Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01687/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01687-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Paul Gardunio
Appellant
William Vickery
Appellee

Document Text:

.FILED 

United Scaces OJurt of Appeals 

Tenth Ci"~ir 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

APR 2 5 1990 

.ROBERT L. HOECK.ER 

Clerk 

PAUL GARDUNIO, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

WILLIAM VICKERY, Director, ) 

Utah Division of Corrections; KENNETH V.) 

SHULSEN, Warden, Utah State Prison, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 88-1687 

(D.C. No. 85-C-056-S) 

(D. Utah) 

Before McKAY, ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and BROWN,** District 

Judge. 

**Honorable Wesley E. Brown, District Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

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. 

* 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: 88-1687 Document: 01019972526 Date Filed: 04/25/1990 Page: 1 
34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Plaintiff Paul Gardunio, a Utah state prisoner, appeals from 

an order of the district court dismissing defendant William 

Vickery, former director of the Utah Division of Corrections, and 

granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Kenneth V. 

Shulsen, warden of the Utah State Prison, in this action for 

denial of access to the courts. 

In his complaint, plaintiff alleged he was denied his 

constitutional right to access to the courts when he was housed in 

a federal prison with no access to Utah law books or legal 

assistance. Plaintiff complained he was unable to file an action 

for post-conviction relief, file an action against defendants for 

placing him in a life-threatening situation, and meaningfully 

respond to a paternity and child support action. For relief, 

plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment, an injunction, and 

compensatory and punitive damages. 

The action was referred to the magistrate, who appointed 

counsel for plaintiff. After holding a hearing, the magistrate 

recommended summary judgment be granted in favor of defendants and 

the request for injunctive relief be denied as moot due to 

plaintiff's return to the Utah State Prison. The magistrate 

recommended summary judgment in favor of Vickery on the ground 

that the Utah State Prison, not Vickery, had the responsibility to 

provide legal services. With regard to Shulsen, the magistrate 

determined plaintiff suffered a deprivation of access to the 

courts, but without actual damage. Applying Daniels v. Williams, 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-1687 Document: 01019972526 Date Filed: 04/25/1990 Page: 2 
474 U.S. 327 (1986), the magistrate concluded there was no denial 

of the constitutional right to due process, because Shulsen's 

conduct was merely negligent. Accordingly, the magistrate 

recommended summary judgment be granted in favor of Shulsen. 

The district court agreed with the magistrate's 

determinations. The district court dismissed the action against 

Vickery and granted summary judgment in favor of Shulsen. Also, 

the district court concluded plaintiff's allegations of mental 

distress were insufficient to alter its conclusions. 

We agree with the district court's holding as to the mootness 

of the request for injunctive relief and the dismissal of Vickery. 

Plaintiff did not object to the magistrate's recommendation 

regarding Vickery. Such failure to object caused waiver of the 

issue on appeal. See Parfait v. Bowen, 803 F.2d 810, 813 (5th 

Cir. 1986). Accordingly, we affirm the district court on those 

two issues. 

We also agree with the district court's determinations that 

plaintiff was denied access to the courts, that Shulsen's conduct 

was merely negligent, and that under Daniels, 474 U.S. at 328, 

Shulsen's negligent conduct did not deprive plaintiff of his 

substantive due process right of access to the courts. See also 

Berry v. City of Muskogee, F.2d , Nos. 86-1934, 86-2003 

(10th Cir. Apr. 10, 1990); Archuleta v. Mcshan, F.2d , 

No. 87-1461 (10th Cir. Mar. 1, 1990). 

Plaintiff raises several other arguments on appeal. We need 

not consider those arguments newly raised on appeal. See Baker v. 

3 

Appellate Case: 88-1687 Document: 01019972526 Date Filed: 04/25/1990 Page: 3 
Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co., 788 F.2d 650, 663 (10th Cir. 1986). The 

r emaining arguments are without merit. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Utah is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

4 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

Appellate Case: 88-1687 Document: 01019972526 Date Filed: 04/25/1990 Page: 4