Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-93-02010/USCOURTS-ca10-93-02010-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Albuquerque Police Department
Appellee
John Does
Appellee
Marriott Hotel
Appellee
Jerry Vernon
Appellant

Document Text:

.. 

FILL D 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APIRW! StatA9! Coμrt(?f Appeals Tenth C1rcutt 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT MAY 2 7 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

JERRY VERNON, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

MARRIOTT HOTEL of Albuquerque; ) 

JOHN DOES One and Two, Security ) 

Guards at the Marriott Hotel; ) 

ALBUQUERQUE POLICE DEPARTMENT, in ) 

their individual capacities, ) 

separately and in the aggregate, ) 

Police Officers of the Albuquerque) 

Police Department, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

JERRY VERNON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

LORRAINE STEVENS, a/k/a L.M. 

Stevens; a/k/a Lorraine Stevens 

Hertel; STEVEN STEVENS; 

STEVAN STEVANS; JAMES STEVENS, 

a/k/a Jim Stevens, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

JERRY VERNON, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

DONALD CRUTCHFIELD, Captain; BEN ) 

RAY, Sergeant; LARRY SANCHEZ, LARRY) 

NARANJO, JOHN (RON) SPINKS, JOHN ) 

RUDOLPH, DAN BROWN, JOHN D. LEON, ) 

JOE MARTINEZ, Bernalillo County ) 

Detention Officers; EDDIE PINO; ) 

DENNIS R. ANDERSON; DAN HOUSTON, ) 

Captain; ROY LEE; KEN FISHER; ) 

BERNALILLO COUNTY DETENTION CENTER;) 

ALBUQUERQUE POLICE DEPARTMENT; ) 

JUAN REYES, Officer; LARRY HALL, ) 

No. 93-2010 

(D. C. No. CIV 92-699M) 

(D. N.M.) 

No. 93-2011 

(D. C. No. CIV 92-939JC) 

(D. N.M.) 

No. 93-2012 

(D. C. No. CIV 92-700JB) 

(D. N.M.) 

Appellate Case: 93-2010 Document: 010110115792 Date Filed: 05/27/1993 Page: 1 
JAMES SPAIN; JAMES D. STEVENS, Sr.;) 

JAMES D. STEVENS, Jr.; STEVEN M. ) 

STEVENS; WILLIAM SHORT, Judge; ) 

MICHAEL BRUSUELAS; UNIVERSITY ) 

HOSPITAL; LYLE TALBOT INSURANCE ) 

AGENCY; COUNTY OF -BERNALILLO; CITY) 

OF ALBUQUERQUE, in their individual) 

capacities, separately and in the ) 

aggregate, severally, and/or their) 

successors in office and all other) 

similarly situated with them, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, 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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Mr. Vernon, a prose litigant, appeals the dismissal of three 

§ 1983 suits. We exercise jurisdiction and affirm. 

I 

Mr. Vernon's prose complaint, based upon 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 

alleges the following facts. Mr. Vernon checked into a hotel and 

discovered gaseous smoke entering his room through a hole in the 

window frame. He notified the hotel security guards who called 

* 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. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 93-2010 Document: 010110115792 Date Filed: 05/27/1993 Page: 2 
• 

the police department. During the course of the investigation, 

the officers were allegedly rude to the plaintiff. The suit was 

filed against the hotel, two security guards, the police 

department, and the police officers. 

The district court sua sponte dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(d), finding the complaint legally frivolous. Mr. Vernon 

appeals, restating the facts alleged in his complaint, and 

complaining of violations of due process, equal protection, and 

Eighth Amendment rights. We liberally construe plaintiff's 

allegations to determine whether plaintiff can make any argument, 

based on law or fact, in support of the claims asserted. Reed v. 

Dunham, 893 F.2d 285, 286 (10th Cir. 1990). 

A § 1915(d) dismissal is properly reviewed for an abuse of 

discretion. Denton v. Hernandez, 112 S. Ct. 1728, 1734 (1992). A 

complaint is frivolous when based on an indisputably meritless 

legal theory or its factual contentions are clearly baseless. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). We find no abuse 

of discretion in dismissing this complaint as frivolous. "To 

state a claim under§ 1983, a plaintiff must allege a violation of 

a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, 

and must show the alleged deprivation was committed by a person 

acting under color of state law." West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 

(1988). The claims against the hotel and security guards must 

necessarily be dismissed since no legal theory supports a claim 

against these defendants as they are not state actors. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 93-2010 Document: 010110115792 Date Filed: 05/27/1993 Page: 3 
Additionally, even construing the factual allegations in favor of 

the plaintiff, he has alleged no facts demonstrating a 

constitutional violation. 

II 

In a separate complaint, plaintiff brought a § 1983 action 

against various members of the family of a homicide victim 

allegedly killed by plaintiff. Mr. Vernon provides documentation 

showing defendants made harassing telephone calls placed to 

plaintiff's residence after the homicide. Once again, the 

district 

Plaintiff 

court dismissed the 

appeals complaining 

complaint as 

of violations 

legally frivolous. 

of his Eighth 

Amendment rights and violation of the federal telecommunications 

code. 

Plaintiff fails to perceive · that no remedy under § 1983 

exists in federal court against private citizens. Plaintiff 

recognizes in his brief that none of the defendants are state 

actors. Without state action, the§ 1983 claim must necessarily 

be dismissed. 

III, 

Plaintiff's third complaint revolves around the confusi9n by 

the police in transporting the plaintiff to the wrong hospital 

after another incident involving the victim's family. A § 1983 

lawsuit was filed against various members of the Albuquerque 

Police Department and the Bernalillo County Detention Center. The 

-4-

Appellate Case: 93-2010 Document: 010110115792 Date Filed: 05/27/1993 Page: 4 
district court again found the complaint to be legally frivolous. 

This time plaintiff appeals contending (1) defendants conspired to 

violate plaintiff's constitutional and civil rights contrary to 

the Fifth, Eighth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments; (2) 

defendants violated plaintiff's constitutional rights to be free 

from cruel and unusual punishment and right to be free from 

unreasonable searches and seizures; and (3) the procedures used by 

defendants were in violation of due process. 

Accepting the fact that defendants transported plaintiff to 

the wrong hospital as true, plaintiff still fails to allege a 

constitutional violation as required by § 1983. Therefore, the 

district court properly dismissed this complaint as frivolous. 

Mr. Vernon's arguments lack legal merit. We AFFIRM for 

substantially the same reasons as set forth by the district court. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-5-

Appellate Case: 93-2010 Document: 010110115792 Date Filed: 05/27/1993 Page: 5