Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-07050/USCOURTS-ca10-92-07050-0/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 I L ... J 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeal, Tenth Ch·cuit 

MIKELL PATRICK SMITH, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

JAMES L. SAFFLE; BOBBY L. BOONE; RITA ) 

ANDREWS; DANNY NACE; JERRY DOWLING; ) 

PERRY LITTLE JOHN; BOBBY BRYANT; LLOYD ) 

BASINGER; BILLY L. KEY; GEORGE DUGAN; ) 

BRUCE H. WHITE; GARY D. MAYNARD; ) 

LARRY A. FIELDS; JERRY JOHNSON; LINDA ) 

MORGAN, Administrative ·officer, Oklahoma) 

State Prison; NANCY CARPENTER, Oklahoma) 

State Prison; LARRY WATSON, Sergeant, ) 

Oklahoma State Prison; KATHY STRONG, ) 

Correctional Officer, Oklahoma State ) 

Prison, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

FEB 2 3 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk . 

No. 92-7050 

(D.C. No. CIV 90-498-S ) 

( E . D. Okla . ) 

Before TACHA and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, and BROWN,** Senior 

District Judge. 

**Honorable Wesley E. Brown, Senior District Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

* 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: 92-7050 Document: 010110175850 Date Filed: 02/23/1993 Page: 1 
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 case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff-appellant Mikell Patrick Smith, an inmate at the 

Oklahoma State Penitentiary, brought an action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various officials of both the 

penitentiary and the Oklahoma Department of Corrections alleging 

violation of his rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, 

Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments . Plaintiff alleged that these 

violations occurred after he was confined to a strip cell, chained 

to a bunk with four-point restraints, and denied food, personal 

property, hygiene articles, religious materials, the opportunity 

for outdoor exercise, and access to a minister, his attorney, and 

the courts. Plaintiff also alleged that during the time he was 

under four-point restraint, he was forced to lie in his own bodily 

excrement and was later impermissibly confined in a special cell 

in the disciplinary unit and subjected to further unconstitutional 

restrictions. He also complained he was denied visitation with 

his mother and that authorities filed a false misconduct report 

against him. Plaintiff received permission to proceed in forma 

pauperis under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

The district court ordered defendants to prepare a report 

pursuant to the guidelines of Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F . 2d 317 

(10th Cir. 1978). After considering plaintiff's complaint, 

defendants' motion to dismiss and brief in support, and the 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-7050 Document: 010110175850 Date Filed: 02/23/1993 Page: 2 
Martinez report, the district court dismissed plaintiff's 

complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915{d) . 1 We hold that, 

in so doing, the district court abused its discretion. See Yellen 

v. Cooper, 828 F.2d 1471, 1475 (10th Cir. 1987) (dismissal under 

§ 1915(d) is reviewed for abuse of discretion). We, therefore, 

vacate the dismissal and remand this case for further proceedings. 

In reaching its decision to dismiss the complaint, the court 

quoted from the Martinez report regarding plaintiff's violent 

history, his threats of violence against the staff, and the 

various means taken by prison authorities to deal with plaintiff. 

The report stated that 

(p]laintiff is allowed underwear in his cell, 

outdoor exercise, laundry service, phone calls (legal 

and personal), access to a law clerk and minister, 

visitors, and personal hygiene items and property which 

cannot be made into weapons . These allegations have 

been addressed by the plaintiff in the grievance 

procedure and reviewed by defendants. 

Rec. Vol. II, tab 48 at 2 (Order) . Based on these 

representations, the court, after analyzing the restrictions under 

the standards of Turner v. Safley. 482 U.S. 78, 89-90 (1987), 

concluded that "the plaintiff has not suffered any deprivation of 

any constitutional rights by imposing special regulations upon the 

plaintiff which are reasonable and necessary for safety and 

security of the staff and other inmates, and plaintiff's claims 

1 28 U. S . C. § 1915(d) provides 

The court may request an attorney to represent 

any ... person unable to employ counsel and may 

dismiss the case if the allegation of poverty is untrue, 

or if satisfied that the action is frivolous or 

malicious. 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-7050 Document: 010110175850 Date Filed: 02/23/1993 Page: 3 
are without merit." Id. In reaching this conclusion, the court 

impermissibly went beyond the bounds of the proper use of a 

Martinez report. 

The purpose of a Martinez report is to "develop a record 

sufficient to ascertain whether there are any factual or legal 

bases for the prisoner's claims." Hall v . Bellmen, 935 F.2d 1106, 

1109 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Martinez, 570 F.2d at 318-19). 

Although a Martinez report may be considered in dismissing a claim 

as frivolous under§ 1915(d) , "it cannot resolve material disputed 

factual issues by accepting the report ' s factual findings when 

they are in conflict with pleadings or affidavits." Id. (citing 

Reed v . Dunham, 893 F . 2d 285, 287 n.2 (10th Cir. 1990); El ' Amin v. 

Pearce, 750 F.2d 829, 832 (10th Cir. 1984); Sampley v. Ruettgers, 

704 F . 2d 491, 493 n.3 (10th Cir. 1983 ) ). 

The district court relied on the Martinez report to conclude 

that "any special restrictions placed upon plaintiff were 

reasonable and necessary due to the plaintiff's violent actions 

and attitude . " Order at 2. This conclusion, while it may be born 

out eventually, is premature when based only upon the information 

in the Martinez report. 2 

2 We note that a United States magistrate judge had notified 

the parties that "the Court [was) inclined to treat the affidavits 

supporting the parties' positions as a motion for summary judgment 

pursuant to the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P . 56." Rec . Vol. II, 

tab 31 at 2. The eventual Order appealed from, however, states 

that only the complaint, defendants' motion to dismiss, 

plaintiff's response to the motion , and the Martinez report were 

considered. Defendants' motion for summary judgment and the 

supporting brief (the latter not part of the record on appeal) 

were apparently not part of the court's deliberation. Further, 

the Order clearly relies on§ 1915(d), characterizes the claims as 

frivolous, and dismisses them. 

