Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-04161/USCOURTS-ca10-90-04161-0/pdf.json

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

---

FI LED 

Unired Stares COUft of Appeals 

Tenth Cirruit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 2 9 1991 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

RICHARD LYNN WRIGHT, ) 

) 

Plaintiff - Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

GARY W. DELAND, individually and ) 

as Director of the Department of ) 

Corrections, State of Utah; GERALD) 

L. COOK, individually and as ) 

Acting Warden, Utah State Prison; ) 

BECKY INGLE; ROBIN WILLILAMS; JAMES) 

PADGETT; MARK A. GLANCY, individ- ) 

ually and as Correctional Officers,) 

Utah State Prison; DOES A THROUGH ) 

X; STEVES. MINER, Correctional ) 

Officer, Utah State Prison; LEON ) 

H. WALTON, Correctional Officer, ) 

Utah State Prison; DOES 1-X; RICK ) 

CORSI; STEVE WINTERS; and RON .) 

ORTIZ, ) 

) 

Defendants - Appellees. ) 

No. 90-4161 

(D.C. Nos. 88-C-888G, 

88-C-1098W, 88-C-1166S) 

(District of Utah) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, 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 case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

* 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 

Appellate Case: 90-4161 Document: 010110105232 Date Filed: 04/29/1991 Page: 1 
Richard Wright, an inmate confined at the Utah State Prison 

(U.S.P.), appeals the district court's dismissal of his complaint 

brought under 42 u.s.c. § 1983 (1988). Mr. Wright's appeal 

involves the consolidation of three lawsuits. Although all three 

suits involve the alleged improper disposal of appellant's property, we will address separately his claims in each case. 

Case No. 88-C-888G 

In 1988, the u.s.P. implemented a new policy whereby each 

inmate was allowed to possess only one electrical appliance. 

Unlike the previous policy, property retained by the U.S.P. no 

longer had to be inventoried and stored until an inmate's release. 

Instead, the U.S.P. required inmates to dispose of such property 

within thirty days. 1 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

1 The U.S.P. issued its policy pursuant to Utah law which provides in pertinent part: 

Offenders may retain personal property at correctional facilities only as authorized by the department. 

An offender's property which is retained by the department shall be inventoried and placed in storage by the 

department and a receipt for the property shall be 

issued to the offender. Offenders may be required to 

arrange for disposal of property retained by the department within a reasonable time, under department rules. 

Property retained by the department shall be returned to 

the offender at discharge, or to the offender's legal 

representative in the case of death prior to discharge. 

Utah Code Ann. S 64-13-lS(l)(a) (1990). 

The policy's purposes include preventing contraband from 

being hidden in appliances and reducing conflicts over property 

between inmates. Record, supp. vol. 1, at 68-69. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-4161 Document: 010110105232 Date Filed: 04/29/1991 Page: 2 
Appellant possessed a television, fan and radio/cassette 

player. Faced with the new property limitation, he chose to keep 

the television set. The district court found that appellant gave 

the other two items to Ms. Lorretta Derr. He then changed his 

mind about giving away the property and, after filing an inmate 

grievance, the U.S.P. retrieved the items. 

Pursuant to the new policy, appellant was given thirty days 

to dispose of the fan and radio/cassette player. He wished to 

have them stored until his release, but this option was not available. When appellant did not dispose of the items within thirty 

days, they were donated to charity. 

Appellant argues that respondents' disposal of his personal 

property was in violation of his rights under the Due Process 

Clause of the fourteenth amendment. Specifically, 

appellant maintains that he was denied due process because he was 

not given an opportunity to sell the fan and radio/cassette 

player. He directs our attention to Gerrish v. DeLand, 88-C-811 A 

(D.C. Utah 1990), where the court found that the U.S.P. policy was 

constitutionally deficient because it did not properly take into 

consideration an inmate who does not want to donate his property 

to charity and who has no friends or relatives who will keep his 

property until discharge. The court in Gerrish determined that 

the U.S.P. must give such an inmate a reasonable opportunity to 

sell the property in a commercially reasonable manner. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-4161 Document: 010110105232 Date Filed: 04/29/1991 Page: 3 
Although the district court acknowledged the ruling in 

Gerrish, it concluded that the constitutional inadequacy of the 

prison policy was not clearly established and that, therefore, 

respondents were qualifiedly immune from appellant's claims for 

monetary relief. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 

(1985). 

