Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03122/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03122-0/pdf.json

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

---

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

HAYWOOD WILLIAMS, JR., ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

. PIL!20 

Unned Stat~§ G/urr of J\p~aJ.s Tenth Circuit 

~='E:I 2 7 1sg1 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) No. 90-3122 

) 

EDWIN MEESE; NORMAN A. CARLSON; ) 

JERRY O'BRIEN; SUPERINTENDENT, ) 

FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES; JOB ) 

PLACEMENT SUPERVISOR USP LEAVENWORTH; ) 

CHAPLAIN CRAIG; CHAPLAIN MABRY; ) 

MR. SPENCER, Librarian; MR. VINCENT, ) 

Recreation Supv.; MR. GERALD AUSTIN; ) 

MR. GAUNCE; MR. ANDERSON; DR. HILL; ) 

MR. HACKLER; MR. MORRIS; COMMISSARY ) 

SUPERVISOR; MR. SIMPSON, Job Placement ) 

Officer; UNKNOWN MEMBERS OF THE ) 

INSTITUTION INMATE WORK AND ) 

PERFORMANCE COMM. ; and MR. M. HAMMEKE 1 ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS 

(D.c. No. 86-3224) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

Haywood Williams, Jr., prose. 

Lee Thompson, United States 

Assistant United States 

Defendants-Appellees. 

Attorney and Connie 

Attorney, Topeka, 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

R. DeArmond, 

Kansas, for 

Appellate Case: 90-3122 Document: 01019726626 Date Filed: 02/27/1991 Page: 1 
MOORE, Circuit Judge . 

A£ter 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); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff, who is incarcerated in the federal penitentiary in 

Leavenworth, Kansas, commenced the underlying action to recover 

monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief for defendants' 

alleged violations of plaintiff's civil rights. Plaintiff 

incorporated into his complaint, and filed simultaneously 

therewith, various documents concerning the administrative 

grievances he had filed about the violations alleged in the 

complaint. 

Plaintiff's allegations related to essentially five claims: 

(1) that defendants denied him certain prison job assignments, for 

which he was qualified, solely on the basis of his age, race, or 

handicap; (2) that defendants retaliated against him for filing 

administrative grievances in assigning him to jobs; (3) that 

defendants deprived him of his graduation ring and all but twenty 

dollars worth of postage stamps without affording him due process; 

(4) that defendants discriminated against him on the basis of his 

race in depriving him of the property; and (5) that the 

administrative grievance procedures were inadequate. 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-3122 Document: 01019726626 Date Filed: 02/27/1991 Page: 2 
After most of the 

plaintiff filed a motion 

appointment of counsel. 

defendants answered the complaint, 

seeking, among other things, the 

Thereafter, the r emainder of the 

defendants answered and two of them filed a motion to dismi ss for 

lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff subsequently filed a 

motion for summary judgment on his claims relating to the 

deprivation of his property, and moved to amend his complaint to 

allege that after he filed the present action, defendants 

retaliated against him by transferring him from his position as 

law library clerk to a position as laborer, and by denying his 

application for vacation. 

By order dated March 26, 1990, the district court denied 

plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, specifical ly refused to 

address defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal 

jurisdiction, and dismissed plaintiff's action for failure to 

state a claim for relief. Plaintiff moved the court for 

reconsideration, which it denied by order dated April 12, 1990. 

Plaintiff then filed a notice of appeal and application for leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The district court denied 

the latter and plaintiff renewed his request with this court. 

Plaintiff makes the following arguments on appeal: (1) that 

the district court erred in failing to appoi nt counsel to 

represent him; (2) that the district court failed to consider all 

of the jurisdictional statutes set forth in the complaint; (3) 

that the district court incorrectly construed the allegations in 

the complaint as asserting a constitutional right to employment, 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-3122 Document: 01019726626 Date Filed: 02/27/1991 Page: 3 
rather than impermissible discrimination in employment; 1 (4) that 

the district court erred in concluding that plaintiff was not 

entitled to either a pre- or post-deprivation hearing regarding 

the seizure of his property; and (5) that the "administrative 

procedure of grievance is not constitutionally adequate for the 

reasons stated in the complaint," Brief of Appellant at 7. 

