Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01187/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01187-0/pdf.json

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

---

• 

FILED 

United States Coμrt ~ Appea\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tent.'1 C1rcu1t 

TENTH CIRCUIT SEP O 3 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk MICHAEL YEPEZ, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

vs. ) 

) 

MAJOR PRICE, Superintendent, ) 

A.V.C.F., and LT. JOHN WAITT, ) 

Maintenance Supervisor, ) 

A.V.C.F., ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

No. 91-1187 

(D.C. No. 91-B-313) 

(D. Colo.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

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

Plaintiff-appellant Michael Yepez appeals from the dismissal 

of his civil rights action seeking damages and injunctive relief. 

See 42 u.s.c. S 1983. He alleges that a certain condition (a 

faulty bunk ladder with a sharp edge) at the Arkansas Valley 

Correctional Facility constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in 

violation of the eighth amendment of the United States 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

** In contemplation of summary proceedings, defendants-appellees 

elected not to file a brief. After examining plaintiff's brief 

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: 91-1187 Document: 010110084259 Date Filed: 09/03/1991 Page: 1 
Constitution. He also alleges that he seriously injured his arm 

on the ladder, as did his cell mate. The district court dismissed 

the complaint sua sponte because "plaintiff failed to allege that 

defendants knew of, and acted in a manner that disregarded, an 

obvious risk presented by the ladder to the upper bunk in 

plaintiff's cell." IR. doc. 5 at 4. Another ground for 

dismissal was the failure to allege personal participation by 

either defendant in the alleged deprivation. Id. n.2. 

In dismissing the complaint, the district court relied upon 

McKinney v. Oklahoma, 925 F.2d 363 (10th Cir. 1991), in which we 

held "that a sua sponte dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is not 

reversible error when it is 'patently obvious' that the plaintiff 

could not prevail on the facts alleged ... and allowing him an 

opportunity to amend his complaint would be futile ... " 

McKinney, 925 F.2d at 365 (relying on Baker v. Director, United 

States Parole Comm'n, 916 F.2d 725, 727 (D.C. Cir. 1990) and 

Huxall v. First State Bank, 842 F.2d 249, 240 n.2 (10th Cir. 

1988)). On appeal, plaintiff argues that the actions of 

defendants constitute deliberate indifference and now claims that 

the Maintenance Department had been informed of sharp edges on 

numerous ladders, an allegation absent from his complaint. He 

also argues various points concerning negligence. 

Although we must liberally construe prose pleadings and pro 

se litigants "are to be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy 

the defects in their pleadings," we have held that a prose 

plaintiff has the burden of alleging sufficient facts, or close to 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-1187 Document: 010110084259 Date Filed: 09/03/1991 Page: 2 
1 

sufficient facts, to state a recognized legal claim. Hall v. 

Bellman, 935 F.2d 1106, 1109-10 (10th Cir. 1991). The burden is 

on the plaintiff because alleging sufficient facts about material 

events does not require legal training and the district court is 

not required to speculate on the possibility that sufficient 

operative facts may exist. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. In this 

case, the plaintiff simply has not alleged in his complaint 

sufficient facts indicative of a culpable state of mind 

(deliberate indifference concerning a dangerous condition of 

confinement) on the part of these defendants. See Wilson v. 

Seiter, 111 S. Ct. 2321, 2326-27 (1991). Of course, the district 

court did not consider the additional allegation that the 

maintenance department had been informed of the problem. 

Plaintiff included that allegation in his appellate brief. 

Notwithstanding, this additional and general allegation does not 

push the complaint over the personal participation and deliberate 

indifference hurdles inherent in this type of claim. 

AFFIRMED. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-1187 Document: 010110084259 Date Filed: 09/03/1991 Page: 3