Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-07091/USCOURTS-ca10-90-07091-0/pdf.json

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

---

FILED 

Unit.eel States Court of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

CARL GENE HACKER; MICHAEL DOUGLAS ) 

MCNEIL, ) 

) 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

JAMES L. SAFFLE, Warden OSP; LEE MANN, ) 

Administrative Officer OSP; MIKE PRUITT,) 

Unit Manager OSP-A-Unit; MELVIN ) 

CAMPBELL, Mailroom Supervisor OSP, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

CARL GENE HACKER; MICHAEL DOUGLAS 

MCNEIL, 

) 

) 

) 

OCT O 11991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-7091 

(D.C. No. CIV 90-238-S) 

(E.D. Okla.) 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) No. 90-7092 

v. 

GARY MAYNARD; JAMES L. SAFFLE, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

CARL GENE HACKER; MICHAEL DOUGLAS 

MCNEIL, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

GARY MAYNARD; JAMES L. SAFFLE; BILLY 

KEYS; NANCY CARPENTER, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

CARL GENE HACKER; MICHAEL DOUGLAS 

MCNEIL, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

) (D.C. No. 90-374-S) 

) (E.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 90-7093 

) (D.C. No. 90-370-S) 

) (E.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 90-7096 

) (D.C. No. CIV-90-279- S) 

) (E.D. Okla.) 

) 

Appellate Case: 90-7091 Document: 010110090724 Date Filed: 10/01/1991 Page: 1 
GARY MAYNARD; HENRY BELLMON; STEVE ) 

LEWIS; ROBERT CULLISON; WILLIAM E. ) 

THOMPSON; FARRELL HATCH, and JAMES L. ) 

SAFFLE, ) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R .. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cases are therefore ordered 

In each of these appeals, plaintiffs appeal the district 

court's dismissals of their prose civil rights actions, filed 

pursuant to 42 u.s.c. § 1983, seeking declaratory, injunctive, and 

damage relief as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). In 

addition, plaintiffs seek leave to appeal in forma pauperis. 1 

* 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. 

1 Although some of the arguments raised may fall within the 

scope of the Battle v. Anderson, district court No. 72-95-C, class 

action, in the interests of judicial efficiency, we will decide 

the appeals on the merits. Cf. McNeil v. Guthrie, __ F.2d __ , 

Nos. 90-572, 90-7066 (10th Cir. Sept. 25, 1991). 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-7091 Document: 010110090724 Date Filed: 10/01/1991 Page: 2 
We review the district court's dismissals under section 

1915(d) for an abuse of discretion. Yellen v. Cooper, 828 F.2d 

1471, 1475 (10th Cir. 1987). Under section 1915(d), a district 

court may dismiss a prose action if it is frivolous. A complaint 

"is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in 

fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). 

[T]he statute accords judges not only the authority to 

dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal 

theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of 

the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those 

claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless. 

Id. at 327. "'[W]henever a plaintiff states an arguable claim for 

relief, dismissal for frivolousness under§ 1915(d) is improper, 

even if the legal basis underlying the claim ultimately proves 

incorrect.'" Hall v. Bellmen, 935 F.2d 1106, 1109 (10th Cir. 

199l)(quoting McKinney v. Oklahoma, 925 F.2d 363, 365 (10th Cir. 

1991)). 

When the pro se plaintiff is a prisoner, a 

court-authorized investigation and [special] report by 

prison officials ... is not only proper, but may be 

necessary to develop a record sufficient to ascertain 

whether there are any factual or legal bases for the 

prisoner's claims .... Although a court may consider 

the [special] report in dismissing a claim pursuant to 

§ 1915(d), it cannot resolve material disputed factual 

issues by accepting the report's factual findings when 

they are in conflict with pleadings or affidavits. A 

bona fide factual dispute exists even when the 

plaintiff's factual allegations that are in conflict 

with the [special] report are less specific or 

well-documented than those contained in the report. 

Because prose litigants may be unfamiliar with the 

requirements to sustain a cause of action, they should 

be provided an opportunity to controvert the facts set 

out in the [special] report. 

