Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01096/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01096-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of Corrections
Appellee
Fremont Correctional Facility
Appellee
Mark McGoff
Appellee
Richard Velasquez
Appellant

Document Text:

,. 

FILED 

URI'l'BD STA'l'BS COURT OF APPEALS United St~ Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE 'l'BN'J.'11 CIRCUIT 

NOV 11990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk RICHARD VELASQUEZ, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ) 

CHASE RIVELAND, Executive Director ) 

DOC; FREMONT CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; ) 

MARK MCGOFF, Superintendent FCF, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

No. 90-1096 

(D.C. No. 85-Z-1978) 

(D. Colo.) 

ORDER AND JODGNElff* 

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. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Richard Velasquez, incarcerated in the custody of the 

Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC), appeals a district court 

order denying. his "Motion For Order to Enforce Magistrate's Agreement and Order to Allow Legal Access and or Petition for Writ of 

Hafieas Corpus." We affirm. 

* 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: 90-1096 Document: 010110047467 Date Filed: 11/01/1990 Page: 1 
J 

In 1985, Velasquez brought a 42 u.s.c. § 1983 action alleging 

various violations of his civil rights. He objected to a DOC 

regulation that restricted the amount of property he could keep in 

his cell. On November 19, 1985, a magistrate recommended that the 

complaint be dismissed. On January 30, 1986, the district court 

adopted the Magistrate's findings and ordered that the complaint 

be dismissed without prejudice. On September 6, 1988 (No. 

86-1605, unpublished), we affirmed the district court's dismissal. 

On August 2, 1989, Velasquez filed his_ "Motion for Order to 

Enforce Magistrate's Agreement and Order to Allow Legal Access and 

or Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus." He alleges that the DOC 

has further restricted the amount of property a prisoner may have 

in his cell, and that this action violates an agreement the DOC 

made with the magistrate in 1985. He also alleges that DOC officials have otherwise denied his access to the courts. In his 

final request, he asks to be released from custody in order to 

"litigate his cases without any interference from the prison officials." R. Vol. I, Tab 11 at 4. 

Our review of the magistrate's recommendations reveals that 

the magistrate did suggest (and the prison officials agreed) that 

the prison officials should "work out a procedure to afford 

[Velasquez] access to his legal materials and to avoid any possibility of prejudice to his state court appeal." R. Vol. I, Tab 4 

at 7-8. But this was neither a finding nor an order. In fact, 

the magistrate found that Velasquez had failed to show a violation 

of his right to access to the courts, and recommended that 

Velasquez's complaint be dismissed. The district court followed 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-1096 Document: 010110047467 Date Filed: 11/01/1990 Page: 2 
f' 

I 

the magistrates recommendation and dismissed Velasquez's 

complaint; its order imposes no restrictions on the DOC. If, as 

he alleges, Velasquez's state appeal subsequently has been 

prejudiced or his access to the courts has otherwise been 

violated, then his remedy is to file a new action. 1 

As for Velasquez's other request, a prisoner's right to 

access to the courts has never included release from prison in 

order to more freely prepare his case. We therefore AFFIRM. Mandate 

shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

1 Velasquez must realize, however, that "prison officials have 

broad administrative and discretionary authority over the 

institutions they manage," and that "[l]awful incarceration brings 

about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges 

and rights .... " Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 467 (1983). 

We have already held in Velasquez's original action that this 

broad discretion includes limiting the personal property 

(including legal materials) a prisoner may keep in his cell. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-1096 Document: 010110047467 Date Filed: 11/01/1990 Page: 3