Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01135/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01135-0/pdf.json

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

---

ORI'l'ED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE 'l'ENTB CIRCUIT 

. FILED 

Unt!ed Statot Court of A 1s 

Tl!nth Circuit Pfff 

LARRY WAYNE WHITE, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO; ) 

ROY ROMER, Governor; GALE A. NORTON, ) 

Attorney General; FRANK GUNTER, ) 

Executive Director for the Colorado ) 

Department of Corrections; RONALD TRUAX,) 

Parole Agent for Parole Department, ) 

Colorado Springs, Colorado; WILLIAMS. ) 

BRIDGE, Parole Agent, Denver, Canon ) 

City, Colorado; MARK MCKENNA, Superin- ) 

tendent, Fremont Correction Facility; ) 

and WILL PEEBLES, Case Manager (F.C.F.),) 

Fremont Correction Facility, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

AUG 191991 

&OBERT L HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-1135 

(D. C. No. 91-C-120) 

(D. Colo.) 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, 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 

* 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: 91-1135 Document: 010110132105 Date Filed: 08/19/1991 Page: 1 
submitted without oral argument. 

Mr. White appeals prose the dismissal of his pro se civil 

rights suit. 

Mr. White, a Colorado prison inmate, filed his action based 

upon 42 u.s.c. § 1983 and several other statutes. The complaint 

is convoluted, rambling, conclusory, and voluminous. However, the 

gravamen appears to be an attack upon his conviction. He 

complains about his parole status and alleges a conspiracy between 

defendants. 

The district court, liberally construing the complaint, 

analyzed the allegations contained therein and determined it to be 

vague and conclusory and determined it failed to state a claim 

upon which relief could be granted. 

In his appeal to this court, Mr. White continues with the 

pleading standards contained in his complaint. Mr. White 

furthermore fails to address with any degree of specificity the 

reasons advanced by the district court for its decision. Mr. 

White contends if he had access to discovery procedures he could 

prove his case; he cites numerous cases to us that have no 

application to this case and asks that we construe everything 

liberally. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-1135 Document: 010110132105 Date Filed: 08/19/1991 Page: 2 
Merely stating his "Due Process and Equal Protection rights 

have been violated" does not entitle a prose pleader to a day in 

court, regardless of how liberally we construe such pleadings. 

Filing reams of attachments to a pleading also fails to cure the 

problem. 

Mr. White has failed to persuade us the actions of the 

district court were erroneous and we therefore AFFIRM the judgment 

of the district court for substantially the same reasons set forth 

by the Magistrate in his Recommendation of March 18, 1991, and by 

the district court in its Order of April 3, 1991, copies thereof 

being attached. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-1135 Document: 010110132105 Date Filed: 08/19/1991 Page: 3 
APR o s 1se: . . . .. . . . ---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

CASE NO. 91-C-120 

LARRY W. WHITE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, et al., 

Defendants. 

ORDER 

CARRIGAN, J. 

FILED 

UNfTEO STATES 06STltlCT COURT 

DENVER. COLORAOO 

APR 3 1991 

JAMES R. MANSPEAKER 

Cl9lt 

Plaintiff, Larry w. White, who is currently incarcerated at 

the Fremont Correctional Facility, Canon City, Colorado, 

commenced this civil rights action asserting: (1) that the 

defendants have violated his due process and equal protection 

rights; (2) that he is being subjected to cruel and unusual 

punishment; (3) that he is being subjected to ex post facto laws; 

and (4) that the defendants are conspiring against him. The case 

was assigned to Chief Magistrate Judge Donald E. Abram who 

reviewed the matter and prepared a recommendation pursuant to 

Local Rule 605. Copies of both the recommendation and the local 

rule were mailed to the plaintiff on March 19, 1991. Plaintiff 

has filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. 

I have examined the entire file, the Magistrate Judge's 

recommendation and the plaintiff's objection. The Magistrate 

Judge concluded that the plaintiff's complaint should be 

dismissed because, inter alia, "it is replete with vague and 

Appellate Case: 91-1135 Document: 010110132105 Date Filed: 08/19/1991 Page: 4 
( 

( 

conclusory statements throughout." In his objection, the 

plaintiff asserts that the complaint is not vague and conclusory. 

After reviewing the complaint's allegations liberally, as I must, 

I conclude that it is vague and conclusory and therefore it must 

be dismissed. Cotnerv. Hopkins, 795 F.2d 900, 902 (10th Cir. 1986). 

