Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-08091/USCOURTS-ca10-89-08091-0/pdf.json

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

---

ROYAL 

v. 

DUANE 

PUBLISH 

FILED 

Umred St~tes (ourr of Appeals 

·remh Ci-:-::-c!t 

f1iAR G 1Q91 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ROBERT L. HOECKER 

TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk 

RUSSELL LONG, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

) No. 89-8091 

) 

SHILLINGER, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING 

(D.C. No. C-88-0343) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

Royal Russell Long, Pro Se. 

Josephine T. Porter, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Cheyenne, 

Wyoming, for Defendant-Appellee. 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

TACHA, Circuit Judge. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

Appellate Case: 89-8091 Document: 01019301423 Date Filed: 03/06/1991 Page: 1 
assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff, who is incarcerated in the Wyoming State 

Penitentiary, instituted this action against the warden seeking 

damages for the alleged violation of his civil rights, pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleged that the warden permitted 

Oklahoma to extradite plaintiff to stand trial on two kidnapping 

and two felony murder charges without affording him the process 

due under Wyoming's extradition act, Wyo. Stat. §§ 7-3-201 to 

-227. Plaintiff asserted that if he had been afforded the process 

due him under the extradition act, including the opportunity to 

file a writ of habeas corpus and have a hearing thereon, he could 

have presented evidence that would have prevented the extradition. 

He alleged that as a result of being denied the opportunity to 

prevent the extradition, he incurred attorney's fees in defense of 

the Oklahoma charges, as well as expenses for 

incarcerated in the county jail in Oklahoma. 1 

food while 

In addition, 

plaintiff's life allegedly was put in jeopardy when an inmate with 

whom he was transported back to Wyoming tried to escape and 

momentarily acquired possession of an officer's weapon. Plaintiff 

1 The record shows that plaintiff was extradited to Oklahoma on 

or about August 8, 1985, and returned to Wyoming on or about 

December 20, 1985. In the interim, plaintiff stood trial on the 

Oklahoma charges. Plaintiff alleged, and defendant does not 

dispute, that he was granted a judgment of acquittal on all 

charges at the conclusion of the prosecution's case. 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-8091 Document: 01019301423 Date Filed: 03/06/1991 Page: 2 
,. 

sought compensatory damages for the attorney's fees and other 

expenses he incurred, as well as punitive damages in the amount of 

$10,000,000. 

After the case was at issue, the district court ordered 

defendant to submit an affidavit setting forth .his version of the 

events recited in the complaint, as well as all pertinent 

documentation concerning plaintiff's extradition to Oklahoma and 

subsequent return to Wyoming. After defendant complied with this 

order and plaintiff responded, the court ordered plaintiff to 

submit a more definite statement of his damages and documentation 

thereof. Defendant then filed a motion for summary judgment on 

the grounds that the eleventh amendment barred any claims against 

him in his official capacity, and he was entitled to qualified 

immunity from any claims against him in his personal capacity. 

Plaintiff filed responses to both the motion for summary judgment 

and the order for more definite statement. 

Thereafter, on October 10, 1989, the district court entered 

an order denying defendant's motion for summary judgment and 

entering judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant in 

his official capacity. The court awarded plaintiff nominal 

damages of one dollar. 

On October 21, 1989, plaintiff filed a second response to the 

order for more definite statement, as well as a motion to alter or 

amend the judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. Plaintiff 

asked the court to reconsider the award of nominal damages in 

light of the documentation of attorney's fees incurred in Oklahoma 

attached to his second response, and to award him damages in the 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-8091 Document: 01019301423 Date Filed: 03/06/1991 Page: 3 
amount of $150,230 for attorney's fees and $200,000 for pain and 

suffering. The district court denied plaintiff's motion on 

October 23, 1989, and this appeal followed. 2 

Plaintiff argues on appeal that the district court erred in 

not appointing counsel to represent him3 and in awarding him only 

nominal damages. "[T]he district court has broad discretion to 

appoint counsel for indigents under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), and its 

denial of counsel will not be overturned unless it would result in 

fundamental unfairness impinging on due process rights." Maclin 

v. Freake, 650 F.2d 885, 886 (7th Cir. 1981). In determining 

whether to appoint counsel, the district court should consider a 

variety of factors, including the merits of the litigant's claims, 

the nature of the factual issues raised in the claims, the 

litigant's ability to present his claims, and the complexity of 

the legal issues raised by the claims. Id. at 887-89. Based upon 

our review of the record on appeal, we conclude the district court 

did not abuse its discretion in refusing to appoint counsel for 

plaintiff under the circumstances of this case. 

The basis of plaintiff's claim below was that he was 

transferred to Oklahoma to stand trial on charges without being 

2 The 

judgment 

judgment 

only party taking an appeal from the district court's 

is plaintiff; defendant has not appealed the entry of 

against him in his official capacity. 

3 Defendant argues on appeal that we should not consider 

plaintiff's argument with respect to the appointment of counsel 

because plaintiff did not request that counsel be appointed in the 

district court. The record on appeal, however, shows that 

plaintiff clearly requested that counsel be appointed in his 

"Affidavit in Support of Response to (Order Requiring Affidavit of 

Warden)." Rec. Vol. I, Doc. 15. 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-8091 Document: 01019301423 Date Filed: 03/06/1991 Page: 4 
advised of his 

challenging the 

right to file a petition for 

extradition and without having 

habeas corpus 

a hearing. 

