Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02845/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02845-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richard Kuretich
Appellee
Roy Pride
Appellant

Document Text:

' 

ROY PRIDE, 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

MAR O 81989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

v. ) No. 87-2845 

) & 

) 88-1656 

) (D.C. No. 87-K-934) 

RICHARD KURETICH, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) (D. Colo.) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and ROGERS, District 

Judge.** 

**The Honorable Richard D. Rogers, United States District Judge 

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 these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The causes are therefore ordered 

*This order and 

be cited, or 

for purposes of 

res judicata, 

judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 87-2845 Document: 010110024561 Date Filed: 03/08/1989 Page: 1 
' 

The plaintiff-appellant appeals the district court's order of 

December 1, 1987, dismissing his complaint, and the court's order 

of March 18, 1988, denying various motions filed after the 

dismissal. The plaintiff, an inmate at the Colorado Territorial 

Correctional Facility (CTCF), commenced the underlying action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the defendant Kuretich, a 

correctional employee who worked in the kitchen at CTCF. 

The plaintiff alleged that from July of 1986 through February 

of 1987, he worked in the kitchen under the direct supervision of 

the defendant. During that time, the defendant allegedly 

subjected the plaintiff to "frequently repeated racial slurs of 

the most demeaning sort" "both publicly and privately," "all 

without provocation of any kind." The plaintiff alleged that as a 

result of the defendant's conduct, the plaintiff suffered mental 

anguish, embarrassment, degradation, and a drastic loss of his 

appetite; he ultimately had to seek psychological counseling. 

The plaintiff asserted that although the defendant was 

reprimanded by the Department of Corrections and required to 

attend counseling sessions, he continued to make racial slurs to 

the plaintiff in private. The plaintiff sought declaratory and 

injunctive relief as well as compensatory and punitive damages in 

the amount of $8,000 each. 

After he filed his complaint, the plaintiff moved to amend it 

to add Governor Romer as a party defendant. The plaintiff averred 

that since Governor Romer was responsible for the actions and 

conduct of employees of the State of Colorado, he was liable for 

permitting the defendant Kuretich to abuse the plaintiff verbally. 

2 

Appellate Case: 87-2845 Document: 010110024561 Date Filed: 03/08/1989 Page: 2 
' 

The plaintiff sought compensatory damages and punitive damages in 

the sum of $25,000 each from the Governor. 

The magistrate to whom the case had been referred pursuant to 

local rule denied the plaintiff permission to amend his complaint 

on the basis that the complaint did not allege any personal 

participation of the Governor. The district court, in turn, 

denied the plaintiff's motion to reconsider the magistrate's 

denial. 

After the defendant Kuretich filed an answer, the magistrate 

recommended that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice 

pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 1915(d). The district court adopted the 

recommendation, over the objection of the plaintiff, and dismissed 

the action. The plaintiff then filed a notice of appeal, which 

was docketed as appeal No. 87-2845. 

Approximately two months after the case was dismissed, the 

plaintiff filed a "motion for order granting leave to file a 

special pleading," in which he alleged that he had discovered new 

evidence of a fraud upon the court. The motion made reference to 

perjury and a "conspiracy between the parties." The district 

court granted the plaintiff's motion and gave him leave to file 

motions. 

Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a motion to amend the 

complaint, a "motion for pleading special matters pursuant to 

F.R.C.P. Rule 9(b)," and a brief in support thereof. The 

plaintiff asserted that the third paragraph of the defendant's 

answer contained 

plaintiff alleged 

a perjurious statement. 

that while the answer 

3 

Specifically, 

asserted that 

the 

the 

Appellate Case: 87-2845 Document: 010110024561 Date Filed: 03/08/1989 Page: 3 
.. 

defendant made only "a single remark regarding plaintiff's color," 

the defendant and his counsel knew that the defendant had been 

brought before the prison grievance committee on charges of racial 

slurs made against another inmate. Since the grievance committee 

matters took place two years before the defendant filed his answer 

in the present case, the allegedly false statement in the answer 

evidenced "malicious and willful intent on the part of the 

Defendant and Defendant's counsel to fraudulently conceal and 

perpetrate a fraud upon the herein Court." 

The plaintiff also asserted that other unnamed state 

officials were conspiring to violate his civil rights. He sought 

leave to amend his complaint to add the claims asserted as well as 

additional unnamed parties defendant. The magistrate denied the 

plaintiff's motions on the grounds that the district court lacked 

jurisdiction since the case had been dismissed and the plaintiff 

had appealed. Thereafter, the plaintiff sought reconsideration 

from the district court, as well as a recall of the appeal to this 

court. The district court denied the motion to recall the appeal, 

ordered the case closed, and denied all the other motions as moot. 

The plaintiff then filed another notice of appeal, which was 

docketed as appeal No. 88-1656. 

Turning first to the district court's denial of the 

plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint in appeal No. 87-2845, 

we review the same under an abuse of discretion standard. See 

Leaseamerica Corp. v. Eckel, 710 F.2d 1470, 1473 (10th Cir. 1983). 

Based upon our review of the record and the briefs on appeal, we 

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in 

4 

Appellate Case: 87-2845 Document: 010110024561 Date Filed: 03/08/1989 Page: 4 
denying the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to add Governor 

Romer as a party defendant. 

Governor Romer cannot be held liable under a theory of 

respondeat superior in a§ 1983 case, see McKee v. Heggy, 703 F.2d 

479, 483 (10th Cir. 1983), and the plaintiff did not allege any 

direct conduct on the part of the Governor that, if proven, would 

render him liable to the plaintiff. As this court has previously 

held, when "[n]othing in the record discloses a single allegation 

of direct, personal action on the part of [the defendant] in 

regard to the alleged deprivation [of the plaintiff's civil 

rights], either by participation or acquiescence," the complaint 

fails to state a claim for relief. Wiggins v. New Mexico State 

Supreme Court Clerk, 664 F.2d 812, 816-17 (10th Cir. 1981), cert. 

denied, 459 U.S. 840 (1982). 