I note that the Magistrate Judge, citing Will v. Michigan Dep't of 

State Police, 491 U.S. 58, concluded that the State of Colorado and 

its officials acting in their official capacities are not 

"persons" under 42 u.s.c. § 1983. In Will, the Supreme Court 

expressly noted that if a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief only, 

States and their officials acting in their official capacities 

are "persons" under§ 1983. Because the plaintiff's complaint is 

vague and conclusory, this does not render the Magistrate Judge's 

recommendation invalid. 

Accordingly IT IS ORDERED that: 

(1) Plaintiff's objection is overruled; 

(2) The Magistrate Judge's recommendation is adopted 

as the order of this court, except to the extent 

that it concludes that in actions seeking 

injunctive relief only, the State of Colorado and 

its officials acting in their official capacities 

are not persons under§ 1983; and 

(3) Plaintiff's complaint and action are dismissed 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-1135 Document: 010110132105 Date Filed: 08/19/1991 Page: 5 
without prejudice for failure to adequately state a 

claim as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and 12. 

Dated at Denver, Colorado April 3, 1991. 

JUDGE 

hPR ~ 1991 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-1135 Document: 010110132105 Date Filed: 08/19/1991 Page: 6 
. , 

r 

I 

,. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

JUDGE JIM R. CARRIGAN 

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING 

I certify that I mailed a true and correct copy of the Order 

signed by Judge Carrigan to: 

Chief Magistrate Judge Donald Abram 

Larry Wayne White 

Reg. No. 43440 

P.O. Box 999 

canon City, co 81215-0999 

Deputy Clerk 

Dated: April 3,1991 

Re: 91-C-120 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-1135 Document: 010110132105 Date Filed: 08/19/1991 Page: 7 
r 

( 

i 

C 

FIL 10 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

NITED STATES DISTRICT COUlr' 

(OVER, COLORADO 

Civil Action No. 91-C-120 

LARRY W. WHITE, 

Plaintiff, 

MAR 18 1991 

JAMES R. .MANSPEAKER 

/ / a.En 

BY -t;; ::': ...-:::::: 

DU.CUii 

v. 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO: ROY ROMER, Governor: DUANE 

WOODARD, Attorney General: GALE NORTON, Attorney General: FRANK 

GUNTER, Executive Director for the Colorado Department of 

Corrections; RONALD TRUAX, Parole Agent, Parole Dept., Colorado 

Springs, Colorado: WILLIAM BRIDGES, Parole Agent, Parole Dept., 

Denver, canon City, Colorado; MARK MCKENNA, superintendent, 

Fremont Correctional Facility: WILL PEBBLES, Case Manager, 

Fremont Correctional Facility, 

Defendants. 

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff Larry w. White currently is serving a sentence at 

the Fremont Correctional Facility, Canon City, Colorado, of the 

Colorado Department of Corrections (the "D.O.C."). He alleges 

that he pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea bargain, to rape, that 

he was sentenced as a sex offender under the Colorado Sex 

Offenders Act of 1986 (the "Act") 1 by Denver, Colorado, District 

Court in 1975, and that he was committed to imprisonment for an 

indeterminate sentence of one day to natural life. He initiated 

this action by filing a prose civil rights complaint pursuant to 

42 u.s.c. § 1983. He alleges (1) that defendants are violating 

his due process and equal protection rights under the United 

States Constitution; (2) that having to serve a life sentence 

Colo. Rev. Stat § 16·13·201 to ·216 (1986) . 

Appellate Case: 91-1135 Document: 010110132105 Date Filed: 08/19/1991 Page: 8 
( 

( 

based upon his conviction, and a parole violation unrelated to 

his conviction, is cruel and unusual punishment; (3) that laws 

affecting his parole eligibility and parole revocation, and 

o.o.c. regulations concerning his inmate classification, are 

subjecting him to ex post facto laws; and (4) that defendants are 

conspiring against him. 2 He seeks declaratory and injunctive 

relief. Plaintiff also has filed a motion for temporary 

restraining order. 

Pursuant to Rule 605 of the Local Rules of Practice of the 

United States District Court for the District of Colorado, this 

matter has been referred to Chief Magistrate Judge Donald E. 

Abram. The Chief Magistrate Judge has reviewed the petition and 

the applicable law, and recommends that the petition be 

dismissed. The Magistrate Judge further recommends that the 

motion be denied. 

As plaintiff is representing himself, the complaint will be 

construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 

(1972); Collins v. Cundy. 603 F.2d 825, 827 (10th Cir. 1979). A 

complaint must be dismissed if, accepting the allegations as 

true, it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of 

facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. 

Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974); Meade v. Grubbs, 841 

2 Plaintiff already has raised before the Colorado Supreme Court some of the due process, 

equal protection, and cruel and unusual pi.nishment arguments he raises here. In P4!0ple v. \Jhite, 656 P.2d 

690 (Colo. 1983) (en bane), this state's highest court held (1) that the Act is rationally related to the 

legitimate legislative objective of protecting members of the public from proven dangerous sex offenders, 

and thus, satisfies state and federal due process requirements; (2) that the Act provides sufficient 

standards, and is not violative of due process as applied to Mr. White; (3) that the distinction drawn in 

statutes between release procedures for those criminally convicted under the Act and those civilly conmitted 

does not violate equal protection; and (4) that an indeterminate sentence without guaranteed treatment does 

not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-1135 Document: 010110132105 Date Filed: 08/19/1991 Page: 9 
( 

{ 

F.2d 1512, 1526 (10th Cir. 1988). See also McKinney v. Oklahoma, 

No. 90-6282 (10th Cir. Feb. 8, 1991) (to be reported at 925 F.2d 

363). To state a valid claim under 42 u.s.c. § 1983, plaintiff 

must allege that the defendants deprived him of a right secured 

by the United States Constitution while they acted under color of 

state law. Adickes v. s. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 150 

(1970). 

The primary defect in plaintiff's complaint is that it is 

replete with vague and conclusory statements throughout. For 

example, plaintiff complains that defendants are violating his 

constitutional right to due process. He claims that the Act 

denied him the right to a jury trial. The Act, however, governs 

the sentencing of sex offenders, not their right to a jury. He 

complains that defendants are violating his constitutional right 

to equal protection. He claims that he is being required to 

serve a longer period of imprisonment than civilly committed 

individuals, and yet he fails to support this alleged equal 

protection claim by factual allegations. He asserts that having 

to serve a life sentence based upon his conviction, and a parole 

violation unrelated to his conviction, is cruel and unusual 

punishment, and yet fails to provide details as to the alleged 

parole violation, other than that he committed one. He complains 

that laws affecting his parole eligibility and parole revocation, 

and D.O.C. regulations concerning his inmate classification are 

subjecting him to ex post facto laws. He fails, however, to 

identify these laws and regulations. The complaint, therefore, 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-1135 Document: 010110132105 Date Filed: 08/19/1991 Page: 10 
r 

is vague and conclusory, and must be dismissed. Cotner v. 

Hopkins, 795 F.2d 900, 902 (10th Cir. 1986); Sooner Products Co. 

v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir. 1983); Wise v. Bravo, 

666 F.2d 1328, 1332-33 (10th Cir. 1981). 

As to the claim that defendants are conspiring against him, 

plaintiff offers nothing more than vague and conclusory 

allegations concerning such conspiracy. He fails to allege 

specific facts showing agreement and concerted action among 

defendants. Conclusory allegations of conspiracy are 

insufficient to state a valid civil rights claim. Durre v. 

Dempsey. 869 F.2d 543, 545 (10th Cir. 1989); Hammond v. Bales, 

843 F.2d 1320, 1323 (10th Cir. 1988): Sooner Products Co. v. 

McBride, 708 F.2d at 512. 

The State of Colorado and its officials acting in their 

official capacities, i.e., defendants Governor Roy Romer, former 

Attorney General Duane Woodard, Attorney General Gale Norton and 

D.O.C. Executive Director Frank Gunter, are not persons under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 

58, 109 s. ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed. 2d 45 (1989). A lawsuit against a 

state official in his official capacity is considered a lawsuit 

against the official's office, and as such, a lawsuit against the 

state itself. Id. Further, as plaintiff does not allege that 

either defendant Gunter or defendant Mark McKenna was involved 

personally in any of the alleged constitutional violations, it is 

clear that each of these defendants is being sued in his 

supervisory capacity as D.O.C. executive director or 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-1135 Document: 010110132105 Date Filed: 08/19/1991 Page: 11 
. . 

( 

( 

superintendent of the Fremont Correctional Facility respectively. 

"Personal participation is an essential allegation in a§ 1983 

action." Bennett v. Passic, 545 F.2d 1260, 1262-63 (10th Cir. 

1976); Massey v. Wilson, 484 F. Supp. 1332, 1333 (0. Colo. 1980). 

A supervisor may not be held liable in a civil rights action 

merely because of his supervisory position. Pembaur v. City of 

Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 479 (1986); McKee v. Heggy, 703 F.2d 

479, 483 (10th Cir. 1983). Plaintiff also fails to allege any 

personal participation in the alleged constitutional violations 

by parole agents, defendants Ronald Truax or William Bridges, or 

by Fremont Correctional Facility case manager, Will Pebbles. 

such an allegation is essential in a§ 1983 action. Bennett v. 

