Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01444/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01444-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT AUG O 7 1992 

------------,oBERTL.HOECKEE 

THEODORE RUARK, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

vs. ) 

) 

ANNETTE PORTER, Legal Law Library Clerk,) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Clerk 

No. 91-1444 

(D.C. No. 90-Z-442) 

(D. Colo.) 

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

This is the second time we have reviewed this case. In the 

first appeal we affirmed the district court's dismissal of 

plaintiff-appellant Theodore Ruark's 42 u.s.c. S 1983 claims 

against Henry Solano, the supervisor of the Diagnostic Unit at the 

Colorado Territorial Correctional Facility (CTCF) where Mr. Ruark 

was incarcerated. Ruark v. Solano, 928 F.2d 947 (10th Cir. 1991). 

However, we reversed the court's dismissal of the§ 1983 claim 

* 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: 91-1444 Document: 010110276699 Date Filed: 08/07/1992 Page: 1
against defendant-appellee Annette Porter, the prison librarian 

responsible for providing legal materials to Diagnostic Unit 

Inmates at CTCF. Id. at 950. Mr. Ruark had alleged that Ms. 

Porter ignored his frequent requests for specific legal materials 

during his stay in the Diagnostic Unit. See Bounds v. Smith, 430 

U.S. 817, 827 (1977) (fundamental constitutional right of access 

to courts requires prison officials to assist prisoners in filing 

meaningful legal papers by providing law libraries or other 

adequate assistance). We remanded for further proceedings on this 

claim against Ms. Porter in her personal capacity. Ruark, 928 

F.2d at 950 (citing Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 235 (1974) 

(individual liability alleged when official "acted outside the 

scope of ... his office or, if within the scope, acted in an 

arbitrary manner, grossly abusing the lawful powers of the 

office")). On remand the district court referred the matter to a 

magistrate who conducted two hearings on cross-motions for summary 

judgment. The district court subsequently entered summary 

judgment in favor of Ms. Porter, adopting the magistrate's finding 

that no material disputed fact existed and that Ms. Porter was 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Mr. Ruark now appeals 

from the summary judgment. 

Upon exercising de novo review of the district court's 

summary judgment ruling, see Osgood v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. 

Co., 848 F.2d 141, 143 (10th Cir. 1988), we agree that no material 

disputed fact exists and that Ms. Porter is entitled to judgment 

as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Requests from 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-1444 Document: 010110276699 Date Filed: 08/07/1992 Page: 2
Diagnostic Unit inmates such as Mr. Ruark were made through a 

secured lock box system, which Ms. Porter administered. Ms. 

Porter adduced summary judgment evidence, including logs and 

statistical summaries of lock box requests, which indicated that 

she had responded to numerous inmate requests during the relevant 

time period and that Mr. Ruark had not submitted any requests for 

legal materials. Furthermore, the statistical summaries indicated 

that Mr. Ruark had requested one personal appointment but had 

failed to show. Under the Rule 56 standard, Ms. Porter thus 

demonstrated an absence of evidence to support a material element 

in Mr. Ruark's case. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 

325 (1986). The burden then shifted to Mr. Ruark to adduce 

sufficient evidence on which a jury could reasonably find that he 

was denied access to legal materials. See Anderson v. Liberty 

Lobby. Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 & 251 (1986). Mr. Ruark presented 

three handwritten duplicates of request forms which he claimed he 

submitted to Ms. Porter through the lock box system. One of the 

duplicates was dated after Mr. Ruark filed his complaint and the 

other two were general requests for federal court forms which he 

eventually received through prison mail. Examining this summary 

judgment evidence in the light most favorable to Mr. Ruark, see 

id. at 249-50, we do not think a fact finder could reasonably 

conclude that Ms. Porter personally denied him access to legal 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-1444 Document: 010110276699 Date Filed: 08/07/1992 Page: 3
materials. Mr. Ruark has failed to meet his summary judgment 

burden.t 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

t Mr. Ruark also urges us to reconsider the dismissal of his 

claims against Mr. Solano. This issue was properly decided in the 

prior appeal. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-1444 Document: 010110276699 Date Filed: 08/07/1992 Page: 4