Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03241/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03241-0/pdf.json

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

---

FIL~ D Unit.ed States Coart ,. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Te'!th Cir;:, ,Y~ App~:ib 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

MARION A. ROBINSON, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

vs. ) 

) 

LT. DEVENNY; COLLINS; RAYMOND ROBERTS; ) 

J.S. PATTERSON; K.D. McGOWAN; L.V. ) 

MOORE; LANZA; R.A. HERSH; FRANK ) 

STRICKLER; WARDLOW, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

APR 13 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk " 

No. 91-3241 

(D.C. No. 90-3352-S) l ( b~" K<i' • ) 

Pobort L . Hoecker 

Cj e rk, U. S. Court. o~ 

i;99c:a.l::. • Tent.h Oiroui~ 

- -·- ..... - Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges; *~ · ~ - ,. . ·-

Plaintiff-appellant Marion A. Robinson seeks to appeal from 

the dismissal of his complaint for money damages alleging that 

defendant prison officials wrongfully confiscated his "wave cap" 

or "doo rag," and then placed him in solitary confinement when he 

complained about it. The district court ordered a Martinez 

report, and thereafter dismissed the complaint pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(d) for lack of an arguable legal basis of liability, 

* 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: 91-3241 Document: 010110242289 Date Filed: 04/13/1992 Page: 1
citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989). The district 

court denied plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, finding 

the appeal frivolous and not taken in good faith. Plaintiff 

renews his motion for in forrna pauperis status on appeal. 

Under 28 U.S . C. § 1915(d), a court may "dismiss a claim on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory," such as a "claim of 

infringement of a legal interest which clearly does not exist." 

Ne itzke, 490 U.S. at 327. Plaintiff's claims clearly fit this 

category. 

Plaintiff's administrative segregation resulted from two 

alleged threats to prison staff, contrary to prison regulations. 

Although plaintiff was found not guilty of the first alleged 

threat and the second charge was dismissed, plaintiff's 

confinement before his disciplinary hearings pursuant to prison 

regulation is properly characterized as administrative, not 

disciplinary, and no statute or regulation has been suggested 

which would counsel greater procedural protection. See Hewitt v. 

Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 468 (1983); Bailey v. Shillinger, 828 F.2d 

651, 652 (10th Cir. 1987). Regarding the confiscation of 

plaintiff's head attire, such attire may not be worn as an outer 

garment pursuant to the prison dress code, IR. doc. 21, ex. 1 at 

5, and prison officials may condition or limit the use of personal 

property without violating the due process clause. See Bell v . 

Wolfish, 441 U. S. 520, 554-55 (1979); Harris v. Forsyth, 735 F.2d 

1235 (11th Cir. 1984). Construing plainti ff's latter claim as one 

for intentional deprivation of property by prison officials, 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-3241 Document: 010110242289 Date Filed: 04/13/1992 Page: 2
plaintiff would be required to pursue an adequate state 

postdeprivation remedy. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 536 

(1984); Marshall v. Norwood, 741 F.2d 761, 764 (5th Cir. 1984). 

In the absence of "a rational argument on the law or the 

facts," petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis is 

DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See Coppedge v. United 

States, 369 U.S. 438, 448 (1962); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). 

SO ORDERED. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-3241 Document: 010110242289 Date Filed: 04/13/1992 Page: 3