Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06393/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06393-0/pdf.json

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

---

FI LED . United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

MAY 3 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

VICTOR JOEL COOPER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

vs. 

J.D. SHARP and RUSSEL DEAR, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 89-6393 

(D. c. No. Civ-89-885-W) 

( W. D. Ok la. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.** 

Plaintiff-appellant, Victor Cooper, instituted this action in 

the federal district court under 42 u.s.c. S 1983 alleging that 

his fourteenth amendment rights were violated when as a pretrial 

detainee, Oklahoma county jail officials (1) forced him to sleep 

on a mattress on the jail floor and (2) denied him access to legal 

materials. In a thorough memorandum order, the district court 

dismissed Cooper's complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. 

* 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. 

** 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 therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 89-6393 Document: 01019969786 Date Filed: 05/03/1990 Page: 1 
•' 

§ 1915(d), and Cooper appealed. On appeal, Cooper has abandoned 

his first allegation of wrongdoing, choosing instead to focus on 

jail officials' purportedly improper denial of legal materials. 1 

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties filed herein as 

well as the record d~signated for appeal. We affirm the district 

court substantially for the reasons set forth in pages three 

through six of its memorandum opinion, a copy of which is attached 

hereto. 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

1 In the district court, Cooper claimed denial of legal materials 

only in connection with his criminal prosecution in which he was 

represented by counsel. On appeal, Cooper now claims he also was 

denied legal materials to assist him in pursuing civil rights 

claims. Because Cooper did not raise this latter issue below, we 

deem it waived. · Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120 (1976) 

(federal appellate court generally does not consider an issue not 

raised in the district court). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-6393 Document: 01019969786 Date Filed: 05/03/1990 Page: 2 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F/Hi 

WESTERN. DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ' I. £ D 

VICTOR JOEL COOPER, 

Plaintiff 

vs. 

J. D. SHARP, ET AL., 

Defendants 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

NOVO 91989 

US.o,sr.~$,CLEIII( BY TERN DIST. OFOKu.. 

,OEP(Jry 

CIV-89-885-W 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

The Plaintiff, a state prisoner appearing Jll:Q ll and in forma 

pauperis, brings this action· pursuant to 42 u.s.c. §1983, alleging 

a denial of certain constitutionally protected rights. A Special 

Report has been filed as ordered by the court, Martinez y. Aaron, 

570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1978), and the Defendants have filed a 

motion to dismiss, to which the Plaintiff has responded. Thus, the 

motion is at issue. 

In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges (1) that his Eighth 

Amendment rights were violated when, as a pretrial detainee in the 

Oklahoma county jail, he was forced to sleep on a mattress on the 

jail floor for fourteen days following his confinement on June 17, 

1988, and (2) that his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights were 

violated when he was denied certain requested legal materials and 

was denied the use of the law library. 

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the Eighth 

Amendment is not the appropriate constitutional standard to review 

the Plaintiff's first claim, since the Eighth· Amendment's 

prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is only applicable 

Appellate Case: 89-6393 Document: 01019969786 Date Filed: 05/03/1990 Page: 3 
2 

··-· .~·· '· ;" 

to persons who are detained pursuant to an adjudication of guilt • . . 

Belly. wolfish. 441 u.s. 520 (1979). Since the Plaintiff was a 

pretrial detainee during the relevant time periods of which he 

complains, the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause provides 

the appropriate standard. Belly. Wolfish. 441 u.s. at 535. 

As noted, the Plaintiff contends ~hat he was forced to sleep 

on a mattress on the jail floor for the first fourteen days of his 

incarceration in the Oklahoma county jail, beginning on June 17, 

1988. The facts, as developed by the Special Report, show that 

during the relevant time period, Plaintiff was incarcerated in a 

·call which had a maximum bunk capacity of 26. The Report further 

shows that at no time during the period covered by the Report, did 

the occupancy of the Plaintiff's cell exceed 26. Thus, if 

Plaintiff removed his mattress from the bunk and slept on the 

floor, it was of his own choosing. 

In response to the Special Report, Plaintiff claims that he 

must be mistaken as to the time period, and that it must have 

occurred after he was returned to the Oklahoma county jail from the 

TUlsa county jail. Plaintiff does not offer any dates as to when 

this might have occurred, and in fact, Plaintiff appears to have 

abandoned this claim, since he states that the conditions of the 

Oklahoma county jail "are not out of order to the degree as to 

legally warrant review. " As the Plaintiff has not shown any 

hardship imposed upon him in violation of the due process clause, ~ ... .. .. .. . 

the Court determines that to the extent the Plaintiff has not 

abandoned this claim, his first contention is without merit. bll 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-6393 Document: 01019969786 Date Filed: 05/03/1990 Page: 4 
. . 

. ft 

z c;,:m::;:rn w £! &.l) u;:s ii!-

y. wolfish. 441 u.s. at 538-539. 

Plaintiff's last· contention is that ha was denied access to 

the courts during his incarceration in the Oklahoma county jail by 

not being provided certain legal materials that he requested and 

by not being allowed to use the law library. 

Prisoners have a constitutional right to adequate, effective, 

and meaningful access to the courts to challenge violations of 

their constitutional rights. Bounds y, smith, 4 3 o u. s. .817 , a 2 4 , 

828 (1977). The Bounds Court specified that "the fundamental 

constitutional right of access to the courts requires prison 

authorities to assist inmates in the preparation and filing of 

meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law 

libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law." 

lsi. at 828. The Court emphasized that the "main concern" is 

"protecting the ability of an inmate to prepare a petition or 

complaint." lsi• at 828, n. 17. 

