Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06359/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06359-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert H. Henry
Appellee
Gary Maynard
Appellee
Robert Dale McKinney
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

ROBERT DALE MCKINNEY, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

FIL D 

United State~ Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

MAR 2 2 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

) 

V • ) 

) 

ROBERT H. HENRY, Attorney General; ) 

GARY MAYNARD, Director, Department ) 

of Corrections, ) 

No. 89-6359 

(D.C. No. CIV-1273-W) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

) 

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 Robert Dale McKinney appeals the district court's 

dismissal of his section 1983 complaint for failure to state a 

claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In his complaint, McKinney 

*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: 89-6359 Document: 01019966682 Date Filed: 03/22/1990 Page: 1 
sued Robert Henry, the Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma, 

and Gary Maynard, the director of the Oklahoma Department of 

Corrections, alleging that he is illegally confined because the 

State of Oklahoma has no jurisdiction to prosecute a crime which 

he claims took place in Indian Country. See 18 U.S.C. § 1151 

(1988). 

Robert Henry is a named defendant because McKinney claims he 

is "ultimately responsible" for prosecutions in Oklahoma . 

Similarly, Gary Maynard is a named defendant because he is 

allegedly "untimately [sic] responsible" for the inmates of the 

Oklahoma State Prison system. The complaint is unclear whether 

these persons are sued in their individual capacities, their 

official capacities, or both. 

McKinney asks for damages for himself and for "all 

incarcerated Indians in regard to the enclosed [sic] violations", 

in all Oklahoma prisons. A request for release from confinement 

is absent from the complaint. McKinney also asks the court to 

investigate the claims of other unnamed, but presumably similarly 

situated, Indians incarcerated in the Oklahoma State prisons. 

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the 

complaint was properly a habeas action. The district court 

granted the motion, but on alternative grounds. After noting that 

McKinney had no standing to assert the alleged rights of other 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-6359 Document: 01019966682 Date Filed: 03/22/1990 Page: 2 
Indian prisoners, the court construed the complaint as naming the 

defendants in their official capacities only. The court observed 

that state officials in their official capacities are not 

"persons'' capable of being sued under section 1983. See Will v. 

Michigan Dept. of State Police, 109 S. Ct. 2304, 2312 (1989). 

We agree with the district court's analysis so far as it 

goes, although the court may have construed McKinney's P.!:Q se 

complaint too narrowly in concluding that defendants were sued in 

their official capacities only. See Meade, 841 F.2d at 1526 (P.!:Q 

se complaint held "'to less stringent standards than formal 

pleadings drafted by lawyers''') (quoting Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 

5, 9 (1980) (per curiam)). 

Even if we broadly construe the complaint to name defendants 

both in their official and individual capacities, it was still 

properly dismissed for failure to state a claim. Even under the 

permissive standard of construction accorded P.!:Q se complaints, 

McKinney has not alleged how Henry and Maynard were personally 

responsible for his prosecution and incarceration. At most, 

McKinney alleges a theory of respondeat superior in that Henry and 

Maynard were ''ultimately responsible" for Oklahoma state 

prisoners' prosecution and incarceration. The law is clear that 

the doctrine of respondeat superior is inapplicable to suits under 

section 1983. See Monell v. Department of Social Serv., 436 U.S. 

658, 691 (1978); see also Meade, 841 F.2d at 1527-28 (superior 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-6359 Document: 01019966682 Date Filed: 03/22/1990 Page: 3 
must participate or acquiesce in the illegality to state section 

1983 claim) (quoting Kite v. Kelley, 546 F.2d 334, 337 (10th Cir. 

1976)). In the present case, McKinney alleges no facts indicating 

that Maynard or Henry were even aware of McKinney's existence , 

much less that they personally participated or acquiesced in his 

prosecution and incarceration. Accordingly, the complaint was 

properly dismissed for failure to allege sufficient facts to state 

a section 1983 claim. 

Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed on appeal without 

prepayment of fees is granted. The judgment of the district court 

is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-6359 Document: 01019966682 Date Filed: 03/22/1990 Page: 4