Pursuant to Wyoming's extradition act, a prisoner shall not be 

extradited without first being informed of the request for 

extradition and the crime(s) charged, as well as the right to 

demand legal counsel. Furthermore, if the prisoner wants to test 

the legality of the extradition, he must be taken before a judge 

who shall fix a reasonable time for the prisoner to file a writ of 

habeas corpus and shall set the time and place for a hearing 

thereon. Wyo. Stat. § 7-3-210. 

Although plaintiff was transferred to Oklahoma pursuant to 

the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, codified in Wyoming at 

Wyo. Stat. §§ 7-15-101 to -105, he still was entitled to the 

rights provided him under Wyoming's extradition act. See Cuyler 

v. Adams, 449 u.s. 433, 449-50 (1981)(Interstate Agreement on 

Detainers Act does not require any prisoner transferred thereunder 

to give up any preexisting state or federal right to challenge the 

transfer; failure to afford a prisoner any such preexisting right 

constitutes a violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers 

Act actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983). 

Based on defendant's affidavit and the documentation he 

provided concerning plaintiff's extradition, the district court 

found that defendant violated plaintiff's due process rights prior 

to extradition. The court then had to determine whether 

defendant's violation of plaintiff's rights caused plaintiff any 

injury. See Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 262 (1978)(actual 

injury may not be presumed to flow from a violation of procedural 

5 

Appellate Case: 89-8091 Document: 01019301423 Date Filed: 03/06/1991 Page: 5 
due process; it must be proven). The district court recited that 

it was "hard pressed to see how plaintiff was injured through the 

extradition process, including his somewhat eventful return to 

Wyoming." Rec. Vol. I, Doc. 23 at 6. We agree that plaintiff did 

not show any injury, though for a different reason than that 

stated by the district court. See Ware v. Unified School Dist. 

No. 492, 881 F.2d 906, 909 (lOth Cir. 1989)(we can affirm district 

court's decision on any ground for which there is support in the 

record), modified in part, rehearing denied in part, 902 F.2d 815 

(lOth Cir. 1990). 

Plaintiff contended he was injured because he would have been 

able to prevent the extradition if given due process. 

Specifically, he said he would have presented evidence to the 

court through a habeas corpus petition that he was not guilty of 

the crimes charged. The inquiry in a habeas proceeding concerning 

extradition is limited, however, to "(a) whether the extradition 

documents on their face are in order; (b) whether the petitioner 

has been charged with a crime in the demanding state; (c) whether 

the petitioner is the person named in the request for extradition; 

and (d) whether the petitioner is a fugitive." Michigan v. Doran, 

439 U.S. 282, 289 (1978); see also Pfaff v. Wells, 648 F.2d 689, 

691-92 (lOth Cir. 1981). Any court reviewing a habeas petition 

filed by plaintiff would not have been able to consider 

plaintiff's evidence that he was not guilty of the crimes charged, 

since "the courts of the asylum state are bound to accept the 

demanding state's judicial determination . that probable cause 

exists . . . " Michigan v. Doran, 439 u.s. at 290; see also 

6 

Appellate Case: 89-8091 Document: 01019301423 Date Filed: 03/06/1991 Page: 6 
Cuyler v. Adams, 449 u.s. at 443 n.ll ("The person being 

extradited has no right to challenge the facts surrounding the 

underlying crime . . . II) 

Since plaintiff has not alleged that he could have prevented 

the extradition on one of the four grounds set forth in Michigan 

v. Doran, and since he could not, as a matter of law, have 

prevented the extradition by producing evidence that he was not 

guilty of the crimes charged, the extradition itself was 

justified, even though the procedures used to accomplish it were 

deficient. Under such circumstances, plaintiff cannot recover for 

any injury caused by the extradition; he can only recover for any 

injury, such as emotional distress, caused by the deprivation of 

due process itself. See Carey v. Piphus, 435 u.s. at 263. 

The attorney's fees and other expenses plaintiff incurred in 

Oklahoma flowed from the extradition, not the deprivation of due 

process. Therefore, they are not recoverable. Likewise, any 

emotional distress plaintiff suffered as a result of having to 

defend against serious charges in Oklahoma or as a result of 

having his life allegedly put in jeopardy on the return trip to 

Wyoming also flowed from the extradition rather than the 

deprivation of due process itself. 4 Since plaintiff did not 

allege, much less prove, that he suffered any injury as a result 

of the deprivation of due process alone, he was entitled to 

4 To the extent plaintiff sought to state a separate claim 

relief arising out of the alleged threat to his life during 

attempted escape of his fellow inmate, he failed to do so; 

claim was subject to dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 

7 

for 

the 

his 

Appellate Case: 89-8091 Document: 01019301423 Date Filed: 03/06/1991 Page: 7 
receive only nominal damages on his claim. 

110 S. Ct. 975, 983 n.ll (1990); Carey v. 

266-67. 

See Zinermon v. Burch, 

Piphus, 435 u.s. at 

Plaintiff also argues on appeal that he was placed in 

solitary confinement on his return from Oklahoma without receiving 

due process. Although plaintiff mentioned that he was put in 

solitary confinement in his pleadings in the district court, he 

did not assert that his confinement was effected without due 

process. Therefore, to the extent plaintiff attempts to raise a 

separate claim on appeal based on his segregation, we will not 

consider it. See Gillihan v. Shillinger, 872 F.2d 935, 938 (lOth 

Cir. 1989)("We will not consider on appeal those issues that were 

not raised in the district court."). 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Wyoming is AFFIRMED. 

8 

Appellate Case: 89-8091 Document: 01019301423 Date Filed: 03/06/1991 Page: 8