Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03270/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03270-0/pdf.json

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

---

. ; .. 

. , . "' 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

MICHAEL M. ROBY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

.. _ 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Cir<"11.it 

M,l\R 1 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-3270 

v. 

(D. Kansas) 

(D.C. No. 87-3269-S) 

MR. JAMES G. STRIEBY and MR. 

JENKINS, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, 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 cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Michael Matthew Roby, an inmate at Lansing Correctional 

Facility who was administratively segregated and then transferred 

to Larned State Security Hospital after he began exhibiting 

psychotic behavior, files this appeal from the district court's 

grant of summary judgment dismissing his petition, presumably 

filed pursuant to 42 u.s.c. S 1983. Roby, however, makes no 

* 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: 90-3270 Document: 010110031051 Date Filed: 03/01/1991 Page: 1 
;. 

' 

allegations on appeal. His 2.!:..2 se appellate "brief", filed on 

forms provided by the court, amounts to a failure to file any 

brief at all. Under section one of the form, entitled "Statement 

of the Case", Roby has written "Supra. Other 2 case. No." Other 

sections are completed with "Supra: l". 

Because no issues have been raised and no argument on the law 

and facts has been made, we can only assume that Roby is merely 

disputing in general the district court's disposition of his 

petition. We disagree, and adopt the substance of the court's 

order, a copy of which is attached hereto. We deny Roby's motion 

to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss his appeal as frivolous. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Coppedge v. United 

States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962). The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-2-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-3270 Document: 010110031051 Date Filed: 03/01/1991 Page: 2 
AO 72A 

(Rev. 8/82) 

( 

r IL ~D 

U.S. 01 sn :1r:1· COURT 

• 0 l S 1 ~ I ,; T n :~ :' .. >, : 1 S ,~ S 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT Abe:itlitT 3 36 Hi 'SO 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSA~,','._, .· . .'.:;; , 

MICHAEL MATTHEW ROBY, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

JAMES G. STRIEBY, et al., ) 

) 

Defendants. ) ______________________ ) 

0 R D E R 

.,,,r· ~ , , _·_,~.,.,(,) 

[J -~ . -,:_ ~-

,.~~.~ .. · .. KS. 

CASE NO. 87-3269-S 

This matter is before the court on defendants' motion for 

summary judgement. Plaintiff filed a complaint under 42 u.s.c. 

§ 1983, in which he claimed the conditions of his confinement 

violated his constitutional rights. 

Plaintiff, an inmate at Lansing Correctional Facility, was 

administratively segregated and then transferred to Larned State 

~ecuri ty Hospital because he was exhibiting psychotic behavior. 

Plaintiff alleges that during his incarceration in segregation he 

was deprived of his due process rights under the Fourteenth 

Amendment and was denied access to the courts. Plaintiff 

specifically alleges that defendants denied him use of the law 

1 ibrary, copy machine, chow hall, main protective custody yard, 

mailbox and telephone, and denied him access to a newspaper. 

Plaintiff demands judgment of $1,500 each against Lansing 

Correctional Facility and Larned State Security Hospital, and an 

unspecified claim of $55,000,000 if he dies in the Lansing 

Correctional Facility. 

'" \ . 

Appellate Case: 90-3270 Document: 010110031051 Date Filed: 03/01/1991 Page: 3 
) 72A 

ev . 8/82) 

( 

on August 21, 1987, defendant Robert Jen1cins found plaintiff 

was exhibiting psychotic symptoms and determined there was a real 

possibility plaintiff might be a danger to himself or others. 

Plaintiff was administratively segregated pending his transfer to 

Larned state Security Hospital for further evaluation and treatment. 

During his administrative segregation, plaintiff no longer was given 

access to the mess hall and library, and was not allowed to leave 

his cell without restraints. Defendant James Strieby, corrections 

counselor, handled plaintiff's requests for library material and 

notary services while plaintiff was in segregation. 

Plaintiff requested and received a formal hearing regarding his 

segregation and transfer. The hearing was held on August 26, 1987, 

and continued on September 10, 1987, for plaintiff to be represented 

by counsel. A psychiatrist examined plaintiff and concurred with 

the recommendation to transfer plaintiff for hospital care. 

Plaintiff was transferred to Larned State Hospital on September 22, 

1987, and has since been returned to Lansing Correctional Facility. 

After reviewing the record, the court finds the defendants are 

entitled to summary judgment. Plaintiff's complaint appears to be 

based solely on his segregated confinement at Lansing Correctional 

Facility because he did not name any defendants responsible for his 

care while at Larned State Security Hospital. Although plaintiff 

did not designate whether the defendants are named in their official 

or individual capacity, plaintiff's allegations indicate his cause 

of action is based on the defendants' actions within their duties 

as state officials. Plaintiff's assertions, even if true, fail to 

demonstrate any personal participation on the part of either of the 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-3270 Document: 010110031051 Date Filed: 03/01/1991 Page: 4 
. , ~ 

( .. 

OES:CH 

#.0 72A 

{Re v. 8/82) 

named defendants. Defendants, as state offic~als acting in their 

official capacity, are protected from suit by the Eleventh 

Amendment. Kite v. Kelley, 546 F.2d 334, 337-38 (10th Cir. 1976); 

Medcalf v. State of Kansas, 626 F.Supp. 1179, 1183-84 (D.Kan. 1986) . 

They are not subject to an action for damages brought under 42 

u.s.c. §1983 because they are not "persons" within the meaning of 

that statute. Will v. Mich. Dept. of State Police,_ U.S._, 109 

s.ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989). 

Moreover, plaintiff's claims do not demonstrate he was deprived 

of any constitutional rights or due process guarantees. He 

challenged the segregation at a formal hearing and had the 

assistance of counsel. The restrictions imposed during segregation 

were reasonable considering plaintiff's psychotic behavior at the 

time and the potential for harm to himself or others. Prison 

regulations impinging on an inmate's constitutional rights are valid 

if reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. Turner 

v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 107 s.ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants' motion for summary 

judgment is hereby granted. The clerk of the court is directed t 

transmit a copy of this order to plaintiff and defendants' attorney. 

DATED: This d_ day of August, 1990 at Topeka, Kansas. 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-3270 Document: 010110031051 Date Filed: 03/01/1991 Page: 5