appellant would not comply with th~ order to move from his 

cell without packing his legal files to take with him. A forced 

cell move was commenced by four jail officers. Appellant was 

removed from the cell, handcuffed and shackled, and placed in a 

holding cell. At 1:15 p.m., approximately five hours later, 

Appellant was examined by a prison doctor. He complained of pain 

in his left wrist, numbness in his hand, pain in his right ankle, 

shoulder, and neck, and a scratch on his left cheek. The doctor 

found no indication of trauma requiring x-rays. At approximately 

4:00 p.m., while still in isolation, Appellant repeatedly pounded 

on the walls of his cell and caused the cell to flood. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-3365 Document: 010110115776 Date Filed: 05/26/1993 Page: 2 
, 

On June 29, 1988, pursuant to a request by Appellant early 

that morning, Appellant was transported to a hospital for x-rays . 

The x-rays were negative for fractures, but there was a finding of 

soft tissue swelling in Appellant's left ankle. 

In granting Appellees' motion for summary judgment, the 

district court reviewed the three factors set forth in Sampley v. 

Ruettgers, 704 F.2d 491 (10th Cir.), for review of excessive force 

claims: whether the guard intended to harm the prisoner; whether 

the guard used more force than reasonably necessary to maintain or 

restore institutional order; and whether the guard's actions 

caused severe pain or lasting injury to the prisoner. The 

district court found no evidence that Appellees intended to cause 

harm and determined that the degree of force was reasonable under 

the circumstances and was not a malicious or sadistic application 

of force. Appellees' motion for summary judgment was therefore 

granted. 

The first issue we address is whether the district court 

erred in granting Appellees' motion for summary judgment without 

providing to Appellant a notice to respond. Appellant cites cases 

which hold that a district court must give notice to a prose 

prisoner of the need to respond to a motion for summary judgment. 

See,~, Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir.); Graham 

v. Lewinski, 848 F.2d 342 (2d Cir.). This is not, however, the 

rule in this circuit. The Tenth Circuit has adopted no special 

provisions of notice for prose prisoners, and adheres to the 

provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) without embellishment. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-3365 Document: 010110115776 Date Filed: 05/26/1993 Page: 3 
Appellant's remaining issue, whether the district court erred 

in refusing to sanction or compel Appellee Duncanson for failure 

to return his full legal files, is rendered moot by our 

disposition of the above issue. After Appellees filed their 

motion for summary judgment, Appellant filed a request for an 

emergency order to compel Appellee Duncanson to return the legal 

files that Appellant had left in the Leavenworth County Jail upon 

his transfer to the Wyoming prison. Appellees responded by 

informing Appellant and the district court that arrangements had 

been made to transfer the files, and the files were subsequently 

received by Appellant in Wyoming._~ Appellant later contended that 

some of the documents were missing from the files, and that two 

entire boxes had not been shipped to him. Appellant argues that 

he was unable to prosecute his claim without the missing 

materials. 

Because the district court granted Appellees' motion for 

summary judgment and dismissed the matter, Appellant's ability to 

litigate his claims is academic. Appellant has never contended 

that the allegedly missing files were necessary to respond to the 

summary judgment motion, and indeed never responded in any way to 

that motion, although it was pending for over eight months. We 

find that the district court did not err in declining to sanction 

or compel Appellee Duncanson to return the ostensibly missing 

files. ) I 

Accordingly, the order of the District Court for the District 

of Kansas is AFFIRMED. ~ I 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

Oliver Seth 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-3365 Document: 010110115776 Date Filed: 05/26/1993 Page: 4