Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-07046/USCOURTS-ca10-92-07046-0/pdf.json

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

---

' 

FIL ---·· .J ,~ 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALC!T ited States~rt {?f Appea .. ~n Tenth C1rcu1t 

FRANKLIN D. THOMAS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

SHIRLEY TURNER, Supervisor; LEON 

MOORE, Coordinator, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

DEC 10 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-7046 

(D.C. No. CIV 91-596-S) 

(E. Dist. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON, and BALDOCK, 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. 

Franklin D. Thomas, a prose prisoner, brought this action 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) against Shirley Turner. Turner, an 

employee of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, supervised the 

prison box factory at which Thomas was employed. Thomas alleged 

*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: 92-7046 Document: 010110151621 Date Filed: 12/10/1992 Page: 1 
that Turner and her supervisor, Leon Moore, fired Thomas from his 

job as lead man in the box factory in retaliation for a grievance 

against Turner that Thomas had filed eight days earlier with 

prison administrators. The district court dismissed the case as 

frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1988). Thomas appeals and we 

reverse. 

A prose prisoner's complaint may be dismissed as patently 

frivolous or malicious under section 1915(d) if it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or on clearly baseless factual 

contentions. See Northington v. Jackson, No. 92-1068, 1992 WL 

194965, at *1 (10th Cir. Aug. 17, 1992). Factual allegations are 

clearly baseless if they are "fantastic" or "delusional" when 

weighed most favorably to the plaintiff. Id. The district 

court's dismissal here under section 1915(d) was based on the 

court's conclusion that the complaint lacked an arguable basis 

either in law or fact. See rec., doc. 14, at 2. We must 

disagree. 

The complaint and record, read most favorably to Thomas, 

allege that he filed an administrative grievance against Turner 

asserting that she had made untrue statements to other inmates 

about Thomas that placed him in fear of harm from those inmates. 

Thomas further alleged that shortly after he filed the grievance 

and because of it, Turner fired Thomas from his job as lead man at 

the prison box factory Turner supervised. Although Thomas alleged 

he was reinstated after five months, he allegedly was not given 

back his position as lead man nor did he receive back pay. These 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-7046 Document: 010110151621 Date Filed: 12/10/1992 Page: 2 
allegations, taken as true, create the inference of a constitutional deprivation remediable under section 1983. In Williams v. 

Meese, 926 F.2d 994 (10th Cir. 1991), this court reversed the Rule 

12(b) (6) dismissal of a prose prisoner's claim "that he was 

denied particular job assignments or was transferred from one job 

to another in retaliation for filing administrative grievances." 

Id. at 998. We pointed out that "although plaintiff has no right 

to a job or to any particular assignment, prison officials cannot 

punish plaintiff for exercising his first amendment rights by 

denying him certain job assignments or transferring him from one 

job to another." Id; see also Wright v. Newsome, 795 F.2d 964, 

968 (11th Cir. 1986) (action taken in retaliation for inmate's 

filing of administrative grievance violates inmate's first 

amendment rights); cf. Smith v. Maschner, 899 F.2d 940, 947-48 

(10th Cir. 1990) (prison officials may not retaliate against 

inmate for exercising right of access to the courts). Thomas's 

legal theory is thus not indisputably meritless. 

Moreover, the factual allegations upon which the claim is 

grounded are neither fantastic nor delusional. In rejecting the 

allegations as conclusory, the district court erred by using the 

standards applicable to a Rule 12(b) (6) motion to evaluate the 

propriety of dismissal under section 1915(d). See Neitzke v. 

Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Hall v. Bellmen, 935 F.2d 1106, 

1109 (10th Cir. 1991). "A plausible factual allegation, even if 

it lacks evidentiary support, is not 'frivolous' as contemplated 

by§ 1915(d) .... " Hall, 935 F.2d at 1109 (emphasis added). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-7046 Document: 010110151621 Date Filed: 12/10/1992 Page: 3 
Accordingly, we grant Thomas leave to proceed informa 

pauperis. We reverse the dismissal under section 1915(d) and 

remand for further proceedings. 

- 4-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-7046 Document: 010110151621 Date Filed: 12/10/1992 Page: 4