Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-04132/USCOURTS-ca10-91-04132-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joseph Lee Walker
Appellant
Brad Young
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F I L cj D 

U · t.ed States Co~ ~f Appeal~ TENTH CIRCUIT nl Tt>,,t"i r ,--,11 • 

JOSEPH LEE WALKER, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

BRAD YOUNG, Correctional Officer, ) 

Utah State Prison, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

Mf\R 1 7 i992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-4132 

(D.C. No. 91-CV-330W) 

(D. Utah) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TACHA and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument 

would not be of material assistance in 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. 

Mr. Joseph Lee Walker, pro se appellant, appeals from 

dismissal of his complaint by the United States District Court for 

* 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: 91-4132 Document: 010110226767 Date Filed: 03/17/1992 Page: 1 
the District of Utah. 

failing to appoint 

complaint. 

Mr. Walker alleges abuse of discretion in 

counsel and dismissing his civil rights 

FACTS 

In November 1990, Mr. Walker, an inmate at the Utah State 

Prison, filed a grievance challenging the practice of allowing 

prison officers, in the place of prison medical personnel, to 

dispense prescribed medications to inmates. Mr. Walker alleges 

from December 1990 to January 1991 Officer Brad Young threatened 

to "get even" with Mr. Walker for filing the grievance. Mr. 

Walker claims to have suffered "emotional upset, outrage, 

resentment, mental distress, restlessness, fearfulness 

constantly [being] on edge and [paranoia]." In March 1991, Mr. 

Walker alleges he learned Officer Young told a fellow inmate that 

Mr. Walker was a snitch, in an alleged attempt to deter Mr. Walker 

from pursuing this grievance and to cause other inmates to murder 

him. 

Mr. Walker filed a complaint seeking monetary damages and 

injunctive relief for an alleged violation of 42 u.s.c. § 1983 

based on Officer Young's threats and name calling. This matter 

was referred to a magistrate judge. The district judge acted upon 

the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and dismissed Mr. 

Walker's damage claim pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 1915(d). However, 

this order granted "[Mr. Walker] twenty (20) days [to] file an 

amended complaint . . . limited to injunctive relief." Mr. Walker 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-4132 Document: 010110226767 Date Filed: 03/17/1992 Page: 2 
never filed an amended complaint. Consequently, the district 

judge dismissed Mr. Walker's action with prejudice. Mr. Walker 

appeals the dismissal of his damage and injunctive relief claims. 

ISSUES 

Mr. Walker raises two issues on appeal: 

1. Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying 

appointed counsel?! 

2. Did the district court abuse its discretion in 

dismissing Mr. Walker's claims for injunctive relief monetary 

damages? 

We review both issues under an abuse of discretion standard . Long 

v. Shillinger, 927 F.2d 525, 526-27 (10th Cir. 1991) (review of 

order denying appointment of counsel is for abuse of discretion); 

Yellen v. Cooper, 828 F.2d 1471, 1475 (10th Cir. 1987) (dismissal 

of claims reviewed for abuse of discretion) . 

I. Appointment of Counsel 

In McCarthy v. Weinberg, 753 F.2d 836, 839 (10th Cir. 1985), 

this court held that 28 U.S . C. § 1915(d) vests the district court 

with considerable discretion whether to appoint counsel. "Only in 

those extreme cases where the lack of counsel results in 

fundamental unfairness will the district court's decision be 

overturned." Id. at 839. The factors to be considered by the 

district court in determining whether to appoint counsel include: 

"[T]he merits of the litigant's claims, the nature of the factual 

1 This issue was raised in the district court but not 

specifically addressed. Thus, it is not an issue raised for the 

first time on appeal. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-4132 Document: 010110226767 Date Filed: 03/17/1992 Page: 3 
issues raised in the claims, the litigant's ability to present his 

claims, and the complexity of the legal issues raised by the 

claims." Long, 927 F.2d at 527 (citing Maclin v. Freake, 650 F.2d 

885, 887-89 (7th Cir. 1981)). 

Applying these factors, we hold Mr. Walker has not 

successfully demonstrated that his is an extreme case meriting an 

appointment of counsel. The district court correctly found Mr. 

Walker's underlying claim lacked merit. The factual issues raised 

are not numerous or complex . Mr. Walker alleged that because he 

filed a complaint Officer Young subsequently threatened him and 

told at least one inmate that Mr. Walker was a "snitch." The 

record reflects Mr. Walker possesses the faculties necessary to 

present his claims. Mr. Walker has presented articulate, well 

researched pleadings as well as various motions, a memorandum, an 

affidavit, and an appellate brief. Finally, the legal questions 

Mr. Walker poses are not complex. To the contrary, the legal 

principles governing this matter are straightforward. In view of 

this, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion 

by denying appointed counsel. 

II. Dismissal of Claims 

Mr. Walker asserts the district court abused its discretion 

in dismissing his claim for injunctive relief. He claims he did 

not understand how to amend his complaint and the district court 

did not inform him of the deficiencies in his complaint. The 

district court's Order of June 5, 1991 explicitly informs Mr. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-4132 Document: 010110226767 Date Filed: 03/17/1992 Page: 4 
Walker that his complaint must be amended to limit his claims to 

those for injunctive relief only. The Order then states that if 

an amended complaint is not filed within twenty days the ation 

will be dismissed with prejudice . Mr. Walker did not even attempt 

to comply with this order. As the Order expressly informs Mr. 

Walker, what he must do to preserve his claim, we hold the 

district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Mr . 

Walker' s claim for failure to comply with its order. Mr. Walker 

does assert that the district court abused its discretion in 

dismissing his claim for monetary damages. A district court does 

not abuse its discretion in dismissing a claim as frivolous under 

28 u.s.c. § 1915(d) if the claim "lacks an arguable basis either 

in law or in fact . " Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 

(1989). 

To succeed in an action under 42 u.s.c. § 1983, a plaintiff 

must state a constitutional deprivation. Generally, verbal abuse 

is insufficient to state a constitutional deprivation. Collins v. 

Cundy, 603 F.2d 825, 827 (10th Cir. 1979). In Collins, the 

plaintiff alleged that the sheriff laughed at him and threatened 

to hang him, and that the county attorney refused to mail his 

legal correspondence. Id. at 827. We held that "[v]erbal 

harassment or abuse of the sort alleged in this case is not 

sufficient to state a constitutional deprivation under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983." Id . at 827. 

In this case, the district court found Mr . Walker's damage 

-5-

Appellate Case: 91-4132 Document: 010110226767 Date Filed: 03/17/1992 Page: 5 
claim lacked an arguable basis in fact as he alleged no harm or 

injury. Mr. Walker alleges that Officer Young threatened him and 

labelled him a snitch. Mr. Walker characterizes those actions as 

retalitory in nature. However, Mr. Walker does not assert any 

harm or injury suffered as a consequence of those retalitory 

actions. Although Mr. Walker claims to have suffered various 

mental distresses, the district court was not persuaded Mr. Walker 

demonstrated sufficient harm to state a cause of action for 

damages. 

We are convinced that the district court reasonably could 

have found that Mr. Walker's claim lacked an arguable basis in 

fact or law. Therefore, we hold that the district court did not 

abuse its discretion in dismissing Mr. Walker's complaint as 

frivolous. 

Accordingly, on both issues raised on appeal, the district 

court's action is AFFIRMED. The mandate shal l issue forthwi th. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

-6-

Appellate Case: 91-4132 Document: 010110226767 Date Filed: 03/17/1992 Page: 6