Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-07090/USCOURTS-ca10-89-07090-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Billey Keys
Appellee
James L. Saffle
Appellee
Jimmy Lee Smith
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JIMMY LEE SMITH, 

Plaintiff-Appellant. 

PI LiD 

United Stu• Court of Appeals 

Tenth Cfrruit 

AP~! 0 1990 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 89-7090 

(D.C. No. 89-173-C) 

(E. Dist. Okla.) 

BILLEY KEYS and JAMES L. SAFFLE, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, 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. See Fed. R. App. P. 

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

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff Jimmy Lee Smith appeals the dismissal of his action 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Billey Keys and James L. 

Saffle. He alleged below that he was denied access to the courts 

because of penitentiary limitations on his access to the law 

*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: 89-7090 Document: 01019971621 Date Filed: 04/20/1990 Page: 1 
library. The state responded with a Martinez report. Based on 

that report, the court dismissed the action. 

On appeal, plaintiff's main contention is that the case 

should not have been decided on the basis of the Martinez report 

without further proceedings. As a general matter, plaintiff is 

correct. The district court should have notified plaintiff that 

it was going to consider the state's motion to dismiss as a motion 

for summary judgment, and given plaintiff the opportunity to 

respond. See Reed v. Dunham, 893 F.2d 285, 287 n.2 (10th Cir. 

1990). 

Nonetheless, under the particular circumstances of this case, 

we decline to reverse. The Martinez report indicates that from 

November 1, 1988, to February 7, 1989, plaintiff visited the 

library for ten two-hour periods. He declined an opportunity to 

visit two other times. Although plaintiff's complaint and amended 

complaint are quite difficult to understand, he appears to 

complain that he was denied access to the library after he was 

notified by our clerk that he had thirty days from January 30, 

1989, to file his IFP brief in another appeal. However, he 

clearly had access to the library on February 3 and 7, and, 

significantly, declined it on February 10. The record reflects 

that he signed a brief on our Tenth Circuit forms on February 9, 

1989. The clerk's office has confirmed that the brief was filed 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-7090 Document: 01019971621 Date Filed: 04/20/1990 Page: 2 
. 

I 

on February 13, 1989. Thus, plaintiff's complaint of lack of 

access and resulting prejudice on this ground is not persuasive. 

Plaintiff also complains of lack of access to the library for 

the thirty-day period following November 11, 1988. The record 

reflects that he used the library on November 29, December 6, and 

December 9. Moreover, in his appeal brief, plaintiff does not 

address the state's contention that he failed to inform the 

library of his court deadlines, as reasonably required by the 

rules of the institution. 

Although the court failed to formally give plaintiff notice 

of an opportunity to respond to the Martinez report, plaintiff did 

file a petition to amend, rec., doc. 4, and a motion to vacate, 

id., doc. 5, after defendants filed the Martinez report and their 

motion to dismiss. Given plaintiff's nearly incomprehensible 

pleadings below, the fact of those two responses, and plaintiff's 

failure in his brief on appeal to explain how he was prejudiced by 

the lack of additional visits to the library, we affirm the 

dismissal of plaintiff's claim that he was denied access to the 

courts by being denied access to the library. 

The judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-7090 Document: 01019971621 Date Filed: 04/20/1990 Page: 3 
• 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-7090 Document: 01019971621 Date Filed: 04/20/1990 Page: 4