Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02941/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02941-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gerald Cook
Appellee
Gary Deland
Appellee
Steven V. Summers
Appellant
The State of Utah
Appellee

Document Text:

.. 

FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

SEP 7 - 1989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

STEVEN V. SUMMERS, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

THE STATE OF UTAH; ) 

GARY DELAND, Director of Corrections; ) 

GERALD COOK, Warden, Utah State Prison, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, TACHA, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

No. 88-2941 

(D.C. No. C-88-866G) 

(D. Utah) 

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. Therefore, the cause is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff appeals from the district court's December 6, 1988 

Order dismissing, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), plaintiff's 

complaint alleging various violations of 42 u.s.c. S 1983 and the 

Utah Constitution. Plaintiff argues that his claims against the 

State of Utah should not have been dismissed prior to service of 

* 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: 88-2941 Document: 01019973412 Date Filed: 09/07/1989 Page: 1 
process because sovereign immunity is an affirmative defense and 

can be waived. 

A complaint may be dismissed under§ 1915(d} as "frivolous" 

if "it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke 

v. Williams, 57 U.S.L.W. 4493, 4495 (U.S. May 1, 1989). The 

Supreme Court recently held that a state is not a "person" within 

the meaning of§ 1983. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 57 

U.S.L.W. 4677 (U.S. June 15, 1989). Because§ 1983 does not apply 

to a state, the district court properly dismissed as frivolous all 

claims against the State of Utah. 

As to plaintiff's claims regarding the other defendants, 

plaintiff argues that he has been denied his constitutional right 

of access to the courts for the following reasons: (l} defendants 

have denied inmates the right to own and use typewriters; 

(2) defendants have restricted use of the law library by inmates; 

and (3) defendants have restricted the availability of 

photocopying services to inmates. 1 Plaintiff further contends 

1 In his complaint, plaintiff also alleged that defendants have 

denied inmates their right of access to the courts by failing to 

provide the assistance of counsel beyond the preparation and 

filing of the initial pleadings in their lawsuits and by denying 

inmates sufficient access to telephones. The plaintiff further 

asserted in his complaint that defendants violated the Eighth 

Amendment (for unspecified reasons} and the Equal Protection 

Clause, on the grounds that similarly situated prisoners enjoyed 

greater access to telephones. 

The magistrate rejected plaintiff's argument that the right 

of access to the courts includes a right to the assistance of 

counsel beyond the preparation and filing of initial pleadings in 

an inmate's lawsuit. See Nordgren v. Milliken, 762 F.2d 851, 855 

(10th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1032 (1985}; Ward v. Kort, 762 

F.2d 856 (10th Cir. 1985}; Bee v. Utah State Prison, 823 F.2d 397 

(10th Cir. 1987). Because plaintiff did not object to the 

magistrate's resolution of this issue and has not raised the issue 

[Footnote continued ••• ] 

-2-

Appellate Case: 88-2941 Document: 01019973412 Date Filed: 09/07/1989 Page: 2 
that previous prison rules and regulations permitted the ownership 

and use of typewriters and greater access to the law library and 

to photocopying services. Plaintiff argues that the regulations 

created a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. 2 

State prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the 

courts. See,~, Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821-22 (1977). 

Plaintiff argues that he has been denied that right because of 

defendants' failure to provide him sufficient access to the prison 

law library. The magistrate concluded that defendants are "not 

[ •.• footnote continued] 

on appeal, we need not address it. 

The magistrate did not address the telephone access, Eighth 

Amendment, and Equal Protection Clause claims, and plaintiff did 

not file any objections with the district court challenging these 

omissions. Plaintiff on appeal attempts to revive his claim that 

defendants violated his right of access to the courts by providing 

insufficient telephone access. However, because that claim was 

not properly preserved under Rule 72, we will not consider it on 

appeal. 

Plaintiff also amended his complaint to include three 

additional allegations: (1) plaintiff's mail, returned for 

improper addressing, was unjustifiably opened and kept for seven 

days before being given to plaintiff; (2) prison officials were 

stamping inmates' outgoing mail with red ink indicating that the 

mail originated from the Utah State Prison; and (3) envelopes 

provided to indigent inmates include personal data on the front 

(e.g., height, weight, eye color, hair color, and prison number). 

The magistrate did not consider these additional claims in his 

report because the district court received plaintiff's amendments 

on the same day that the report was issued. Plaintiff did not 

object to the magistrate's failure to consider those additional 

claims, and he does not raise those claims on appeal. Therefore, 

those claims were properly dismissed. 

2 In his complaint, plaintiff did not allege that prior 

regulations authorized access to the prison law library. Although 

plaintiff did allege in his complaint that prior regulations 

permitted greater access to telephones, he failed to raise that 

issue on appeal. Therefore, we will not consider either of those 

claims. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 88-2941 Document: 01019973412 Date Filed: 09/07/1989 Page: 3 
obligated to provide a library or law books or other legal 

assistance beyond the filing of the initial complaint." 

Magistrate Report at 2. Because plaintiff did not file any 

objections with the district court challenging that conclusion, he 

has waived the issue on appeal. 

