Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06262/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06262-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richard Stout
Appellee
Robert Worthington
Appellant

Document Text:

.. 

• UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

ROBERT WORTHINGTON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

vs. No. 90-6262 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth circuit 

DEC 1 l 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

RICHARD STOUT, Jefferson 

County Sheriff, Waurika 

Oklahoma, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

(D.C. No. CIV-90-484-D) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

Defendant-Appellee. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK and . EBEL, Circuit Judges.** 

Plaintiff-appellant Robert Worthington appeals prose from 

the district court's dismissal of his 42 u.s.c. S 1983 action 

pursuant to 28 u.s.c. S 1915(d). Worthington, a pretrial 

detainee, alleged that his constitutional right to court access 

and his right to equal protection were violated when jail 

* 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. 

** 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 therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 90-6262 Document: 010110097240 Date Filed: 12/11/1990 Page: 1 
officials did not provide him with postage stamps in a timely 

manner. The district court ordered Sheriff Stout to prepare a 

special report pursuant to Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (10th 

Cir. 1978). After reviewing the special report and defendant's 

answer, the court found that Worthington had not been denied court 

access. Moreover, the court held that, because Worthington's 

complaint alleged that the deprivation of stamps occurred as a 

result of negligence by a deputy sheriff, he was barred from 

maintaining -a§ 1983 action against Sheriff Stout on a respondeat 

superior theory. See Monell v. Department of Social Serv. of New 

York, 436 U.S. 658, 690-95 (1978); Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 

527, 535-43 (1981). 

We have reviewed the briefs and the record on appeal giving 

Worthington's prose pleadings the liberal construction required 

under Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1971). We find that 

Worthington failed to allege an arguable basis in law or fact for 

his claim of constitutional deprivation. Consequently, his action 

is frivolous under Neitzke v. Williams, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1831 

(1989), and properly dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). We 

therefore affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by the 

district court in its order of dismissal, particularly the court's 

holding that Worthington could not maintain a§ 1983 action on a 

respondeat superior theory. See Worthington v. Stout, No. CIV-90-

484-D, unpub. order at 6 (W.D. Okla. Jul. 24, 1990). A copy of 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6262 Document: 010110097240 Date Filed: 12/11/1990 Page: 2 
• 

the district court's order is attached hereto. 

AFFIRMED. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-6262 Document: 010110097240 Date Filed: 12/11/1990 Page: 3 
ROBERT 

vs . 

RICHARD 

JAY 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOIC!JIL ED 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA rl 

JUL 2 4 1990 

ROBERT D. DENNIS. C:..ERI< 

WORTHINGTON, ) 

U.S. 01ST. COURT, WESiERN DIST. OF OK LA 

f:f I c; , DEPUTY 

) 

Plaintiff ) 

) 

) CIV-90-484-D 

) 

STOUT, ) 

) 

Defendant ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

The Plaintiff, a state pretrial detainee, appearing prose and 

in forma pauperis, brings this action pursuant to 42 u.s.c. §1983 

alleging a denial of certain constitutionally protected rights. 

A special report has been filed pursuant to Martinez v. Aaron, 570 

F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1978), and the matter is now before the Court 

for initial review of the complaint. The responsibility of the 

Court on a complaint filed in forma pauperis is to determine if the 

complaint is frivolous, improper or obviously without merit, prior 

to authorizing further proceedings. Phillips v. Carev, 638 F.2d 

207 (10th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 985 (1981). The test 

for determining if an action is frivolous is whether the Plaintiff 

can make a rational argument on the facts or law in support of such 

claim. Id.; Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d at 320. For the reasons 

stated herein, the complaint is dismissed. 

In his complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that, as a pretrial 

detainee confined in the Jefferson County jail, Waurika, Oklahoma, 

he has been denied postage stamps, thereby denying his access to 

.. '\ 

. I 

\f\ I \..._i 

\ 

Appellate Case: 90-6262 Document: 010110097240 Date Filed: 12/11/1990 Page: 4 
the courts. Named as the sole Defendant is the sheriff of 

Jefferson County. 

