Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-08002/USCOURTS-ca10-90-08002-0/pdf.json

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

---

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

ARLAN G. REYNOLDSON, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) No. 

) 

DUANE SHILLINGER, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

FILED 

Uoired States Court of Appea,!s 

Tenth Circuit 

JUN 2 8 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

90-8002 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Wyoming 

(D.C. No. 89-80) 

Arlan G. Reynoldson, Pro Se 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge. 

Appellate Case: 90-8002 Document: 01019880570 Date Filed: 06/28/1990 Page: 1 
Prose prisoner Arlan G. Reynoldson appeals the district 

court's dismissal with prejudice of his complaint for injunctive 

relief against the Warden of the Wyoming State Penitentiary under 

42 u.s.c. § 1983 for alleged due process violations. 1 The alleged 

violations arose from the placement of inmates into an "adjustment 

block" of the Wyoming State Penitentiary without a due process 

hearing, and from denial of access to personal possessions without 

a hearing. The district court also denied leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis and plaintiff's motion to so proceed on appeal is 

before us. We grant the in forma pauperis petition and reverse. 

The record below does not contain a responsive pleading frc.11 

the Warden or a motion to dismiss. The record also contains no 

indication that plaintiff was notified of the impending dismissal 

of his complaint. Instead the district court apparently dismissed 

the complaint with prejudice sua sponte for plaintiff's failure to 

allege that he himself was wronged. The court construed the 

complaint as referring o~ly to "inmates'' in general who have been 

subjected to the alleged illegal treatment. The court also relied 

on the alternative ground that plaintiff's allegations were overly 

broad and conclusory. 

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 cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-8002 Document: 01019880570 Date Filed: 06/28/1990 Page: 2 
We agree with the district court's ruling that, to the extent 

a complaint concerns "inmates'' rather than the plaintiff himself, 

it is dismissable for failure to allege the plaintiff's standing 

to proceed. See Foremaster v. City of St. George, 882 F.2d 1485, 

1487 (10th Cir. 1989) (plaintiff must establish personal stake in 

outcome). We believe, however, that a broad reading of the 

complaint in this case supports a conclusion that plaintiff did 

allege that he himself was put into the special block without due 

process. In response to the query on the section 1983 complaint 

form conc~rning whether administrative relief was sought, 

plaintiff stated that, "! have filed a grievance concerning this, 

others have also." Rec., Civil Rights Complaint, at 5 (emphasis 

added). A common sense reading of this statement indicates that 

plaintiff was among those who sought administrative redress for 

being segregated in the manner alleged. Our permissive 

interpretation accords with the well-settled principle that prose 

prisoner complaints must be construed liberally. See Meade v. 

Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512, 1526 (10th Cir. 1988) (prose complaints 

held "'to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted 

by lawyers'")(quoting Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980) (per 

curiam)). 

We have even greater difficulty seeing why, in light of the 

permissive standard accorded prose prisoner pleadings, the 

district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. "[If] it 

is at all possible that the party against whom the dismissal is 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-8002 Document: 01019880570 Date Filed: 06/28/1990 Page: 3 
i 

I I 

directed can correct the defect in the pleading or state a claim 

for relief, the court should dismiss with leave to amend.'' 6 c. 

Wright, A. Miller & M. Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure, Civil 

2d § 1483 (West 1990). Particularly where deficiencies in a 

complaint are attributable to oversights likely the result of an 

untutored prose litigant's ignorance of special pleading 

requirements, dismissal of the complaint without prejudice is 

preferable. See Guerrero v. Hauck, 502 F.2d 579, 580 (5th Cir. 

1974) (dismissal of prose prisoner complaint with prejudice 

constituted reversible error when defects might have been cured by 

amendment). Indeed, we have extended to prose plaintiffs an 

opportunity to remedy defects potentially attributable to their 

ignorance of federal law and motion practice both in a summary 

judgment and in a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b}(6) context. See Jaxon v. 

