Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-07049/USCOURTS-ca10-92-07049-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
B. J. Moore
Appellee
Tommy Carl Moore
Appellant

Document Text:

TENTH CIRCUIT 

TOMMY CARL MOORE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

B. J. MOORE, Sheriff of Bryan 

County at Durant, Oklahoma, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

SEPl .11992 

ROBERT L. HOECKE!: 

Clerk 

No. 92-7049 

(D.C. No. CV-91-423-S) 

(E.D. Oklahoma) 

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. 

Plaintiff Tommy Carl Moore appeals the dismissal of his 42 

u.s.c. S 1983 complaint against the defendant sheriff of Bryan 

County, Oklahoma. The complaint asserted that defendant placed 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-7049 Document: 010110322267 Date Filed: 09/11/1992 Page: 1
plaintiff, an admitted "jailhouse lawyer," into solitary confinement to prevent him from advising or otherwise contacting other 

inmates to assist them in preparing legal pleadings. He also 

alleged he was isolated in retaliation for a civil rights suit he 

filed earlier against defendant, and that a pleading was confiscated. Plaintiff asserted that defendant made the following 

statement to him at the time defendant placed plaintiff in a segregated cell: 

Tonuny, I'm not going to allow you to be in the GENERAL 

POPULATION, where you will be able to assist other 

Inmate's [sic] in preparing lawsuits and/or complaints 

against me. I've got enough problems with your suits at 

this time, and I surly [sic] don't need any more. If 

the Court's [sic] want to know why I'm holding you in 

Solitary Confinement, I will inform them that the jail 

is over-crowded and that I do not have anywhere else to 

put you. I believe that will satisfy the courts enough. 

There is no way that I'm going to allow you to talk and/ 

or help anyone in this jail on legal matters and I'm 

also not going to allow you to talk to anyone but myself 

while you are confined to this facility, and that's 

that. 

IR. tab 3 at 3A. Plaintiff also asserts that defendant placed a 

sign in the jail corridor to the effect that other inmates would 

lose trusty status if found in the portion of the jail where 

plaintiff's cell was located. 

Considering these allegations, Judge H. Dale Cook found the 

complaint stated a cause of action. Id. tab 8. The case was 

later reassigned to Judge Frank H. Seay, who entered the order of 

dismissal, finding there was no cause of action. Id. tab 58. 

Insofar as the complaint is viewed as one in which plaintiff 

is asserting that other inmates, not parties to this litigation, 

are deprived of plaintiff's services as a jailhouse lawyer, the 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-7049 Document: 010110322267 Date Filed: 09/11/1992 Page: 2
district court's dismissal was correct. "Prison inmates do not 

possess the right to a particular prisoner's help in preparing 

their legal materials, so long as prison officials make other 

assistance available." Smith v. Maschner, 899 F.2d 940, 950 (10th 

Cir. 1990). Plaintiff "does not have a protected interest in providing legal representation to other inmates." Id. Prison 

authorities have a constitutional mandate to provide adequate 

access to legal assistance. Plaintiff has not alleged that his 

fellow inmates have been altogether deprived of access to the 

courts or unduly hindered in pursuing their remedies. Even 

holding plaintiff's complaint to a less stringent standard than 

pleadings drafted by attorneys, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 

(1972), we do not find a cause of action for denial of access to 

the courts has been stated by plaintiff on behalf of the general 

prison population or fellow prisoner Milstead specifically. 

Insofar as plaintiff is asserting that he personally was 

placed into administrative segregation in retaliation for 

exercising his own constitutional rights in filing a civil action 

against defendant, plaintiff states a cause of action. 

Retaliation against an inmate for exercising his right to access 

the courts violates both the inmate's First Amendment rights and 

right to court access. Smith, 899 F.2d at 947-48. A prisoner is 

not entitled to a particular cell assignment. Twyman v. Crisp, 

584 F.2d 352 (10th Cir. 1978). However, administrative discretion 

may not be based upon improper motives. Smith, 899 F.2d at 948. 

Here, plaintiff alleges segregation in isolation in retaliation 

for having previously filed a§ 1983 case. No contentions are 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-7049 Document: 010110322267 Date Filed: 09/11/1992 Page: 3
made here that the conditions in a "solitary confinement" cell 

were any different than in the other cells except for the 

isolation from the general inmate population. But isolation is 

more punitive than normal celling and plaintiff has so alleged. 

Plaintiff has the burden of proving the motivating factor for his 

isolation was as he alleges, and the nature and length of his 

confinement may only entitle him to nominal damages. Nonetheless, 

he stated a cause of action and dismissal was inappropriate. 

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-7049 Document: 010110322267 Date Filed: 09/11/1992 Page: 4