Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-04141/USCOURTS-ca10-91-04141-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gary W. Deland
Appellee
Eric Demillard
Appellee
Nancy Munroe
Appellee
Jerry Ulrich
Appellant

Document Text:

,-4, I _._ ... L4 _u 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Unii;cd Stat~:-; Courtcrl: AI;.:::::.:~ 

Tc,t.'1. CircuL 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JERRY ULRICH, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

GARY W. DELAND; ERIC DEMILLARD;) 

NANCY MUNROE, Social Worker of) 

the Department of Corrections, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees . ) 

FEB 1:. 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKE£ 

Clerl: . 

No. 91-4141 

(D.C. No. 90-C-1043-G) 

(D. Utah) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TACHA, and BRORBY, 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 case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff-appellant Jerry Ulrich appeals an order of the 

district court dismissing his action against defendants brought 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed 

Ulrich's complaint because allegations in the complaint did not 

support a conclusion that Ulrich's constitutional or federal 

statutory rights were violated. On appeal, Ulrich contends that 

* 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: 91-4141 Document: 010110222519 Date Filed: 02/11/1992 Page: 1 
he was deprived of counsel and was denied a fair hearing in the 

district court. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 

and affirm. 

Because Ulrich proceeds prose, we liberally construe his 

contentions on appeal . Haines Y..!.. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 

(1972); Gillihan Y..!.. Shillinger, 872 F . 2d 935, 938 (10th Cir. 

1989). After Ulrich filed his original complaint, the district 

court referred the case to a federal magistrate, who recommended 

that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim under 

§ 1983. The district court dismissed the complaint under 28 

u.s.c. § 1915(d), but granted leave to Ulrich to file an amended 

complaint. In his amended complaint, Ulrich clearly and 

succinctly made factual allegations against defendant Nancy Munroe 

-- namely that Munroe, a social worker, "proceeded to harass, 

demean, and humiliate" him and that Munroe had caused him to be 

removed from a sex offender's therapy program carried out in the 

prison. When the district court dismissed the amended complaint 

for failure to state a§ 1983 claim, Ulrich filed this appeal and 

now argues that -- in order to afford him a "fair hearing" -- the 

district court should have appointed counsel to represent him. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), "the decision whether to appoint 

counsel in a civil case is left to the sound discretion of the 

district court. " Blankenship Y..!.. Meachum, 840 F.2d 741, 743 (10th 

Cir. 1988); McCarthy Y..!.. Weinberg, 753 F.2d 836, 839 (10th Cir. 

1985). "Only in those extreme cases where the lack of counsel 

results in fundamental unfairness will the district court's 

decisi on be overturned. " McCarthy, 753 F.2d at 839-40. For 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-4141 Document: 010110222519 Date Filed: 02/11/1992 Page: 2 
substantially the reasons given by the district court, we agree 

that Ulrich's amended complaint failed to allege a violation of 

his constitutional or federal statutory rights. Therefore, we 

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in 

refusing to appoint counsel to represent Ulrich. 

In addition, Ulrich requests that this court subpoena certain 

documents -- including grievance letters from inmates -- that he 

alleges are held by Gary Deland. The subpoena of such documents 

is a discovery matter left to the district court's discretion. We 

do not address such issues raised for the first time on appeal . 

See Farmers Ins. Co. Y.!.. Hubbard, 869 F.2d 565, 570 (10th Cir. 

1989) . 

Accordingly, the district court's order dismissing Ulrich's 

amended complaint is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-4141 Document: 010110222519 Date Filed: 02/11/1992 Page: 3