Circle K Corp., 773 F.2d 1138, 1140 (10th Cir. 1985) ("The 

district court abused its discretion by failing to give [the pro 

se plaintiff] 'a meaningful opportunity to remedy the obvious 

defects in his summary judgment materials."')(quoting Barker v. 

Norman, 651 F.2d 1107, 1128-29 (5th Cir. 1981)); Cooper v. United 

States Penitentiary, 433 F.2d 596, 597 (10th Cir. 1970) (per 

curiam) (dismissal of prose prisoner complaint for failure to 

allege exhaustion of administrative remedies under FTCA error 

where plaintiff not given opportunity to meet asserted deficiency 

in pleading). Cf. Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th 

Cir. 1987) (before dismissing a prose action, court should make 

certain that other less drastic alternatives not available); 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-8002 Document: 01019880570 Date Filed: 06/28/1990 Page: 4 
Remmers v. Brewer, 475 F.2d 52, 53 (8th Cir. 1973) (per curiarn) 

(opportunity to respond is prerequisit~ to dismissal in civil 

case). 

The record in the present case suggests that plaintiff was 

initially unaware of the crucial distinction between his 

references to ''inmates" and a specific reference to himself. In 

his Motion For Leave To Proceed On Appeal Without Prepayment of 

Costs or Fees at 2, now apprised of the significance of the 

omission by the district court's order of dismissal, plaintiff 

avers that he ''was in fact on this ['adjustment'] block and being 

subjected to the condi_tions complained of.'' The purpose of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is to encourage final 

dispositions on the merits. Cf. Dussouy v. Gulf Coast Inv. Corp., 

660 F.2d 594, 598 (5th Cir. 1981) ("The policy of the federal 

rules is to permit liberal amendment to facilitate determination 

of claims on the merits and to prevent litigation from becoming a 

technical exercise in the fine points of pleading"). Accordingly, 

we hold that the district court erred in dismissing plaintiff's 

complaint with prejudice. 

We also take issue with the district court's alternative 

ground for dismissal with prejudice on the basis of the vagueness 

of the factual allegations. Plaintiff alleges that without any 

due process hearing, inmates new to the facility or just corning 

out of segregation are placed in a special cellblock where 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-8002 Document: 01019880570 Date Filed: 06/28/1990 Page: 5 
privileges granted to the general prison population are denied. 

While it is true that plaintiff does not allege the existence of a 

statute or prison regulation implicating a liberty interest, see 

Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 467-68 (1983) (no liberty interest 

in freedom from confinement in administrative segregation in 

absence of statutes or prison regulation creating such interest); 

Bailey v. Shillinger, 828 F.2d 651, 653 (10th Cir. 1987) (per 

curiam) (same), prose prisoner complaints are not held to such 

specific standards at the preliminary pleading stage. See Estelle 

v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (prose complaint "can only be 

dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears 'beyond doubt 

that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his 

claim which would entitle him to relief"')(quoting Haines v. 

Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972)(per curiam)). See also Meade, 

841 F.2d at 1526. Plaintiff should be given the opportunity to 

allege in an amended complaint a protected liberty interest by 

virtue of an internal regulation or other procedure, the existence 

or significance of which now escapes him. 

Plaintiff has alleged deprivations of liberty and property 

which, upon further investigation and development, could raise 

substantial issues. We therefore grant leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis on appeal. See Neitzke v. Williams, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 

1834 (1989) (complaint dismissable under Rule 12(b)(6) not 

automatically "frivolous'' within meaning of 28 u.s.c. § 1915(d)); 

Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 446 (1962) (denial 

-6-

Appellate Case: 90-8002 Document: 01019880570 Date Filed: 06/28/1990 Page: 6 
appropriate only when complaint clearly frivolous). We hold that 

the district court erred in attaching prejudice to the dismissal. 

The case is reversed and remanded with instructions that the 

dismissal be without prejudice to plaintiff's filing an amended 

complaint. 

-7-

Appellate Case: 90-8002 Document: 01019880570 Date Filed: 06/28/1990 Page: 7