Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-04014/USCOURTS-ca10-89-04014-0/pdf.json

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

---

.. 

PILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

United State~ Court of Appeals 

Tenth Cira1it 

FEB 7 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

STEVEN V. SUMMERS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

vs. 

OREM CITY POLICE OFFICERS 

"JOHN DOES 1-7," 

Defendants-Appellees. 

STEVEN V. SUMMERS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

vs. 

LAWRENCE E. HINES, I.D.H.O.; 

HEARING OFFICER, Utah State 

Prison; and GARY DELAND, 

Di rector of Corrections, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

STEVEN V. SUMMERS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

vs. 

PAUL LARSEN, Hearing Officer, 

A.P. & C. and "JOHN DOES" 1-19 

I SP Hearing and Staff Members, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} 

) 

} 

} 

} 

) 

) 

} 

} 

} 

} 

) 

No. 89-4014 

(D.C. No. 88-C-962W} 

(D. Utah} 

No. 89-4040 

(D.C. No. 89-C-869S} 

(D. Utah} 

No. 89-4055 

(D.C. No. 88-C-0980W) 

(D. Utah} 

Appellate Case: 89-4014 Document: 01019962948 Date Filed: 02/07/1990 Page: 1 
ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before TACHA, BALDOCK and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.** 

Plaintiff-appellant, Steven Summers, originally filed three 

prose actions in the Utah federal district court under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 alleging that he was (1) detained by police officers 

without probable cause and forced to post double bond (D.C. No. 

88-C-962W), (2) unlawfully disciplined by prison officials (D.C. 

No. 89-C-869S), and (3) denied his rights in connection with the 

parole release process (D.C. No. 88-C-0980W). The district court 

denied Summers' respective motions to proceed in forma pauperis 

and dismissed the actions as meritless without requiring service 

of process on the defendants. 28 u.s.c. § 1915(d). These 

consolidated appeals followed. We affirm. 

The district court correctly held that Summers' first claim 

was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. According to 

his complaint filed in October 1988, Utah police officers 

illegally detained Summers in the summer of 1984. In Meshmash v. 

Murray City, 730 F.2d 1366, 1366 (10th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 

* 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 assist 

materially the determination of these appeals. See Fed. R. App. 

P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-4014 Document: 01019962948 Date Filed: 02/07/1990 Page: 2 
471 U.S. 1052 (1985), we held that "all§ 1983 claims brought in 

federal court in Utah are subject to the four-year limitations 

period provided in Utah Code Ann. § 78-12-25." Consequently, the 

district court properly dismissed case no. 88-C-962W as time 

barred. 

Likewise, Summers' second claim is unavailing. The complaint 

consists of conclusory allegations that Summers' standing in 

prison was impermissibly "downgraded'' because prison authorities 

found him guilty of assisting an escape "without any evidence.'' 

On several occasions, we have sustained the dismissal of prose 

complaints, which are liberally construed, for failure to plead 

sufficient facts as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). ~-, Durre 

v. Dempsey, 869 F.2d 543, 545 (10th Cir. 1989); Cotner v. Hopkins, 

795 F.2d 900, 902 (10th Cir. 1986). Because Summers' allegations 

of prison officials' wrongdoing are not supported by underlying 

facts, the district court properly dismissed case no. 88-C-869S. 

Summers' third and final complaint likewise fails to state a 

cause of action. Utah does not extend any liberty interest to 

prisoners in the parole release decision because the matter rests 

with the discretion of the Board of Pardons. Dock v. Latimer, 729 

F.2d 1287, 1289-92 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 885 (1984). 

Further, no right to due process exists in a parole release 

rescission action. See Jago v. Vancuren, 454 U.S. 14, 21 (1981). 

Thus, Summers was not entitled to any due process hearing in the 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-4014 Document: 01019962948 Date Filed: 02/07/1990 Page: 3 
parole release process. The district court properly dismissed 

case no. 88-C-0980W. 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-4014 Document: 01019962948 Date Filed: 02/07/1990 Page: 4