Id. (citations omitted). 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-7091 Document: 010110090724 Date Filed: 10/01/1991 Page: 3 
No. 90-7091 

Plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that their rights to 

free speech and due process, guaranteed by the first, fifth, and 

fourteenth amendments, were violated by defendants' failure to 

mail or interference with personal and legal correspondence, such 

that the mail did not reach its intended recipient. Also, 

plaintiffs alleged that defendants did not follow prison 

regulations permitting free certified legal mail and opened legal 

mail outside of plaintiffs' presence. 

At the district court's direction, defendants filed a special 

report. After examining the special report and the parties' 

pleadings, the district court dismissed the action as frivolous. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). The district court found that certified mail 

privileges were available only to effect proper service of 

petitions and summons on defendants, and that at the times in 

question, plaintiffs either were not indigent or did not qualify 

for free certified mail privileges. The district court determined 

plaintiffs were required to open legal mail only to prove that 

they should be afforded free mail privileges. In addition, the 

court found that the requirement that inmates open their mail for 

verification purposes was legitimately related to prison 

interests. Plaintiffs appealed. 

On appeal, plaintiffs argue (1) the district court improperly 

dismissed this action as frivolous; (2) the district court 

improperly relied on the special report to resolve factual 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-7091 Document: 010110090724 Date Filed: 10/01/1991 Page: 4 
disputes; (3) the district court judge was biased; and (4) the 

district court did not rule on their motion for certification of a 

class action. 

Plaintiffs first argue that the section 1915(d) dismissal was 

improper because plaintiff McNeil's personal mail was returned, 

censored, or mishandled and that plaintiff Hacker's legal mail was 

opened outside of his presence. Plaintiffs contend the district 

court improperly relied on the special report to resolve the 

factual disputes regarding these claims. 

Prisoners have a liberty interest within the fourteenth 

amendment protecting their right to correspond from arbitrary 

government action. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407 

(1989); Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 418 (1974). The 

right to correspond, however, may be reasonably regulated when 

there is a need to protect a legitimate governmental interest. 

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-90 (1987). 

Thus, McNeil had a constitutional right to have his personal 

mail properly handled and delivered uncensored unless there was a 

legitimate governmental reason for censoring or failing to deliver 

the mail. McNeil presented specific instances of censorship and 

mail mishandling in his affidavit and brief in support of 

plaintiffs' objection to defendants' motion to dismiss. In their 

special report, defendants' only statement regarding McNeil's 

allegation was that there are no logs maintained for personal 

mail. The district court did not address McNeil's claim. 

Because McNeil has made a rational argument based on the law 

and facts, we conclude his claim regarding his personal mail is 

5 

Appellate Case: 90-7091 Document: 010110090724 Date Filed: 10/01/1991 Page: 5 
not frivolous. Accordingly, we remand for further proceedings on 

this claim. 

After reviewing the briefs and district court file, we 

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in 

dismissing Hacker's claim, regarding the alleged opening of his 

legal mail outside of his presence, as frivolous. 

In addition, we conclude plaintiffs' other arguments on 

appeal are without merit. Nothing in the record evidences any 

bias on the part of the district court judge. Although the 

district court probably should have ruled on the motion for class 

certification, its failure to do so was not reversible error, 

because plaintiffs presented no valid reasons for such 

certification. 

No. 90-7092 

In their complaint, plaintiffs alleged that their first, 

eighth, and fourteenth amendment rights were violated when the 

defendants eliminated the house arrest program, Okla. Stat. tit. 

57, §§ 510.2, 510.3. Plaintiffs maintained they had a liberty 

interest in being released to house arrest. 

After examining the file, including a special report prepared 

by defendants, the district court dismissed the action as 

frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). In determining the action was 

frivolous, the district court concluded that the Oklahoma house 

arrest statute does not create a constitutionally protected 

interest; it merely provides for a possibility of house arrest. 

Plaintiffs appealed. 

6 

Appellate Case: 90-7091 Document: 010110090724 Date Filed: 10/01/1991 Page: 6 
On appeal, they argue (1) the district court improperly 

dismissed this action under section 1915(d); (2) the district 

court judge was biased; and (3) the district court improperly 

failed to rule on their motion for class certification. 

After reviewing the 

conclude the district court 

briefs and district 

properly dismissed 

court file, we 

this action as 

frivolous under section 1915(d). Also, we conclude plaintiffs' 

other arguments on appeal are without merit. 