The district court dismissed the plaintiff's action pursuant 

to 28 u.s.c. § 1915(d). Although pro se complaints are to be 

construed liberally and held to a "less stringent standard than 

formal pleadings drafted by lawyers," Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 

519, 520 (1972), a district court may dismiss under 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) a complaint that has been filed in forma 

pauperis, if the court determines that "the plaintiff cannot make 

a rational argument on the law or the facts in support of his 

claim." Yellen v. Cooper, 828 F.2d 1471, 1475 (10th Cir. 

1987)(quoting Van Sickle v. Holloway, 791 F.2d 1431, 1434 (10th 

Cir. 1986)). 

Based upon our review of the record and briefs on appeal, we 

conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing the 

5 

Appellate Case: 87-2845 Document: 010110024561 Date Filed: 03/08/1989 Page: 5 
plaintiff's action. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983, a 

In order 

plaintiff 

to state a claim under 

must establish that the defendant 

acted under color of state law and that his conduct "'deprived 

[the plaintiff] of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the 

Constitution or the laws of the United States.'" Shaw v. Neece, 

727 F.2d 947, 949 (10th Cir.)(quoting Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 

527, 535 (1981)), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 976 (1984). 

Although the defendant's conduct may give rise to a common 

law claim for slander in state court, it does not constitute a 

constitutional violation compensable in federal court. 

Allegations of verbal abuse or harassment "simply do not show an 

invasion of any federally protected right." Coyle v. Hughs, 436 

F. Supp. 591, 592 (W.D. Okla. 1977). See also Rahman v. 

Stephenson, 626 F. Supp. 886, 888 (W.D. Tenn. 1986); Keyes v. City 

of Albany, 594 F. Supp. 1147, 1155 (N.D.N.Y. 1984); Freeman v. 

Trudell, 497 F. Supp. 481, 482 (E.D. Mich. 1980); cf. Ellingburg 

v. Lucas, 518 F.2d 1196, 1197 (8th Cir. 1975)(damages for 

defamation are not recoverable under§ 1983); Azar v. Conley, 456 

F.2d 1382, 1389 (6th Cir. 1972)(slander is not actionable under 

the Civil Rights Act); Heller v. Roberts, 386 F.2d 832 (2d Cir. 

1967)(same); Lynch v. Cannatella, 810 F.2d 1363, 1367 (5th Cir. 

1987)(mere threatening language and gestures of a custodial 

officer do not amount to constitutional violations); Collins v. 

Cundy, 603 F.2d 825, 827 (10th Cir. 1979)(same); Stacey v. Ford, 

554 F. Supp. 8, 9 (N.D. Ga. 1982)(same); Miller v. Hawver, 474 F. 

Supp. 441, 443 (D. Colo. 1979)(same). But cf. Burton v. 

Livingston, 791 F.2d 97, 100 (8th Cir. 1986)(allegations that 

6 

Appellate Case: 87-2845 Document: 010110024561 Date Filed: 03/08/1989 Page: 6 
guard made death threat, accompanied by racial epithets, while 

pointing cocked gun at plaintiff prisoner who had just given 

testimony against another guard in a§ 1983 action, stated a claim 

for relief). 

We turn now to appeal No. 88-1656, and consider whether the 

district court properly denied the various motions filed by the 

plaintiff after the action was dismissed. We will construe the 

plaintiff's motions to plead special matters and amend the 

complaint as motions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), since they 

were filed after final judgment was rendered and they asserted 

fraud, misrepresentation, and other misconduct on the part of the 

defendant and his counsel. 

A motion filed pursuant to Rule 60(b) does not affect the 

finality of the judgment or suspend its operation. A district 

court has jurisdiction to entertain a Rule 60(b) motion even after 

an appeal has been filed from the final judgment challenged by the 

motion. See Blinder, Robinson & Co. v. United States Sec. & 

Exchange Comm'n, 748 F.2d 1415, 1420 (10th Cir. 1984), cert. 

denied, 471 U.S. 1125 (1985); Aune v. Reynders, 344 F.2d 835, 841 

(10th Cir. 1965). Whether a district court grants such a motion 

is discretionary, so we review the court's ruling under an abuse 

of discretion standard. See Republic Resources Corp. v. ISI 

Petroleum West Caddo Drilling Program 1981, 836 F.2d 462, 465 

(10th Cir. 1987). We conclude that the district court did not 

abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's post-judgment 

motions. 

7 

Appellate Case: 87-2845 Document: 010110024561 Date Filed: 03/08/1989 Page: 7 
The plaintiff's motions did not demonstrate any fraud upon 

the court or the plaintiff. The defendant in his answer 

affirmatively stated that he made only a single racial comment to 

the plaintiff. The plaintiff's allegation that the defendant had 

previously been subject to grievance procedures for racial 

statements made to another inmate did not make the defendant's 

statement perjurious. The answer was addressed solely to 

allegations in the complaint concerning statements made by the 

defendant to the plaintiff, not to some other inmate. The 

plaintiff's other allegations of fraud and conspiracy were merely 

conclusory and did not justify relief. 

Based upon the foregoing, the judgment of the United States 

District Court for the District of Colorado is AFFIRMED. 

The mandates shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

8 

Appellate Case: 87-2845 Document: 010110024561 Date Filed: 03/08/1989 Page: 8