Plaintiff also argues that defendants have denied plaintiff 

his right of access to the United States Supreme Court by failing 

to permit plaintiff to own or use a typewriter. Plaintiff's right 

of access to the courts does not include any incidental right to 

use a typewriter. Twyman v. Crisp, 584 F.2d 352, 358 (10th Cir. 

1978). Moreover, U.S. Supreme Court Rule 46 only requires that in 

forma pauperis litigants file typewritten documents "whenever 

possible." Therefore, the magistrate properly rejected 

plaintiff's argument. 

Plaintiff further argues that he improperly was denied access 

to photocopying services. As a general matter, "[a] prisoner's 

right of access to the court[s] does not include the right to free 

unlimited access to a photocopying machine." Harrell v. Keohane, 

621 F.2d 1059, 1061 (10th Cir. 1980). However, limiting access to 

a photocopying machine "unconstitutionally restricts access to the 

courts to the degree that it makes it very difficult or impossible 

for an inmate to satisfy the filing requirements of the federal 

courts." Johnson v. Parke, 642 F.2d 377, 380 (10th Cir. 1981). 

The magistrate concluded that the photocopying claim should 

be dismissed because plaintiff failed to allege specific facts 

which demonstrate the existence of "difficult or impossible" 

circumstances. Magistrate Report at 5. The only factual 

-4-

Appellate Case: 88-2941 Document: 01019973412 Date Filed: 09/07/1989 Page: 4 
allegation in the complaint states that there is "no reliable, 

known way to recieve copies speedily." Complaint at 2(3). That 

allegation does not come close to an allegation of "difficult or 

impossible" circumstances. The allegation on appeal is conclusory 

only. Hence, the petitioner simply fails to allege any facts to 

show even an arguable claim. Accordingly, we affirm the district 

court's dismissal of this claim. 

Plaintiff also contends that prior prison rules and 

regulations permitted the ownership and use of typewriters and 

allowed greater access to photocopying services. Plaintiff argues 

that those regulations created a "liberty" interest protected by 

the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. According to 

plaintiff, when defendants subsequently curtailed inmate access to 

those benefits without providing any notice or opportunity to be 

heard, defendants violated plaintiff's right to due process. 

The magistrate considered and dismissed that contention only 

with respect to typewriters. 3 The Supreme Court has noted: 

"[A] State creates a protected liberty interest by 

placing substantive limitations on official discretion. 

An inmate must show 'that particularized standards or 

criteria guide the State's decisionmakers.' Connecticut 

Board of Pardons v. Dumschat, 452 U.S. 458, 467 (1981) 

(Brennan, J., concurring). If the decisionmaker is not 

'required to base its decisions on objective and defined 

criteria,' but instead 'can deny the requested relief 

for any constitutionally permissible reason or for no 

reason at all,' ibid., the State has not created a 

constitutionally protected liberty interest." 

3 The magistrate did not consider the argument as it relates 

photocopying. Plaintiff filed a general objection to the 

magistrate's report contending that prior prison regulations 

created a liberty interest. In light of the fact that plaintiff 

prepared the objection prose, we consider his objection 

sufficient to preserve the claim for purposes of this appeal. 

-5-

to 

Appellate Case: 88-2941 Document: 01019973412 Date Filed: 09/07/1989 Page: 5 
Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 249 (1983). See also Hewitt v. 

Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 471 (1983) (a state rule or regulation can 

create a "liberty" interest under the Due Process Clause if its 

language is "of an unmistakably mandatory character, requiring 

that certain procedures 'shall,' 'will,' or 'must' be employed" 

and if the state official's discretion is controlled by 

"substantive predicates"). 

Plaintiff repeatedly characterizes the rules and regulations 

as merely authorizing access to those benefits, not mandating 

access. See Complaint at 2 (noting that prior prison regulations 

"authorized" access to photocopies for a nominal fee); Brief of 

Appellant at 3 (arguing that a liberty interest was created 

because prior rules and regulations "have allowed" access to a 

typewriter, to photocopies, and to a law library). Plaintiff 

nowhere suggests that the rules and regulations sufficiently 

limited the discretion of prison officials to deny access to 

typewriters and photocopying machines. Once again, these 

allegations do not set forth any facts that show even an arguable 

claim. 4 

4 In light of the magistrate's conclusion that all of 

plaintiff's federal claims should be dismissed, the magistrate 

recommended dismissal of plaintiff's pendent state constitutional 

claims on jurisdictional grounds. See United Mine Workers v. 

Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966). Plaintiff did not file any objections 

with the district court challenging that conclusion and did not 

raise any of the state constitutional claims on appeal. 

Therefore, those pendent claims should be dismissed. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 88-2941 Document: 01019973412 Date Filed: 09/07/1989 Page: 6 
• 

We therefore conclude that the district court properly 

dismissed all of plaintiff's claims. The district court's 

December 6, 1988 Order is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue 

forthwith. 

-7-

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 88-2941 Document: 01019973412 Date Filed: 09/07/1989 Page: 7