Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-94-01527/USCOURTS-ca10-94-01527-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Captain Nordeen
Appellee
Bob Furlong
Appellee
Frank Gunter
Appellee
Anthony Lucero
Appellant
Endre Samu
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH FILED . 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

United States Court of Appeam Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

ANTHONY LUCERO, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

vs. 

FRANK GUNTER, Director Colorado 

Department of Corrections; BOB 

FURLONG, Warden Limon Correctional 

Facility; CAPTAIN NORDEEN; ENDRE 

SAMU, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

APR 12 1995 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

No. 94-1527 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

(D.C. No. 93-F-277) 

Submitted on the briefs:* 

Anthony Lucero, pro se. 

Gale A. Norton, Attorney General, Simon P. Lipstein, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tort Litigation Division, Denver, Colorado, for 

Defendants-Appellees. 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

BALDOCK, Circuit Judge. 

Plaintiff Anthony Lucero, appearing pro se, appeals the 

district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint 

* After exarnlnlng 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); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 94-1527 Document: 01019282637 Date Filed: 04/12/1995 Page: 1 
following our remand in Lucero v. Gunter, 17 F.3d 1347 (lOth Cir. 

1994). We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and 

we affirm. 

The facts underlying this dispute are set forth in Lucero, 17 

F.3d at 1348-49; however, we restate the facts relevant to the 

instant appeal. On the evening of October 22, 1992, Colorado 

Department of Corrections ("DOC") officials asked Plaintiff to 

submit to a urinalysis. Plaintiff refused to comply with the 

request and was subsequently charged with "disobeying a lawful 

order." On November 20, 1992, DOC officials found Plaintiff 

guilty of disobeying a lawful order, ordered him to serve ten days 

in punitive segregation, and assessed eighteen days loss of good 

time credits. 

On February 3, 1993, Plaintiff filed a pro se civil rights 

complaint in the district court. Count I of the complaint alleged 

that DOC officials violated his Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment 

rights when they requested that he submit to a urinalysis. Count 

II of the complaint alleged DOC officials violated Plaintiff's due 

process rights by failing to provide him with adequate notice of 

the charges against him prior to his disciplinary hearing. The 

district court dismissed Count I of Plaintiff's complaint and 

granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants as to Count II of 

the complaint. 

On appeal, we affirmed the district court's dismissal of 

Plaintiff's Fifth and Sixth Amendment claims and grant of summary 

judgment as to Plaintiff's due process claim. Lucero, 17 F.3d at 

1350-52. However, we reversed the district court's dismissal of 

-2-

Appellate Case: 94-1527 Document: 01019282637 Date Filed: 04/12/1995 Page: 2 
Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim. Id. at 1350. Concluding that 

random urine testing of prisoners did not violate the Fourth 

Amendment, we remanded to the district court for a determination 

whether the urinalysis requested of Plaintiff was conducted 

pursuant to random selection or was otherwise permissible under 

the Fourth Amendment. Id. 

Following our remand, Plaintiff filed a "Motion For 

Appointment of Counsel" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) claiming 

that a mental impairment limited his ability to represent himself. 

On April 7, 1994, the district court denied the motion noting that 

"Plaintiff has shown, in fact, that he is quite capable of 

preparing cogent and well-researched briefs." 

On April 18, 1994, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss 

Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim because the urinalysis request 

was the result of random selection. In support of this motion, 

Defendants submitted the affidavit of Captain Louis Nordeen, the 

officer who made the request. In his affidavit, Captain Nordeen 

stated that under prison policy, a list of prisoners selected 

randomly for urinalysis testing is provided to a day shift 

commander who attempts to complete the tests during the day shift. 

Testing which is not completed during the day shift is completed 

in the evening "swing" shift. Additionally, Captain Nordeen 

stated that on the day Plaintiff refused to provide a urine 

sample, two of six samples were requested on the swing shift and 

that to the best of his recollection, "the [urinalysis] test that 

was requested [of Plaintiff] ... was conducted as a random test." 

-3-

Appellate Case: 94-1527 Document: 01019282637 Date Filed: 04/12/1995 Page: 3 
In response, Plaintiff contended that DOC officials requested 

a urinalysis for harassment purposes and because he was suspected 

of abusing drugs. Additionally, Plaintiff contended that random 

urine samples were collected only during the daytime. Because 

Officer Nordeen made the urinalysis request during evening hours, 

Plaintiff argued that the urinalysis request was not the result of 

random selection. In support of his argument, Plaintiff submitted 

the affidavit of Gregory Wells, an Inmate Representative. In his 

affidavit, Wells stated that customary prison practice did not 

provide for the collection of random urine samples during evening 

hours and that urine samples were collected in the evenings only 

to harass an inmate or when there was suspicion of drug or alcohol 

use. 

Based upon the submissions before it, the district court 

granted Defendants' motion to dismiss. Specifically, the court 

held that the government produced sufficient evidence to indicate 

that Plaintiff "was randomly requested to provide a urine sample." 

Moreover, the court held that Plaintiff's evidence was 

insufficient for a reasonable factfinder to "conclude that the 

urine sample was requested on the basis of suspicion of drug and/ 

or alcohol use, or for purpose[s] of harassing Plaintiff." This 

appeal followed. 

