Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-93-01040/USCOURTS-ca10-93-01040-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brent Brown
Appellee
Darryl Stephen Martin
Appellant
Roberta Melton
Appellee
Richard Watson
Appellee

Document Text:

FIL~or~ 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAI.SUnited ~ Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT MAY 1 r. 1993 

DARRYL STEPHEN MARTIN, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

RICHARD WATSON, ROBERTA MELTON, ) 

and BRENT BROWN, individually ) 

and in official capacities as ) 

prison officials, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. · 93-1040 

(D.C. No. 92-F-1159) 

(D. Colorado) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, 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. ~ Fed. R. App. P. 

34 (a) ; 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

*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: 93-1040 Document: 010110114151 Date Filed: 05/11/1993 Page: 1 
Darryl Martin appeals the dismissal of his complaint alleging 

various violations of his civil rights and state law causes of 

action during his present incarceration at the Limon Correctional 

Facility in Limon, Colorado. The district court accepted the 

Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, concluding 

Mr. Martin had failed to state a claim that is either cognizable 

or actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Giving each of Mr. Martin's 

allegations a liberal and expansive reading, we are constrained in 

our review to find a viable claim under 42 U.S.C § 1983 and, 

therefore, affirm the dismissal. 

Mr. Martin's suit arises out of an incident that occurred 

while he was working at the Limon Garment Factory in the Limon 

Correctional Facility. Another inmate, ·Dennis Ginn, stepped into 

Mr. Martin's work area wearing a facsimile of the white robe and 

hood associated with the Ku Klux Klan. Mr. Martin, an African 

American, was startled and upset by the appearance. Dennis Ginn 

is white. Two other white workers in the same office resp8nded 

with "laughter, raucous banter and gesticulations directed solely" 

_ at Mr. Martin, he alleged. The African American supervisor in the 

office, Richard Watson, did not respond to Mr. Martin's subsequent 

plea for censure. Later, however, Mr. Watson reprimanded Ginn, 

who apologized to him and Mr. Martin. 

His administrative remedies exhausted, Mr. Martin filed this 

pro se complaint in federal court attempting to etate a claim 

under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(2), 1985(3), 1981, 1988, and 1986. 

Based on the parties' submissions, the Magistrate Judge found Mr. 

Martin had failed to rebut the facts in the Martinez report and 

-2-

Appellate Case: 93-1040 Document: 010110114151 Date Filed: 05/11/1993 Page: 2 
f 

concluded the facts as presented did not demonstrate (1) the 

challenged conduct was committed by someone acting under color of 

state law and (2) the conduct resulted in a deprivation of rights, 

privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of 

the United States. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981). 

While decrying the presence of any racist words or conduct in 

a correctional facility from whatever source, the Magistrate Judge 

concluded Ginn did not act under any state authority nor was any 

scenario presented in which prison officials authorized or 

validated the action. The Magistrate Judge found the incident was 

unexpected and isolated, but correctional officials responded with 

administrative action. 

Like the district court, we do not condone and will not 

tolerate the presence of racial venom in any public institution. 

Neither does the law. Nevertheless, § 1983 redresses official 

action in which public officers violate clearly established 

constitutional rights. Hill v. Ibarra, 954 F.2d 1516, 1520 (10th 

Cir. 1992). Read in the light most favorable to Mr. Martin and 

with all inferences liberally construed to his benefit, Haines v. 

Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Ray v. Cowley, 975 F.2d 1478 (10th 

Cir. 1992), the complaint reveals the conduct of individuals who 

acted, however reprehensibly, only as individuals. The complaint 

fails to show these private individuals were jointly engaged with 

state officials in the challenged action, obtained significant aid 

from prison officials, or the private conduct was in some other 

-3-

Appellate Case: 93-1040 Document: 010110114151 Date Filed: 05/11/1993 Page: 3 
way chargeable to the state. Lee v. Town of Estes Park, Colo., 

820 F.2d 1112, 1114 (10th Cir. 1987). , 

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

- 4-

Appellate Case: 93-1040 Document: 010110114151 Date Filed: 05/11/1993 Page: 4