Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03175/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03175-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joan Hamilton
Appellee
Millard Mann
Appellee
Herb Maschner
Appellee
Richard Mills
Appellee
Walter J. Moore
Appellant
Randy Pettit
Appellee
Elwaine Pomeroy
Appellee
John Thomas
Appellee

Document Text:

.. 

1 

. FILED · 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

United Stares Courr of Ap~ 

Tenth Circuit 

DEC 2 7 7990 

WALTER J. MOORE, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

HERB MASCHNER, RICHARD MILLS, ) 

MILLARD MANN, RANDY PETTIT, ) 

JOAN HAMILTON, JOHN THOMAS, ) 

ELWAINE POMEROY, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

) 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-3175 

(D.C. No. 87-3040) 

(D. Kansas) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK, 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. Therefore, the case -is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff Walter J. Moore (prose) brought this civil rights 

action under 42 u.s.c. S 1983 to complain about the conditions of 

his confinement at the Kansas State Penitentiary, Lansing, Kansas. 

Specifically, Moore asserted that prison officials conditioned his 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, o~ 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: 90-3175 Document: 010110097374 Date Filed: 12/27/1990 Page: 1 
~ 

I 

parole on his completion of substance abuse and mental health 

programs and then denied him access to those programs at the 

penitentiary. According to Moore, defendants' conduct was 

designed primarily to prevent him from getting parole and 

therefore constituted a denial of due process and his right to be 

free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and 

Fourteenth Amendments. He further argued that he should have been 

paroled so that he could pursue a substance abuse program of his 

own choosing outside the prison. The district court for the 

District of Kansas, Brown, J., rejected Moore's claims and granted 

summary judgment in favor of the defendant prison officials. 

Moore appeals the court's ruling; he additionally argues that the 

district court abused its discretion in denying him further 

discovery. We reject appellant's arguments and affirm the 

district court. 1 

Summary judgment is proper only "when the pleadings ••• 

show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and 

that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." 

Holdaway v. AMOCO Prod. Co., 751 F.2d 1129 (10th Cir. 1984). See 

also Fed R. Civ. P. 56(c). Therefore, in order to prevail in 

overturning the district court's grant of summary judgment, the 

appellant must demonstrate that there were indeed genuine issues 

of fact or law which the district court overlooked. After careful 

review of the record, we can find no such issues or disputes here. · 

Rather, we affirm the district court's conclusion that: 

1 We nevertheless grant appellant's motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-3175 Document: 010110097374 Date Filed: 12/27/1990 Page: 2 
. 

t 

[a]ll of the evidence establishes that Moore has been · given the opportunity for mental health treatment 

numerous times; and, in particular, it c~early appears 

that he was admitted into a mental health program prior 

to his first parole hearing but that he refused to 

participate in that program, and that he failed to 

reapply for treatment at the institution although he was 

free to do so. There is no evidence whatsoever that the 

institution failed to offer him a program or that he was 

otherwise unable to participate due to the actions of 

defendants. 

Order Sustaining Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment at 6. 

We also reject Moore's contention that he was wrongly denied 

discovery. As we noted in Sil-Flo, Inc. v. SFHC, Inc., October 

30, 1990, WESTLAW 1990 WL 164055, "the district court has wide 

discretion in its regulation of pretrial matters .•• [so that 

the] trial court's decision will not be disturbed unless the 

appellate court has a definite and firm conviction that the lower 

court made a clear error of judgment or exceeded the bounds of 

permissible choice in the circumstances." We find no evidence of 

abuse of discretion here. In fact, the only discovery requests 

which Moore disputes on appeal involve his allegations that 

"Defendants were not fit for positions of authority" and that 

there was "fraud in program funding," App. Br. at 2,6. These 

issues were clearly beyond the subject matter of this action and 

therefore were properly denied by the district court. 

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court's summary judgment 

order and deny appellant's motion to show cause. The mandate shall 

shall issue forthwith. Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-3175 Document: 010110097374 Date Filed: 12/27/1990 Page: 3