Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03285/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03285-0/pdf.json

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

---

FIL~ U 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEABSUt.ed States C.Ourtof Appe:.b rre::th c;.-·,,1i~ 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

ROBERT HUTCHCRAFT, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

RAYMOND ROBERTS; T. THOMAS, COI; ) 

R.A. STUPAR; WILLIAM L. CUMMINGS, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

APR 10 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk . 

No. 91-3285 

(D.C. No. 91-3242-S) 

(D. Kansas) 

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 . 

Robert Hutchcraft, a prose prisoner, brought this action 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) against various prison officials. 

Hutchcraft asserts violations of his rights to procedural due 

process and equal protection arising from defendants' refusal to 

allow him visits from his wife. He alleges that visitation was 

*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: 91-3285 Document: 010110240423 Date Filed: 04/10/1992 Page: 1
denied in connection with a disciplinary action, and attaches 

disciplinary regulations indicating that his privileges could not 

be restricted for more than 20 days. Complaint, attachment D. A 

June 13, 1991 memo attached to the complaint indicates visitations 

would be denied at least until Nov. 9, 1991, some six months after 

final disposition of his disciplinary proceeding. Id. attachment 

A2. The district court dismissed the action sua sponte under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1988), concluding that Hutchcraft's allegations 

are "conclusory, frivolous and do not rise to the level of 

violation of his constitutional rights." Rec., vol. I, at 4. We 

grant Hutchcraft's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and 

reverse. 

This court has held that a sua sponte section 1915(d) 

dismissal is proper "when 'on the face of the complaint it clearly 

appears that the action is frivolous or malicious.'" Hall v. 

Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1108 (10th Cir. 1991) (quoting Henriksen 

v. Bentley, 644 F. 2d 852, 854 ( 10th Cir. 1981)) . "The term 

'frivolous' refers to 'the inarguable legal conclusion' and 'the 

fanciful factual allegation.'" Id. (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 

490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)). However, section 1915(d) authorizes 

dismissal only if the legal theory is "'indisputably meritless.'" 

Id. at 1109 (quoting Neitzke, 490 U. S. at 327). When "'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.'" Id. at 1109 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-3285 Document: 010110240423 Date Filed: 04/10/1992 Page: 2
(quoting McKinney v. Oklahoma, 925 F.2d 363, 365 (10th Cir. 

1991)). Moreover, in evaluating the propriety of a section 

1915(d) dismissal, "[a] prose litigant's pleadings are to be 

construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than 

formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Id. at 1110 & n.3 . 

Upon e x amining Hutchcraft's complaint under the above 

standards, we conclude that the district court's sua sponte 

dismissal under section 1915(d) was improper. Hutchcraft alleges 

that he has a liberty interest in visits from his wife and that he 

was denied this interest without the requisite procedural due 

process. The Supreme Court has held that state law may create an 

enforceable liberty interest in visitation "by establishing 

' substantive predicates' to govern official decision-making, and, 

further, by mandating the outcome to be reached upon a finding 

that the relevant criteria have been met." Kentucky Dep't of 

Corrections v. Thompson, 109 s.ct. 1904, 1909 (1989) (citation 

omitted) . As a result of the sua sponte dismissal below, the 

record before us is incomplete with respect to the reasons for 

defendants' denial of visitation, the nature of the regulations 

governing visitation, and the procedures, if any, accorded 

Hutchcraft with respect to the denial. Construing the complaint 

liberally in Hutchcraft's favor, we cannot say in light of 

Thompson that his procedural due process claim is indisputably 

meritless. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-3285 Document: 010110240423 Date Filed: 04/10/1992 Page: 3
Hutchcraft also claims an equal protection violation arising 

from the denial of visitation. He asserts that defendants' 

actions were in retaliation for an earlier incident in which 

defendants were required to pay for injuries sustained by 

Hutchcraft's wife, who is apparently handicapped and who was 

injured in an accident while visiting the prison. Broadly 

construed, Hutchcraft's allegations can be characterized as 

asserting that he was treated differently than other similarly 

situated inmates with respect to visitation for an improper 

reason. 

We conclude that Hutchcraft's alleged equal protection claim 

is not frivolous, even if it should subsequently be determined 

that he has no protected liberty interest in visitation. See 

O'Bar v. Pinion, 953 F.2d 74, 82 (4th Cir. 1991). "Even in the 

absence of a fundamental right or a suspect classification, equal 

protection requires that a classification between similarly 

situated individuals bear some rational relationship to a 

legitimate state purpose." Brandon v. District of Columbia Bd. of 

Parole, 734 F.2d 56, 60 (D.C. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 

1127 (1985); see also Durso v. Rowe, 579 F.2d 1365, 1371-72 (7th 

Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1121 (1979); Klein v. Pyle, 767 

F.Supp. 215, 218 (D. Colo. 1991). Hutchcraft asserts that his 

visitation was taken away for an impermissible retaliatory purpose 

rather than to further legitimate prison concerns. "Equal 

protection does require at the least, however, that the state act 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-3285 Document: 010110240423 Date Filed: 04/10/1992 Page: 4
'sensibly and in good faith."' Brandon, 734 F.2d at 60 (quoting 

Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 439 (1981) (Blackmun, 

J., concurring)). Accordingly, we can not say on this incomplete 

record that Hutchcraft's equal protection claim is indisputably 

meritless. 

We grant Hutchcraft's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 

We reverse the dismissal, and remand for further proceedings. The 

district court may, in its discretion, require a Martinez report 

"to develop a record sufficient to ascertain whether there are any 

factual or legal bases for the prisoner's claims." Hall, 935 F.2d 

at 1109. 

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings. The mandate 

shall issue forthwith. 

-5-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-3285 Document: 010110240423 Date Filed: 04/10/1992 Page: 5