Plaintiff alleges that on three separate occasions he asked 

a deputy sheriff to purchase postage stamps for him. The first 

occasion was on a Saturday afternoon, and the deputy sheriff told 

the Plaintiff that the post office closed at noon on Saturday. The 

second time was on a Saturday morning, and the deputy sheriff told 

the Plaintiff the post office was closed all day Saturday. The 

third time the Plaintiff alleges that he asked the deputy to 

purchase stamps for him was on a weekday, and the deputy later told 

the Plaintiff that he forgot to purchase the stamps. Plaintiff 

also alleges discrimination in that inmates are allowed to receive 

stamps from relatives who visit them in the jail, but inmates 

without relatives are unable to get stamps. 

The special report shows that it is the sheriff's policy to 

allow inmates to acquire stamps in several different ways. First, 

friends, family and other visitors of the inmate can bring stamps 

to the inmate. Second, an inmate who has funds, can release funds 

to the inmate's attorney, or to a deputy sheriff or jailer in order 

to allow these persons to purchase stamps for the inmate. The 

special report further shows that a reasonable number of stamps 

would be provided to an indigent inmate for legal mail, upon 

request. When the Plaintiff was booked into the Jefferson County 

jail in January, 1990, he had $98.43 in cash, and thus had 

sufficient funds to purchase stamps. The Plaintiff has made 

several withdrawals from those funds, but the balance was never 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-6262 Document: 010110097240 Date Filed: 12/11/1990 Page: 5 
t 

below $16.00 during the relevant time period. The deputy sheriff 

who was asked to purchase the stamps for the Plaintiff has 

submitted an affidavit as an attachment to the special report. In 

this affidavit, the deputy sheriff states that he recalls the 

Plaintiff requesting him to purchase stamps on three different 

occasions. The deputy sheriff states that all three occasions 

occurred within a short period of time during the last part of 

March, 1990. The first occasion the Plaintiff requested stamps 

from the deputy sheriff was between 4:30 and 5:00 p.m., and the 

deputy sheriff stated that he advised the Plaintiff that the post 

office was already closed for the day. The second time the 

Plaintiff requested stamps was on a Saturday, March 24, 1990, and 

the deputy advised the Plaintiff that the post office was closed 

on Saturdays. The third time the Plaintiff requested stamps was 

on March 28, 1990, and the deputy sheriff states that he provided 

stamps to the Plaintiff at that time. The special report shows 

that the Plaintiff received stamps on March 28 and the Plaintiff 

admits this fact. Further, the Plaintiff admits that he has at all 

times been allowed paper, pens and envelopes. 

In addition to providing the Plaintiff with stamps, the 

special report shows that the Plaintiff has had access to the 

courts by other means. First, the Plaintiff received the services 

of a court-appointed attorney on January 25, 1990, the day that 

criminal charges were filed against him. The special report shows 

that the Plaintiff has had full access to his attorney at all 

times. Persons confined in the Jefferson County jail are allowed 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-6262 Document: 010110097240 Date Filed: 12/11/1990 Page: 6 
to use the telephone to call their attorney during hours that the 

courthouse is open. The record shows that the Plaintiff has called 

his attorney on six different occasions. In addition, attorneys 

can visit with their clients at any time during regular hours of 

the jail, which are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through 

Friday. If an attorney wants to visit with a client at other than 

regular hours, the sheriff will make arrangements for the visit, 

if requested in advance of the visit. The special report shows 

that the Plaintiff's attorney only visited the Plaintiff on one 

occasion, but the attorney and the Plaintiff have .had the 

opportunity to visit during several court appearances. In 

addition, a Jefferson County judge directed that the Plaintiff 

could leave sealed letters addressed to his attorney with the 

sheriff's office, without postage, for the attorney to pick up, and 

the sheriff has complied with this procedure. 

Prisoners have a constitutional right to adequate, effective, 

and meaningful access to the courts to challenge violations of 

their constitutional rights. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 824, 

828 (1977). In Love v. Summit Countv, 776 F.2d 908, 912 (10th Cir. 

1985), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 814 (1986), the Tenth Circuit held 

that "a pretrial detainee also has a constitutional right to 

adequate, effective and meaningful access to the courts to 

vindicate his constitutional rights." However, the Court further 

noted that "we need not decide the extent of the affirmative 

obligations resting on local jail officials to assure inmates 

access to the courts." Id. While noting that "the state, not the 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-6262 Document: 010110097240 Date Filed: 12/11/1990 Page: 7 
J 

inmate, has the right to choose among constitutionally adequate 

alternatives," the Tenth Circuit in Love upheld a jail's failure 

to allow access to a law library, since the plaintiff had access 

to counsel at all times during his incarceration by use of the 

phone and the mails. The Court further noted that: 

There is no evidence that the defendants in any way 

impeded plaintiff's contact with the courts, his access 

to his criminal attorney or to his civil counsel, or that 

they would have impeded his access to any additional 

legal assistance his civil counsel might have obtained. 