No. 90-7093 

In their complaint, plaintiffs alleged that their first, 

fifth, sixth, and fourteenth amendment and United States 

Constitution art. IV,§ 2, cl.1 right to access to the courts was 

violated by defendants. They contended that (1) as administrative 

segregation prisoners, they were denied access to the law library 

unless they had a court imposed deadline; (2) untrained inmate law 

clerks provided inadequate assistance; (3) there is an 

unconstitutional restriction on the number of inmates who may use 

the law library at any one time; and (4) defendants refused free 

mail privileges to plaintiffs even though plaintiffs were granted 

in forma pauperis status by the court. 

Again, after examining the file, including a special report 

prepared by defendants, the district court dismissed the action as 

frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). In doing so, the district court 

determined that plaintiffs' right to access to the courts had not 

been abridged. They had been permitted several trips to the law 

library, free photocopies, and access to trained law clerks and 

library supervisors. Also, the court concluded that the prison 

7 

Appellate Case: 90-7091 Document: 010110090724 Date Filed: 10/01/1991 Page: 7 
regulations concerning 

Plaintiffs appealed. 

free legal mail were reasonable. 

On appeal, they argue (1) the district court improperly 

dismissed this action as frivolous; (2) the district court 

improperly used the special report to resolve the fact dispute 

regarding access to the courts; (3) the district court ignored 

their requests for appointment of counsel and class certification; 

and (4) the district court was biased. 

After reviewing the briefs and district court file, we 

conclude the district court correctly dismissed this action as 

frivolous under section 1915(d). We further conclude that 

plaintiffs' other arguments on appeal are without merit. 

Ho. 90-7096 

In their complaint, in which they requested certification of 

a class action, plaintiffs alleged several first, sixth, eighth, 

and fourteenth amendment violations. Specifically, they alleged 

(1) cruel and unusual punishment due to overcrowding and double 

celling; (2) violation of due process rights in disciplinary and 

classification proceedings; (3) denial of access to the courts; 

(4) improper application of Okla. Stat. tit. 57, §§ 138, 224, 365, 

510.2, 510.3, 570-576, which are ex post facto laws; (5) denial of 

adequate medical and dental treatment; (6) denial of freedom of 

religion; (7) denial of earned credits and emergency time credits; 

(8) cruel and unusual punishment due to inadequate food, mail 

censorship, inadequate physical facilities, improper ventilation 

8 

Appellate Case: 90-7091 Document: 010110090724 Date Filed: 10/01/1991 Page: 8 
and temperature controls, and insufficient staff; 

excessive use of force. 

and ( 9 ) 

After reviewing the file, including a special report prepared 

by defendants, the district court dismissed the action as 

frivolous. 28 u.s.c. § 1915(d). The court found (1) no eighth 

amendment cruel and unusual punishment violations; (2) no first 

amendment access to the courts violations; (3) no due process or 

equal protection violations in disciplinary or classification 

procedures; (4) plaintiffs have no right not to be placed in 

restrictive housing or administrative segregation; and (5) there 

were no applications of ex post facto legislation because 

plaintiffs were not eligible for credits to their sentences. 

Plaintiffs appealed. 

On appeal, they argue (1) the 

dismissed this action as frivolous; 

district court improperly 

(2) the district court 

improperly used the special report to resolve factual disputes; 

(3) the district court was biased; (4) the district court 

improperly failed to determine whether the action could proceed as 

a class action; and (5) the district court did not consider the 

constitutionality of sections 138, 224, 510.2, 510.3, and 570-576. 

After examining the briefs and district court file, we 

conclude the district court properly dismissed this action as 

frivolous under section 1915(d). We further conclude that 

plaintiffs' other arguments on appeal are meritless. 

9 

Appellate Case: 90-7091 Document: 010110090724 Date Filed: 10/01/1991 Page: 9 
• 

DISPOSITION 

Leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is GRANTED in 

all four appeals. The judgment in No. 90-7091 is REVERSED in 

part. The action is REMANDED for further proceedings on McNeil's 

claim of mishandling of his personal mail. In all other respects, 

the judgment is AFFIRMED. The judgments in Nos. 90-7092, 90-7093, 

and 90-7096 are AFFIRMED. 

The mandates shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

10 

Appellate Case: 90-7091 Document: 010110090724 Date Filed: 10/01/1991 Page: 10