Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03047/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03047-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 

---

FI ~L. u United S~tea t μrt qf Appea\Jt UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tentb 1rcu1t 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JAMES M. DEBARDELEBEN, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V. ) 

) 

J.M. QUINLAN, ROBERT L. MATTHEWS, ) 

N. W. SMITH, R. G. SIMPSON, ) 

E. CAVE, W. A. BLOUNT, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

DECO 4 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-3047 

(D.C. No. 88-R-3225) 

(D. Kansas) 

Before LOGAN, BARRETT and EBEL, 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 case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. We grant the right to appeal in 

forma pauperis in order to reach the merits of the case. 

* 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: 92-3047 Document: 010110149266 Date Filed: 12/04/1992 Page: 1 
Plaintiff James M. DeBardeleben appeals from entry of summary 

judgment in favor of the five named defendants on his amended complaint filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, alleging jurisdiction 

1 under 28 U.S.C. § 1361. His contentions on appeal are that: 

(1) genuine issues of material fact remain and summary judgment 

was therefore improper, (2) his right of access to the courts and 

to self-representation was violated; and (3) summary judgment 

should not have been granted as a matter of law. On appeal, our 

standard for review of an entry of summary judgment is the same as 

that applied by the district court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

56 (c). Osgood v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 848 F.2d 141, 

143 (10th Cir. 1988). Therefore, we have reviewed the record and 

plaintiff's brief to determine whether any genuine issue of material fact exists and whether defendants are entitled to judgment 

as a matter of law. 

Plaintiff began serving his federal sentence in 1985 at the 

United States Penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. Shortly 

thereafter, following publication of a magazine article about 

plaintiff which apparently was widely available to inmates, he 

perceived that he was at risk of physical harm if he remained in 

the general prison population. Plaintiff's requests for protective custody and his refusal of program assignments resulted in 

two transfers within the federal prison system, ultimately placing 

1 Plaintiff also sought to invoke jurisdiction pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §1651, and alleged violations of his First and Fifth Amendment rights, but has abandoned those allegations on appeal. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-3047 Document: 010110149266 Date Filed: 12/04/1992 Page: 2 
him in the United States Penitentiary in Leavenworth on January 27, 1988. Plaintiff had several legal matters pending at the 

time of this transfer and sixteen boxes containing his legal 

papers followed him to Leavenworth. 

Shortly after arrival, plaintiff refused to accept a program 

assignment to the general prison population. Following notice and 

hearing, plaintiff was found to have committed misconduct and was 

disciplined. He admitted in the hearing he had not received any 

specific threats from inmates at Leavenworth. Nonetheless, plaintiff continued to refuse to enter the general prison population 

and requested protective custody. Although prison officials had 

no evidence that plaintiff's safety was at risk in the general 

prison population, and despite plaintiff's own admissions, he 

remained as an "unverified protection case" for at least a year 

after his arrival at Leavenworth. IR. Doc. 44, Att. 4. 

Inmates under protection at Leavenworth are housed in special 

units separate from the general prison population. For reasons of 

safety and security, they are limited in the amount of personal 

and legal material that can be maintained in their cells. Those 

inmates, however, are permitted access to the law library and may 

exchange the legal materials in their cells with their stored 

materials, within the stated volume limitations. 28 C.F.R. 

§ 543.ll(h) (j). Special consideration can be given when an inmate 

documents an imminent court deadline. 28 C.F.R. § 543.ll(h) (i). 

While housed in a special unit, plaintiff filed his complaint, 

which he later amended, alleging interference with his access to 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-3047 Document: 010110149266 Date Filed: 12/04/1992 Page: 3 
the courts and inadequate access to legal resources and his own 

legal files. 

The evidence is undisputed that plaintiff had access to his 

own legal materials and to the law library in a manner consistent 

with prevailing prison regulations. The record is silent as to 

any evidence of missed filing deadlines, the imposition of sanctions as a consequence of tardy or ill-prepared pleadings, or of 

any adverse effect on plaintiff's pending cases allegedly attributable to application of these regulations. Plaintiff has presented well-drafted pleadings to this court, as well as the 

district court. Plaintiff has not alleged a request for "special 

consideration" was ever made. These are uncontroverted facts. In 

order to avoid summary judgment, plaintiff must present evidence 

demonstrating that his access to the court has been substantively 

impaired. Twyman v. Crisp. 584 F.2d 352, 359 (10th Cir. 1978). 

Instead, plaintiff argues the regulations are burdensome with 

regard to his apparently voluminous litigation docket. An allegation of hardship does not equate to a constitutional deprivation. 

We are convinced that neither plaintiff's access to the courts nor 

alleged right to self-representation was impaired. We agree with 

the district court that plaintiff has failed to make the requisite 

evidentiary showing to avoid summary judgment. 

We also agree with the district court's analysis that the 

government is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Prisoners 

have a constitutional right to court access to present claims of 

constitutional magnitude. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977). 

-4-

Appellate Case: 92-3047 Document: 010110149266 Date Filed: 12/04/1992 Page: 4 
However, a prisoner's rights are necessarily tempered by reasonable restrictions as a consequence of the incarceration. The 

fundamental goal of institutional security necessitates certain 

limitations be imposed on prisoners' retained constitutional 

rights. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 546-47 (1979). The regulations for library use, as well as maintenance of personal legal 

files, do not deny prisoners access to the courts, nor do they 

specifically deny plaintiff access. Restrictions on access are 

not per se unconstitutional. United States v. Evans, 542 F.2d 805 

(10th Cir. 1976) cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1101 (1977). The prison 

regulations taken as a whole, including the opportunity for 

increased access to personal files in properly documented circumstances, are intended to foster legitimate penological interests, 

and not shown to unnecessarily impinge on prisoners' rights. 

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). We conclude the government is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-5-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-3047 Document: 010110149266 Date Filed: 12/04/1992 Page: 5