Id. at 915. See also, Martin v. Tvson, 845 F.2d 1451 (7th Cir. 

1988), cert. denied, 109 s.ct. 162 (1988) (citing Love, fact that 

detainee represented by counsel satisfied Bounds) ; Howland v. 

Kilgulst, 8 3 3 F. 2d 63 9, 64 3 (7th Cir. 1987) ( conclusory allegations 

that prisoner was denied right to legal stationery, law books and 

other legal materials insufficient when he was offered counsel); 

Carter v. Fair, 786 F.2d 433, 435 (1st Cir. 1986) (absence of law 

library permissible when prison provides opportunity for 

consultation from visiting attorneys). See also, Harrell v. 

Keohane, 621 F.2d 1059, 1061 (10th Cir. 1980) (inmates do not have 

unlimited rights to free postage); Twyman v. Criso, 584 F.2d 352, 

359 ( 10th Cir. 1978) (plaintiff had not demonstrated a denial of 

access to courts because he failed' to demonstrate prejudicial court 

action because of delay in mailing). 

Here, the Plaintiff does not dispute that he had access to his 

court-appointed attorney and that he utilized telephone privileges, 

in addition to leaving sealed messages for his attorney through the 

sheriff's department. In addition, the Plaintiff has been provided 

5 

Appellate Case: 90-6262 Document: 010110097240 Date Filed: 12/11/1990 Page: 8 
' 

stamps and writing supplies, although there was some minor delay 

in getting the stamps. However, the Plaintiff's access to the 

courts has in no way been impeded. Based upon the foregoing 

authorities, the Plaintiff's allegation of denial of access to the 

Court is without merit. For the same reasons, the Plaintiff's 

assertion of discrimination is also without merit. See Lee v. 

Washington, 390 U.S. 333, 334 (1968); Zipkin v. Heckler, 790 F.2d 

16, 18 (2d Cir. 1986) (prisoner status not "suspect classification" 

requiring special scrutiny under the equal protection clause, 

therefore, "rational basis" test applies). 

The complaint is also subject to dismissal for the Plaintiff's 

failure to allege that the Defendant personally participated in the 

alleged violation of the Plaintiff's constitutional rights; which 

is an essential allegation in a §1983 claim. Bennett v. Passic, 

545 F. 2d 1260 (10th Cir. 1976). Here, Plaintiff simply alleges 

that the deputy sheriff is the administrator of the jail and 

through his "negligence," the Plaintiff was not allowed to purchase 

stamps. The only other allegation against the Defendant sheriff 

is that the sheriff is the supervisor of the deputy sheriff from 

whom the Plaintiff requested the stamps. However, respondeat 

superior is not a basis of liability in actions under §1983. 

Monell v. Deoartment of Social Services of the City of New York, 

436 U.S. 658, 691-695 (1978). Therefore, the Plaintiff's 

allegations against the Defendant Stout fail on these grounds 

alone. 

Lastly, the court notes that the Plaintiff, in a letter to the 

6 

Appellate Case: 90-6262 Document: 010110097240 Date Filed: 12/11/1990 Page: 9 
Clerk of this Court, references two "supplements" that he has 

filed. However, the Court is not in receipt of these supplements, 

nor has the Plaintiff sought leave to file an amended complaint. 

Further, the special report apparently responds to allegations 

raised by the Plaintiff in another §1983 action pending in this 

Court against the same Defendant. Case No. CIV-90-836-D. However, 

for purposes of this opinion, the Court has only considered the 

Plaintiff's original allegations as raised in this action. 

Based upon the foregoing, the Plaintiff's complaint is 

dismissed. 28 u.s.c. §1915(d); Duhart v. Carlson, 469 .F.2d 471 

(10th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 958 (1973). 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 7 L)... day of July 1990. 

FREDERICK A. DAUGHERT~/ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

7 

Appellate Case: 90-6262 Document: 010110097240 Date Filed: 12/11/1990 Page: 10