In Love y. summit county, 776 F.2d 908, 912 (10th cir. 1985), 

~- denied, 479 u.s. 814 (1986), the Tenth Circuit held that "a 

pretrial detainee also has a constitutional right to adequate, 

effective and meaningful access to the courts to vindicate his 

constitutional rights." · However, the court further noted that "we 

need not decide the extent of the affirmative obligations resting 

on local jail officials to assure inmates access to the courts." 

1s1. While noting that "the state, not the inmate, has the right 

to choose among constitutionally adequate alternatives," the Tenth 

· circuit in~ upheld a jail's failure to allow access to a law 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-6393 Document: 01019969786 Date Filed: 05/03/1990 Page: 5 
I , •. .,.,;,, ,;, 

library, ainca the plaintiff had access to counsel at all times 

during his incarceration by use of the phone and the mails. The 

Court further noted that: 

There is no evidence that the defendants in any way impeded plaintiff's contact with the courts, his access 

to his criminal attorney or to his civil counsel, or that 

they would have ·impeded his access to any additional 

legal assistance his civil counsel might have obtained • 

.1s1. at 915. ~ Al.1..2, Martiny, Tyson, 845 F.2d 1451 (7th cir. 

1988), ~- denied, ·109 s.ct. 162 (1988) (citing l&n, fact that 

detainee represented by counsel satisfied Bounds): Howland Y, 

Kil(lUist, 833 F.2d 639, 643 (7th Cir. 198?) (conclusory allegations 

that prisoner was denied right to legal stationery, law books and 

other legal materials insufficient when he was offered counsel); 

carter y, Fair, 786 F.2d 43·3, 435 (1st Cir. 1986) (absence of law 

library permissible when prison provides opportunity for 

consultation for visiting attorneys). 

The Special Report shows that the Oklahoma county jail, as a 

temporary detention facility, does not have law library facilities 

available for inmate use, but that it is the policy of the jail to 

allow unlimited access to the criminal defendant by his attorney. 

Further, the Special Report shows that the Plaintiff was 

represented by counsel at the Plaintiff's preliminary hearing on 

July 21, 1988 and that he was represented by the Public Defender's 

office at trial. The Plaintiff does not dispute this, and in fact 

the Plaintiff states that the court appointed counsel tor him on 

June 17, 1988. The Plaintiff does not contend that he was denied 

communications with his attorneys, and in fact ha states in his 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-6393 Document: 01019969786 Date Filed: 05/03/1990 Page: 6 
. ! 

I 

I 

i 

response, that "the Court will note that the Plaintiff never 

claimed that his communications were not allowed." Thus, the Court 

finds that the Plaintiff's second claim is also without merit, as 

he was appointed legal counsel and provided unlimited access to his 

counsel, even if his counsel did not respond. 

It appears that the Plaintiff is in reality contending that 

he received the ineffective assistance of counsel in his criminal 

proceeding, Strickland y. Washington, 466 o.s. 668, (1984), as he I • 

alleges that his attorneys did not confer with him often enough, 

return his phone calls or . answer his letters, and they did not 

investigate any aspect of his criminal case. In fact, the 

Plaintiff has recently filed a motion seeking to join the Assistant 

PUblic Defender and the PUblic Defender's off ice as Defendants~ 

To the extent that the Plaintiff is so contending, proceeding by 

way of §1983 is inappropriate for two reasons, and therefore his 

motion is denied. First, the law is clear that an attorney is not 

acting "under color of state law" for purposes of civil rights 

litigation under §1983, whether counsel is privately retained or 

appointed by the Court to represent an indigent defendant. Briscoe 

y, LaHue, 46_0 u.s. 325, 329-330, n. 6 (1983) (defense counsel); E9J.k 

county y, Dodson, 454 u.s. 312 (1981) (public defender); Malachowski 

y. city ot Keene, 787 F.2d 704, 110 (1st cir. 1986), ~- denied, 

479 o.s. 828 (1986) (court-appointed counsel); Black y. Bayer, 672 

F.2d 309, 314 (3d cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 u.s. 916 (1982) 

(retained counsel); llJl .w.2, Barnard y. Young, 720 F.2d 1188, 1189 

(10th Cir. 1983) (private attorney in civil litigation). 

5 

Appellate Case: 89-6393 Document: 01019969786 Date Filed: 05/03/1990 Page: 7 
.. 

. . ~-. . • .. ~ .•.. - ~ .... ,., i-~ . . ... 

Secondly, a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is 

properly construed as a challenge to the Plaintiff• s criminal 

conviction and thus must be brought as a habeas corpus action. 

Praiser y, Rodriguez, 411 u.s. 475 (,1973). This conclusion is 

supported by the Pla1ntiff's additional prayer for relief in that 

he seeks to have his criminal sentences "vacated and quashed." 

The administrative record developed by the Special Report has 

been expressly approved to determine if a suit must go beyond 

preliminary stages, and it is clear that this Court can refer to 

the Special Report as .a basis for determining whether the complaint 

is frivolous. Nordgren y, Hayward, 638 F.2d 224, 226 (10th cir. 

1981). Only where factual di~putes exist and where crucial issues 

remain, is it procedurally impermissible to resolve a case prior 

to trial. Dolence y. Flynn, 628 F.2d 1280, 1282 (10th cir. 1980) 

(approving Martinez procedure for screening of frivolous prisoner 

litigation). Since the Plaintiff's first contention has been 

apparently conceded by the Plaintiff, and is in any event 

frivolous, and because his second contention both fails to state 

a claim of access to the courts and is more properly addressed 

under the habeas corpus statutes, the complaint is dismissed. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6); 28 U.S.C. §1915(d). 

IT IS SO ORDERED this+- day of November 1989, 

. ·/ ·: , ~ ;; 

.. ·i)i-./4~---

<---LEER. WEST 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

6 

Appellate Case: 89-6393 Document: 01019969786 Date Filed: 05/03/1990 Page: 8