Turning to the first of plaintiff's arguments, "the district 

court has broad discretion to appoint counsel for indigents under 

28 u.s.c. § 1915(d), and its denial of counsel will not be 

overturned unless it would result in fundamental unfairness 

impinging on due process rights." Maclin v. Freake, 650 F.2d 885, 

886 (7th Cir. 1981). In determining whether to appoint counsel, 

the district court should consider a variety of factors, including 

the merits of the litigant's claims, the nature of the factual 

issues raised in the claims, the litigant's ability to present his 

claims, and the complexity of the legal issues raised by the 

claims. Id. at 887-89. The district court here did not 

specifically rule on plaintiff's motion for the appointment of 

counsel, and, therefore, did not state its reasons for not 

appointing counsel. The court may have declined to appoint 

counsel because it concluded that none of plaintiff's allegations 

1 Defendants assert for the first time on appeal that the 

district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over 

plaintiff's discrimination in employment claim because plaintiff 

did not file a timely complaint with the EEOC. We disagree. 

"[F]iling a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC is not a 

jurisdictional prerequisite to suit in federal court, but a 

requirement that, like a statute of limitations, is subject to 

waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling." Zipes v. Trans World 

Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385, 393 (1982). Since defendants did 

not raise below plaintiff's failure to file a timely complaint 

with the EEOC, they waived that requirement. 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-3122 Document: 01019726626 Date Filed: 02/27/1991 Page: 4 
stated a claim for relief. Since we conclude that plaintiff has 

stated two claims for relief, as discussed below, on remand, the 

district court should reconsider plaintiff's request for the 

appointment of counsel in light of the factors set forth in 

Maclin. 

We will construe plaintiff's second argument, that the 

district court failed to consider all of the jurisdictional 

statutes set forth in the complaint, as well as the remainder of 

plaintiff's arguments, as a challenge to the district court's 

conclusion that none of the allegations in plaintiff's complaint 

was sufficient to state a claim for relief. 

"The sufficiency of a complaint is a question of law which we 

review de novo." Morgan v. City of Rawlins, 792 F.2d 975, 978 

(lOth Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss a complaint for failure to 

state a claim only if it concludes that "the plaintiff can prove 

no set of facts in support of his claim to entitle him to relief." 

Id. Furthermore, for purposes of making the foregoing 

determination, a court must accept all the well-pleaded 

allegations of the complaint as true and must construe them in the 

light most favorable to the plaintiff. Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 

1512, 1526 (lOth Cir. 1988). 

Plaintiff alleged the following sources of substantive rights 

as the bases of his claim for discrimination in the assignment of 

prison jobs: Title VII; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act 

(ADEA); the Equal Pay Act of 1963; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; 

42 u.s.c. §§ 1981 and 1997; and the fifth and eighth amendments to 

the United States Constitution. We will consider each in turn. 

5 

Appellate Case: 90-3122 Document: 01019726626 Date Filed: 02/27/1991 Page: 5 
Neither Title VII nor the ADEA 

substantive rights because he does 

relationship with the Federal Bureau of 

provides plaintiff any 

not have an employment 

Prisons or any of the 

defendants. "Title VII protections apply only where there is some 

connection with an employment relationship." Baker v. McNeil 

Island Corrections Center, 859 F.2d 124 , 127 (9th Cir. 1988). The 

same is true of the protections afforded by the ADEA . See Messina 

v. Kroblin Transp. Sys., Inc., 903 F.2d 1306, 1308 (lOth Cir. 

1990)("it is appropriate for courts to use the law developed in 

the context of Title VII cases in ADEA disputes"). 

Whether a plaintiff is an "employee" for purposes of Title 

VII is a question of federal law. Calderon v. Martin County, 639 

F.2d 271, 272-73 (5th Cir. 1981). We conclude that plaintiff is 

not an "employee" under either Title VII or the ADEA because his 

the Bureau of Prisons, and therefore, with the 

out of his status as an inmate, not an 

his relationship with defendants may contain 

relationship with 

defendants, arises 

employee. Although 

some elements commonly present in an employment relationship, it 

arises "from [plaintiff's] having been convicted and sentenced to 

imprisonment in the [defendants'] correctional institution. The 

primary purpose of their association [is] incarceration, not 

employment." Prisoner Not Protected From Racial Job Bias, 2 Empl. 

Prac. Guide ( CCH) ,, 6865, at 7099 (April 18, 1986) (EEOC Decision 

No. 86-7). Since plaintiff has no employment relationship with 

defendants, he cannot pursue a claim for discrimination against 

them under either Title VII or the ADEA. 