Passic, 545 F.2d at 1262-63; Massey v. Wilson, 484 F. Supp. at 

1333. The complaint should be dismissed as to these defendants. 

IT THEREFORE IS RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed. 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the motion be denied. 

FURTHER, IT IS ORDERED that under Rule 605 of the Local 

Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the 

District of Colorado, the parties shall have ten days after 

service hereof to serve and file any written objections in order 

to obtain reconsideration by the District Judge to whom this case 

is assigned. The party filing objections must specifically 

identify those findings or recommendations to which the 

objections are being made. The District Court need not consider 

frivolous, conclusive or general objections. A party's failure 

to file such written objections to proposed findings and 

5 

Appellate Case: 91-1135 Document: 010110132105 Date Filed: 08/19/1991 Page: 12 
recommendations contained in this report may bar the party from a 

de novo determination by the District Judge of the proposed 

findings and recommendations. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 

667, 676-83 (1980); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1). Additionally, the 

failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and 

recommendations within ten days after being served with a copy 

may bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings 

of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted or adopted by the 

District Court. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Niehaus v. 

Kansas Bar Ass'n, 793 F.2d 1159, 1164 (10th Cir. 1986). 

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this \3~ day o~, 

1991. 

BY THE COURT: 

co7~:;:>~ 

Chief Magistrate Judge 

6 

Appellate Case: 91-1135 Document: 010110132105 Date Filed: 08/19/1991 Page: 13 
• 

( 

( 

LOCAL RULES OF PRACTICE 

RULE 605 

Prisoner Petitions 

A. Subject to provisions of the United States Supreme Court Rules ~overning 

§2254 and §2255 cases, the uniform rules of ancillary forms for use in the district 

court within the Tenth Circuit have been adopted. These rules apply to E!.£ ~ 

petitions for writs of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U .S.C. §§ 2241 and 2254 and 

motions under Rule 35, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and to civil rights 

complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Copies of the uniform rules and ancillary forms 

shall be made available upon request made to the clerk. 

B. When presented for filing, _E!£. ~ petitions under 28 U .S.C. §§ 2241 and 

2254 and .P.!£ ~ complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 shall be delivered to a magistrate 

who shall review the motion and affidavit to proceed in forma pauperis and rule 

thereon in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915. If the motion is granted, the magistrate 

shall promptly review the file and, if there is any basis for jurisdiction and possible 

merit, the Magistrate shall direct the clerk to make service of process. 

C. If the magistrate determines that the case may be dismissed pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) or F.R.Civ.P. 12, the magistrate shall prepare a 

recommendation and appropriate order for consideration by a district judge, who 

shall at that time be selected as provided in Rule 200. 

D. These cases shall be assigned to a district judge drawn by lot and to a 

designated magistrate. The assigned magistrate shall review promptly all further 

pleadings and may: 

1. Issue such orders as may be needed to obtain a complete record. 

2. Conduct such evidentiary hearings as may be necessary, including 

the conduct of on-site depositions and investigations. 

3. Prepare appropriate findings and recommendations for consideration 

by the district judge, copies of which shall be mailed to the parties who shall have 

ten (IO) days after service thereof to serve and file specific written objections thereto. 

If no such objections are timely filed, the magistrate's proposed findings and 

recommendations may be accepted by the district judge and appropriate orders entered 

without further notice. 

4. Obtain the expected release date of inmates filing complaints under 

42 U.S.C. §1983 to determine when plaintiffs may be available for trial. 

(Revisions Effective February I, 1984) 

Appellate Case: 91-1135 Document: 010110132105 Date Filed: 08/19/1991 Page: 14 
... 

( 

( 

Civil Action No. 91-C-120 

I certify that I have this 19th day of March, 1991, mailed or delivered 

to the following a true copy of the attached and foregoing Recommendation 

of U.S. Magistrate Judge which was signed by Chief Colorado Magistrate 

Judge D.E. Abram on March 19, 1991: 

Larry Wayne White 

Reg. No. 43440 

Fremont Correction Facility 

P. 0. Box 999 

Canon City, CO 81215-0999 

JAMES R. MANSPEAKER, CLERK 

United States Di.strict Court 

·1, r 0 ,-,/ 

By ' Fl /,' / ,h(/:k<: Clerk to ChMf Magistrate Judge Abram 

Appellate Case: 91-1135 Document: 010110132105 Date Filed: 08/19/1991 Page: 15