On appeal, Plaintiff contends the district court erred by: 

(1) concluding the urinalysis request was based on random 

selection, and (2) denying his motion for appointment of counsel. 

We review each of Plaintiff's claims in turn. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 94-1527 Document: 01019282637 Date Filed: 04/12/1995 Page: 4 
I. 

Plaintiff first contends the district court erred in 

dismissing his Fourth Amendment claim when it concluded the 

urinalysis request was based upon random selection. Specifically, 

Plaintiff contends he produced sufficient evidence indicating the 

request was made for harassment purposes. 

A. 

As an initial matter we must determine our standard of 

review. The district court, upon the government's motion to 

dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6), dismissed Plaintiff's 

Fourth Amendment claim. Plaintiff contends that the district 

court's dismissal of his Fourth Amendment claim pursuant to Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6) should be treated as one for summary judgment 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 because matters outside the pleadings 

were received and considered. We review de novo the district 

court's treatment of the government's motion. Redmon v. United 

States, 934 F.2d 1151, 1155 (lOth Cir. 1991). 

"A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b) (6) is treated as 

a [Rule 56] motion for summary judgment when premised on materials 

outside the pleadings, and the opposing party is afforded the same 

notice and opportunity to respond as provided in Rule 56." Hall 

v. Bellmen, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110-11 (lOth Cir. 1991). In the 

instant case, the district court considered materials outside· the 

pleadings in the form of affidavits submitted by Defendants in 

ruling upon the motion to dismiss. Additionally, Plaintiff was 

afforded an opportunity to respond and submitted opposing 

affidavits in response to the government's motion. Accordingly, 

-5-

Appellate Case: 94-1527 Document: 01019282637 Date Filed: 04/12/1995 Page: 5 
exercising our plenary power, we treat the district court's 

dismissal as a grant of summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. 

See Redmon, 934 F.2d at 1155. 

We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de 

novo. Eaton v. Jarvis Prods. Corp., 965 F.2d 922, 925 (lOth Cir. 

1992). Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine 

dispute over a material fact and the moving party is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law. Id. We view the evidence and draw 

any inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the party 

opposing summary judgment. Id. 

B. 

Having determined our standard of review, we next address 

Plaintiff's contention that the district court erred in concluding 

the urinalysis request was based upon random selection. Courts 

which have addressed this issue have recognized that although 

random urine testing of inmates does not violate the Fourth 

Amendment, see, ~. Lucero, 17 F.3d at 1350, the procedures for 

selecting inmates for testing must be truly random. See Spence v. 

Farrier, 807 F.2d 753, 755 (8th Cir. 1986); Storms v. Coughlin, 

600 F. Supp. 1214, 1223 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). Selection procedures are 

not truly random and thus violate the Fourth Amendment when the 

procedures leave "the exercise of discretion as to selected 

targets in the hands of a field officer with no limiting 

guidelines." Shoemaker v. Handel, 795 F.2d 1136, 1143 (3d Cir.), 

cert. denied, 479 U.S. 986 (1986); see Storms, 600 F. Supp. at 

1223 (enjoining procedure whereby watch commander is aware of the 

identity of the inmates to be tested while he is choosing them) . 

-6-

Appellate Case: 94-1527 Document: 01019282637 Date Filed: 04/12/1995 Page: 6 
In the instant case, we conclude the government has 

demonstrated that the urinalysis request in question was based on 

random selection. The record indicates that the DOC selects 

inmates for testing pursuant to a computer-guided random selection 

procedure which produces a list of inmates. Once a list is 

formulated, shift commanders ensure that the selected inmates 

complete the tests. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the 

record that the official which selected Plaintiff for testing was 

aware of his identity during the selection process. See Spence, 

807 F.2d at 754-55 (upholding procedure as random where inmates 

tested are chosen by unit managers who randomly pull cards from an 

index card file); Shoemaker, 795 F.2d at 1143 (upholding urine 

testing where the official conducting test had no discretion in 

selecting those to be tested) . 

Moreover, despite Plaintiff's contentions to the contrary, 

the fact that his urinalysis request was made during the evening 

does not indicate that the request was not truly random and made 

for harassment purposes. Rather, as Officer Nordeen stated, the 

urinalysis request was made during evening hours because the day 

shift manager was unable to complete all testing during the day 

shift. Under these circumstances, we conclude the district court 

did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants as 

to Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim. 

II. 

Plaintiff also contends the district court erred in denying 

his motion for appointment of counsel. "The district court is 

vested with broad discretion in determining whether to appoint 

-7-

Appellate Case: 94-1527 Document: 01019282637 Date Filed: 04/12/1995 Page: 7 
counsel and '[o]nly in those extreme cases where the lack of 

counsel results in fundamental unfairness will the district 

court's decision be overturned.'" DiCesare v. Stuart, 12 F.3d 

973, 979 (lOth Cir. 1993) (quoting McCarthy v. Weinberg, 753 F.2d 

836, 839 (lOth Cir. 1985)). Here, the record amply demonstrates 

Plaintiff's ability to present his case. Consequently, the 

district court did not err in declining to appoint counsel. 

AFFIRMED. 

-8-

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 94-1527 Document: 01019282637 Date Filed: 04/12/1995 Page: 8