4 

(continued on next page) 

Appellate Case: 92-7050 Document: 010110175850 Date Filed: 02/23/1993 Page: 4 
We further note that, while the Martinez report may have been 

an accurate reflection of the conditions of plaintiff's 

confinement at the time it was written, neither it nor the 

district court addressed plaintiff's claims of constitutional 

violation in the hours and days immediately following his 

confinement to the strip cell. Upon remand and further 

development of the record, these claims can be more fully 

explored, including plaintiff's claims that he was denied counsel, 

bedding, personal hygiene items, and access to the law library, 

and, further, that he was forced to lie in his own excrement while 

chained to the bunk. We note that the latter claim goes to the 

conditions of plaintiff's confinement, and that plaintiff, 

therefore, must demonstrate the deliberate indifference of prison 

officials, see Wilson v. Seiter, 111 S . Ct. 2321, 2327 (1991). 

The question of defendants' intent is "typically not a proper 

issue for resolution on summary judgment," Wilson v . Seiter, 893 

F.2d 861, 866 {6th Cir. 1990), vacated and remanded on other 

grounds. 111 S. Ct. 2321 (1991), and certainly not on a motion to 

dismiss pursuant to§ 1915{d). 

{continued from previous page) 

Even i f the court had considere d matters outside of the 

ple adings so that its action could b e viewed as a grant of summary 

judgment to defendants, summary judgment would have been 

inappropriate in light of plaintiff's claim that he was required 

to lie in his own excrement during the time he was restrained, a 

c laim unrebutted anywhere in the record. See Young v. Quinlan, 

960 F.2d 351, 365 {3d Cir. 199 2) {forcing prisoner to remain in 

cell for s e veral days without being allowed to use toile t 

f aciliti es states a clai m under the Eighth Amendment). 

5 

Appellate Case: 92-7050 Document: 010110175850 Date Filed: 02/23/1993 Page: 5 
As alternate grounds for affirmance, defendants argue that 

plaintiff has failed to allege the personal participation of any 

of the defendants, an essential requisite of a§ 1983 claim. We 

agree that to be liable an individual defendant must have been 

personally involved in the alleged deprivation of the plaintiff's 

rights. Coleman v. Turpen, 697 F.2d 1341, 1343 n . 7 (10th Cir. 

1982) ; Bennett v . Passic, 545 F . 2d 1260, 1262 - 63 (10th Cir. 1976 ). 

This flaw in plaintiff's complaint, however, is not a basis upon 

which to dismiss his complaint as frivolous. If plaintiff is 

unable to amend his complaint to be more specific in his 

allegations regarding which of the defendants caused the 

deprivation of his rights, his case may be subject to dismissal 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6), or he may have judgment rendered 

against him pursuant to a motion for summary judgment . That 

possibility, however, does not mean that, 

failed to tie specific individuals to 

complaint should have been dismissed 

because plaintiff has 

specific actions, his 

under § 1915 {d ) . "The 

concern that prose litigants have notice and opportunity to avoid 

dismissal of their legitimate claims by amending and supporting 

their pleadings militates against equating § 1915 (d ) and Rule 

12 (b) (6) standards. " Hall, 935 F.2d at 1109 (citing Neitzke v . 

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 329-30 (1989) ) . 

Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified 

immunity, thus justifying dismissal of plaintiff's claims. Be 

that as it may, and without prejudice to any later showing by 

defendants on this defense, we have held that"' [w)here a public 

official has or may have a defense based on qualified immunity, 

6 

Appellate Case: 92-7050 Document: 010110175850 Date Filed: 02/23/1993 Page: 6 
. dismissal of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is 

not appropriate . , n Yellen, 828 F.2d at 1475-76. 

In addition to the dismissal of his complaint, plaintiff also 

objects to the district court's refusal to appoint counsel for him 

in this litigation. "There is no constitutional right to 

appointed counsel in a civil case." Durre v. Dempsey. 869 F.2d 

543, 547 {10th Cir. 1989 ) . There are circumstances, however, 

where appointment of counsel is appropriate. See McCarthy v. 

Weinberg. 753 F.2d 836, 838-39 {10th Cir. 1985). The district 

court is vested with broad discretion in determining whether to 

appoint counsel, id. at 839, and 11 [o]nly in those extreme cases 

where the lack of counsel results in fundamental unfairness will 

the district court's decision be overturned," id. The district 

court here did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's 

motion for appointment of counsel . Plaintiff's motion for 

appointment of counsel on appeal is DENIED. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Oklahoma denying plaintiff appointed counsel 

is AFFIRMED; that portion of the court's judgment dismissing 

plaintiff's complaint is VACATED; and this case is REMANDED for 

further proceedings consistent herewith. 

Entered for the Court 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

7 

- - ----- - - --- - ----

Appellate Case: 92-7050 Document: 010110175850 Date Filed: 02/23/1993 Page: 7 
Appellate Case: 92-7050 Document: 010110175850 Date Filed: 02/23/1993 Page: 8