6 

Appellate Case: 90-3122 Document: 01019726626 Date Filed: 02/27/1991 Page: 6 
The foregoing analysis precludes plaintiff's claLms for 

discrimination under the Equal Pay Act and the Rehabilitation Act, 

as well. Plaintiff's claims under those statutes also have 

additional defects. Subsection (d) of 29 u.s.c. § 206 (Equal Pay 

Act), cited by plaintiff in his complaint, concerns only 

discrimination based on sex, not race, age, or handicap. The 

section of the Rehabilitation Act cited by plaintiff, 29 u.s.c. 

§ 794, does not give plaintiff any substantive rights since the 

Federal Bureau of Prisons does not fit the definition of "programs 

or activities .. governed by that section. 

Plaintiff's reliance on 42 u.s.c. §§ 1981 and 1997 also is 

misplaced, since those statutes do not apply to plaintiff's claim 

of discrimination. Section 1981 protects rights not at issue in 

plaintiff's complaint, and sections 1997 through 1997j protect the 

rights of persons institutionalized in state, not federal, 

facilities. 

Plaintiff's complaint also fails to state a claim for relief 

based on the eighth amendment. The eighth amendment prohibits the 

infliction of cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiff's 

allegations that he has been assigned jobs inconsistent with his 

prior work experience and physical abilities do not rise to the 

level of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and, 

therefore, do not state a claim for cruel and unusual punishment . 

See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). 

The allegations of plaintiff's complaint are sufficient, 

however, to state a Bivens2 claim for deprivation of the right to 

2 Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 u.s. 388 (1971). 

7 

Appellate Case: 90-3122 Document: 01019726626 Date Filed: 02/27/1991 Page: 7 
equal protection secured by the fifth amendment. Although 

plaintiff has no right to a job in the prison or to any particular 

job assignment, see Ingram v. Papalia, 804 F.2d 595, 596 (lOth 

Cir. 1986), prison officials cannot discriminate against him on 

the basis of his age, race, or handicap, in choosing whether to 

assign him a job or in choosing what job to assign him, see 

Bentley v. Beck, 625 F.2d 70, 70-71 (5th Cir. 1980). Therefore, 

to the extent that plaintiff's discrimination claim is based on 

the fifth amendment, the district court erred in determining that 

he failed to state a claim for relief. 

Similarly, the district court erred in dismissing plaintiff's 

claim that he was denied particular job assignments or was 

transferred from one job to another in retaliation for filing 

administrative grievances 

Again, although plaintiff 

or 

has 

the present 

no right to 

civil rights action. 

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. Cf. 

Frazier v. Dubois, No. 90-3096, slip op. at 3 (lOth Cir. 

Dec. 12, 1990)(although prisoner has no right to remain in any 

particular prison, prison officials cannot punish him for 

exercising his first amendment rights by transferring him to 

another prison). 

The court correctly dismissed plaintiff's claims for 

deprivation of property without due process since the 

administrative grievance documents incorporated by plaintiff into 

his complaint showed that the ring and postage stamps seized by 

8 

Appellate Case: 90-3122 Document: 01019726626 Date Filed: 02/27/1991 Page: 8 
prison officials were sent to an address of plaintiff's choosing. 

Although plaintiff no longer has possession of the property, he 

still retains control over it and, therefore, has not been 

"deprived" of the property. Plaintiff's conclusory allegations 

that the seizure of his property was racially discriminatory are 

not sufficient to state a claim for relief since he does not 

allege that nonblack inmates were permitted to retain possession 

of similar jewelry or more than twenty dollars worth of postage 

stamps. 

Finally, the district court properly 

claim that the grievance procedures 

allegations are too conclusory to state a 

dismissed plaintiff's 

were inadequate. The 

claim for relief and 

assert, at most, negligent conduct that does not implicate the due 

process clause. See Bryson v. City of Edmond, 905 F.2d 1386, 1390 

(lOth Cir. 1990). 

In sum, the district court properly dismissed all of 

plaintiff's claims except that of discrimination in job 

assignments in violation of the fifth amendment, and that of 

retaliation for the exercise of first amendment rights. 

Accordingly, plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis 

on appeal is GRANTED, and the judgment of the United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas is AFFIRMED in part, 

REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent 

with this order and judgment. Plaintiff's request for the 

appointment of counsel on appeal is DENIED. Defendants' motion to 

supplement the record on appeal is DENIED as moot. 

9 

Appellate Case: 90-3122 Document: 01019726626 Date Filed: 02/27/1991 Page: 9