Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-08066/USCOURTS-ca10-91-08066-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jerry Lee Roach
Appellant
Sheriff Byron Oedekoven
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

JERRY LEE ROACH, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

SEP '~ - \992 

ROBERT L . .tiUE KER 

Clerk 

v. ) No. 91-8066 

SHERIFF BYRON OEDEKOVEN, in his 

official capacity, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) (D.C. No. 91-CV-35-B) 

) (D. Wyo.) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, EBEL, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.** 

Plaintiff Jerry Lee Roach appeals from an order dismissing 

his 42 u.s.c. § 1983 action. We affirm. 

Roach brought this action against the sheriff of Campbell 

County for denying Roach access to a law library while Roach was 

incarcerated on pending felony charges. The district court 

dismissed the complaint as frivolous on the ground that Roach had 

* 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 case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 91-8066 Document: 010110309424 Date Filed: 09/02/1992 Page: 1
a court-appointed attorney at the time he requested access to the 

law library, and therefore had no right of access to a law 

library. This court reversed and remanded, construing Roach's 

complaint to allege that he required access to the library to 

research civil issues, but counsel had not been appointed for the 

purpose of Roach's civil representation. Roach v. Campbell County 

Sheriff's Dep't, No. 90-8081 (10th Cir. Feb. 8, 1991). On remand, 

the district court granted Defendant's motion 

judgment. 

for summary 

We review a grant or denial of summary judgment de novo. 

Applied Genetics Int'l, Inc. v. First Affiliated Sec., Inc., 912 

F.2d 1238, 1241 (10th Cir. 1990). Summary judgment is appropriate 

if "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact 

and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter 

of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The movant must point to those 

portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine 

issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 

323 (1986). Where the nonmoving party bears the burden of proof 

at trial, that party must go beyond the pleadings and by 

affidavits or "'depositions, answers to interrogatories, and 

admissions on file,' designate 'specific facts showing that there 

is a genuine issue for trial.'" Id. at 324 (quoting 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) and (e)). 

Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977)(footnote omitted), 

held that "the fundamental constitutional right of access to the 

courts requires prison authorities to assist inmates in the 

preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-8066 Document: 010110309424 Date Filed: 09/02/1992 Page: 2
prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from 

persons trained in the law. 111 Access to a law library is not 

essential if alternative sources of legal assistance are 

available. Love v. Summit County, 776 F.2d 908, 913-14 (10th Cir. 

1985), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 814 (1986). 

It is undisputed that Roach was denied access to a law 

library while incarcerated in the county detention center. Roach 

argues that his court-appointed attorney was not an adequate 

alternative because the attorney refused to represent him in civil 

matters and was incompetent. Defendant's motion for summary 

judgment noted that Roach admitted in his complaint and only 

exhibit that he was provided with appointed counsel. Defendant 

asserted that requesting habeas corpus relief fits within the 

responsibilities of an appointed defense attorney under Wyoming 

law. Defendant also submitted court-appointed counsel's affidavit 

outlining his efforts in Roach's defense. 

Roach's only submission in opposition to the motion for 

summary judgment was a brief in which he asserted that courtappointed counsel refused to assist him with unspecified civil 

matters. Allegations in a brief are insufficient to withstand a 

motion for summary judgment. Thomas v. Wichita Coca-Cola Bottling 

Co., Nos. 91-1274 and 91-1342, 1992 WL 147074, at *2 (10th Cir. 

July 1, 1992). Roach did not submit affidavits, or identify 

depositions, answers to interrogatories, or admissions on file 

1 The right of access to the courts applies as well to habeas 

corpus and civil rights actions. Ward v. Kort, 762 F.2d 856, 858 

(10th Cir. 1985). 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-8066 Document: 010110309424 Date Filed: 09/02/1992 Page: 3
showing there is a genuine issue for trial. He therefore did not 

carry his burden in opposing the motion. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 

324. 

Roach argues that Defendant failed to submit an affidavit 

stating that court-appointed counsel was willing to assist Roach 

in civil matters. However, there is "no express or implied 

requirement in Rule 56 that the moving party support its motion 

with affidavits or other similar materials negating the opponent's 

claim." Id. at 323. 

Roach finally argues that the district court "prejudiced" him 

by failing to consider facts favorable to him, badgering him, 

trying to confuse him, and refusing to provide him with 

transcripts. Even if these arguments were relevant to the issues 

on appeal, we find no support for them in the record. We conclude 

that the district court did not err in granting Defendant's motion 

for summary judgment. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Wyoming is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

Paul J. Kelly, Jr. 

Circuit Judge 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-8066 Document: 010110309424 Date Filed: 09/02/1992 Page: 4