We affirm the district court's finding of qualified immunity. 

Gerrish was not decided until 1990. Appellant's property was 

donated in 1988. We do not decide whether we agree with the conclusion in Gerrish that the underlying policy is unconstitutional 

because, even assuming the constitutional deficiencies of the 

prison policy, they were not clearly established at the time 

appellant's property was donated. 

In addition to money damages, appellant has requested that we 

craft a predeprivation procedure for future disposal of inmates' 

property. Although equitable relief is available in section 1983 

actions, see~, Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678 (1978), we will 

not undertake to fashion a predeprivation procedure which will 

have no bearing on this case. 2 

2 Appellant also contests the district court's finding that he 

voluntarily donated his radio/cassette player and fan to Ms. Derr. 

Given our affirmance of the district court's ruling that respondents have qualified immunity from suit, we need not address this 

issue. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-4161 Document: 010110105232 Date Filed: 04/29/1991 Page: 4 
• 

Case No. 88-C-1098W 

Appellant's second lawsuit involves the disposal of his typewriter. Appellant was notified in writing that, pursuant to 

prison policy, he could no longer keep the typewriter because he 

was not engaged in an activity requiring a typewriter. The notice 

stated that he had thirty days to remove the typewriter from 

prison property and that it would be confiscated if it was not 

removed. 

Appellant filed a grievance requesting that he be allowed to 

keep the typewriter for a correspondence course and for pending 

legal matters. The request was denied. Appellant was notified 

that he could retain the typewriter only after obtaining authorization from the warden. His request for authorization was also 

denied. 

Appellant contends that he was denied equal protection of the 

laws under the fourteenth amendment because other similarly 

situated prisoners are allowed to keep their typewriters. As an 

example, appellant refers us to prisoner Kelly Boren. Mr. Boren, 

however, received authorization from the warden to keep his 

typewriter because he was enrolled in a school program sponsored 

through the prison. Appellant is enrolled in no such program. 

Instead, the record indicates he is enrolled in a correspondence 

course that he selected. Limiting the warden's authorization to 

those prisoners enrolled in prison-sponsored school programs is a 

regulation that is reasonably related to legitimate penological 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-4161 Document: 010110105232 Date Filed: 04/29/1991 Page: 5 
• 

I ' interests. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987). Without 

such a regulation, the potentially unlimited number of prisoners 

enrolled in a correspondence course of their own choosing claiming 

a constitutional right to a typewriter could pose security hazards 

and hamper general correctional administration. See Report and 

Recommendation, No. 88-C-888 G, July 20, 1990, at 10. Therefore, 

we affirm the district court's dismissal. 

Appellant also argues that his typewriter was confiscated in 

retaliation for his filing of inmate grievances. The district 

court found that the confiscation was consistent with prison 

policy and was not an act of retaliation. 

The district court's findings of fact will not be overturned 

unless they are clearly erroneous. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a): Amoco 

Prod. Co. v. Western Slope Gas Co., 754 F.2d 303, 309 (10th Cir. 

1985). A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it is without 

factual support in the record, or if the appellate court, after 

reviewing all the evidence, is left with the definite and firm 

conviction that a mistake has been made. LeMaire v. United 

States, 826 F.2d 949, 953 (10th Cir. 1987). 

The record indicates that appellant's typewriter was confiscated because he was not enrolled in school. The notices he 

received support the district court's finding that the typewriter 

was taken pursuant to prison policy . . Therefore, we conclude that 

-6-

Appellate Case: 90-4161 Document: 010110105232 Date Filed: 04/29/1991 Page: 6 
the district court's ruling is not clearly erroneous. 

Case No. 88-C-1166S 

Appellant's third lawsuit involves various items that were 

confiscated. The property included cassette tapes and a case, a 

three ring binder, pencils, a mirror, typewriter ribbons, and a 

photo album. Some of these items, including the pencils, were 

returned. 

Appellant was notified that this property was unauthorized 

and that it would be donated unless he arranged for its disposal. 

Appellant requested storage until his discharge, but this was not 

an available option. Appellant took no additional action and the 

property was donated. 

Appellant contests the district court's finding that the 

cassette tapes and the other miscellaneous property were no longer 

authorized property. After reviewing the record, the evidence 

supports the district court's finding. 

The district court's order is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall 

issue forthwith. 

-7-

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-4161 Document: 010110105232 Date Filed: 04/29/1991 Page: 7