Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-08018/USCOURTS-ca10-92-08018-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Derrick R. Parkhurst
Appellant
Ron Ruettgers
Appellee
Duane Shillinger
Appellee
Don Smith
Not Party

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS - ·· 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

DERRICK R. PARKHURST, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

and 

DON SMITH, 

Plaintiff, 

SEP 1 C 1992 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 92-8018 

RON RUETTGERS; 

DUANE SHILLINGER, 

(D.C. No. Misc. 90-58-J) 

(D. Wyo) 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TACHA, and BRORBY, 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. 

Plaintiffs appeal the district court's dismissal as frivolous 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) their prose 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil 

* 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: 92-8018 Document: 010110322263 Date Filed: 09/10/1992 Page: 1
rights action. 1 We review a dismissal under section 1915(d) for 

an abuse of discretion. Yellen v. Cooper, 828 F.2d 1471, 1475 

(10th Cir. 1987). Section 1915(d) authorizes federal courts to 

dismiss a prose claim "if the allegation of poverty is untrue, or 

if satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious." A 

complaint "is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in 

law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989): 

see also Hall v. Bellmen, 935 F.2d 1106, 1108-09 (10th Cir. 1991). 

Because even the most liberal reading of Parkhurst's pleadings 

fails to afford a cognizable claim, we affirm the dismissal under 

§ 1915(d). 

The material facts in this case are not in dispute. Derrick 

R. Parkhurst is an inmate in the Wyoming State Penitentiary. Ron 

Ruettgers and Duane Shillinger are prison officials at that 

facility. In June 1990, Ruettgers confiscated "visiting papers" 

sent by mail from Don Smith to Parkhurst. Ruettgers refused to 

provide Parkhurst with a copy of these papers, stating that they 

were intended for prison staff. In November 1990, Ruettgers again 

confiscated mail sent by Smith to Parkhurst. This time, Smith had 

sent a photocopy of Parkhurst's drivers license. Ruettgers 

informed Parkhurst that prisoners could not possess such material, 

and gave Parkhurst the option of returning the photocopy to Smith 

or having it kept in his prison file. Parkhurst chose the former, 

but asked for a receipt, which Ruettgers refused to provide. 

Parkhurst argues here, as he did at the district court, that these 

1 Plaintiff Smith failed to sign the notice of appeal, and thus 

is not a proper party to this action. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-8018 Document: 010110322263 Date Filed: 09/10/1992 Page: 2
two incidents manifest an "official" prison policy of the 

unrestrained theft of prisoners' mail by prison officials. We 

disagree. 

The First and Fourteenth Amendments protect a prisoner's 

right to correspond with people outside the prison. See Turner v. 

Safley. 482 U.S. 78, 84 (1987). That right is qualified, however, 

by the intractable problems of prison safety and security, areas 

in which prison officials are far better equipped to deal than the 

judiciary. Smith v. Maschner, 899 F.2d 940, 944 (10th Cir. 1990). 

We therefore review the censorship of a prisoner's incoming mail 

under a reasonableness standard: censorship is constitutionally 

permissible if it is "'reasonably related to legitimate 

penological interests.'" Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 413 

(1989) (quoting Turner, 482 U.S. at 89). 

In this case, we find that Ruettgers' behavior was reasonably 

related to the legitimate penological interest of prison security. 

The withholding of identification material such as that found on a 

drivers license is reasonably related to legitimate prison goals, 

including but not limited to the discouragement of escape. As to 

the confiscation of the "visiting papers," because documents of 

that type are intended not for inmates but for their visitors and 

prison officials, Ruettgers did no more than retrieve prison 

property, activity also reasonably related to legitimate 

penological interests. Parkhurst's pleadings thus fail to allege 

facts sufficient to support even an allegation of isolated 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-8018 Document: 010110322263 Date Filed: 09/10/1992 Page: 3
episodes of civil rights violations, let alone a standing policy 

of permitting such behavior. 2 

After reviewing the briefs and the record, we conclude that 

the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing as 

frivolous under 28 u.s.c. § 1915(d) Parkhurst's claim regarding 

the censorship of his incoming mail. We further conclude that 

plaintiff's other arguments on appeal, particularly those 

regarding any anti-prisoner bias on the part of the district 

judges in Wyoming, are similarly meritless. 

Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The judgment 

of the District Court is affirmed. The mandate shall issue 

forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

2 We assume as true Parkhurst's allegations that Ruettgers 

failed to follow the prison's own rule, as provided in an inmate 

handbook, requiring receipts for all confiscated material. 

Although the Supreme Court's decision in Procunier v. Martinez, 

416 U.S. 396, 418 (1974), overruled on other grounds by, 

Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989), imposes certain 

procedural safeguards on the confiscation of prisoner mail, the 

issuance of written receipts is not one of them. Because whatever 

grievance Parkhurst may have regarding receipts is not of 

constitutional proportions, a§ 1983 claim is not the proper 

vehicle for its redress. See Maschner, 899 F.2d at 944. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 92-8018 Document: 010110322263 Date Filed: 09/10/1992 Page: 4