Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-07077/USCOURTS-ca10-90-07077-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Choctaw County Commissioners
Appellee
Tommy Carl Moore
Appellant
J. W. Trapp
Appellee

Document Text:

I URITBD STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TBftll CIRCUIT 

TOMMY CARL MOORE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

FI LED 

Uniced States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

f'.PR 2 ~ 1991 

~OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

J. w. TRAPP, Sheriff of Choctaw 

County, Oklahoma; CHOCTAW COUNTY 

COMMISSIONERS, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-7077 

(D.C. No. 90-167-S) 

(E.D. Oklahoma) 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDER .DD JUDGHBft* 

Before .DDBRSOR, TACBA 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. 

* 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: 90-7077 Document: 010110034350 Date Filed: 04/24/1991 Page: 1 
,. 

•• Mr. Moore appeals, prose, from the order of the district 

court granting in part and denying in part Defendants' (J. W. 

Trapp, Sheriff of Choctaw County and the Board of County 

Commissioners of Choctaw County, Oklahoma) Motion to Dismiss. We 

affirm. 

Mr. Moore was at one time an inmate in the Choctaw County, 

Oklahoma Jail. Some time after his transfer from this facility, 

Mr. Moore filed a prose complaint against the Choctaw County 

Sheriff and Board of County Commissioners grounded upon 42 u.s.c. 

S 1983. This complaint alleged, in conclusory terms, numerous 

constitutional wrongs. Included among Mr. Moore's allegations 

were the following: "overcrowding"; "plumbing problems"; "no 

physical exercise"; "no lights"; "no personal sanitation"; "Legal 

and Religious material was also taken away"; "fire hazard 

problem"; "inadequate diet"; "censortship of mail"; "prisoners 

racially segregated" and "plaintiff could not contact the Courts." 

There were other similar allegations made by Mr. Moore of further 

constitutional wrongs. As stated in his brief to this court, the 

"conditions of confinement [at Choctaw County Jail] was Horable 

[sic]." Mr. Moore also claimed he had filed no other law suits 

involving the same facts. 

Mr. Moore requested the following forms of relief: punitive 

damages; and injunctive relief in the form of "the Choctaw County 

Jail be[ing] closed down for new construction." 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-7077 Document: 010110034350 Date Filed: 04/24/1991 Page: 2 
Defendants responded by way of denial with the exception of 

several admissions including: that "there are no fire exits at 

the rear of the cell blocks"; "that the Choctaw County Jail was 

built in the 1960's with no fire exits"; that "prisoners have a 

constitutional right to access to the Courts"; "that mail was 

censored for security reasons"; "that plaintiff's legal material 

was taken away during his solitary confinement ... "; and "that J. 

W. Trapp did let some inmates of the 'black race' choose their 

cellmates .... " Defendants then filed a motion to dismiss. 

The district court ordered a Martinez report. 1 After receipt 

of the Martinez report the district court addressed Defendant's 

Motion to Dismiss. As to the assertion of Mr. Moore that he had 

not filed any other law suit involving the same set of facts, the 

district court found this was false noting Mr. Moore had sued 

defendant, Trapp, for the same conditions of confinement in case 

No. 89-123-C which was subsequently dismissed by Mr. Moore. As to 

the allegations made by Mr. Moore concerning fire exits and fire 

safety, the district court ordered "the defendants .•• comply with 

the State Health Department's standards concerning fire safety and 

adequate fire exits." The district court found the Plaintiff's 

allegations, with the exception of those relating to fire safety, 

"d[id] not state a claim for any constitutional deprivation, and 

[we]re therefore frivolous. The district court granted 

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on the remaining grounds. 

1 See Martinez v. Chavez, 574 F.2d 1043 (10th Cir. 1978). 

report was not included in the record on appeal. 

-3-

This 

Appellate Case: 90-7077 Document: 010110034350 Date Filed: 04/24/1991 Page: 3 
We wish to specifically note the district court, while 

addressing Mr. Moore's filing of an earlier suit, stated: " 

this court finds little, if any, credibility in plaintiff's 

allegations." The district court was referring to Mr. Moore's 

assertion concerning the non-filing of a similar suit. We need 

not remind the district court that in treating a motion to 

dismiss, all properly pleaded allegations must be taken as true. 

We can understand the feelings of the district court when it is 

established that a pleading is false, but this does not alter the 

application of the rules testing pleadings. Any error of the 

district court in this regard, however, is harmless as Mr. Moore 

has admitted filing a prior suit against the sheriff raising the 

same or similar issues concerning his confinement in the Choctaw 

County Jail. 

Mr. Moore appeals the district court's decision pro se. He 

responds to the judgment of the district court stating: (1) that 

he did not realize the sheriff had mailed his earlier suit at the 

time he filed the present complaint: (2) that he admits his 

allegations were conclusions but alleges this practice of pleading 

is acceptable as his allegations were truthful: (3) that the 

district court did not individually address all of his complaints: 

and (4) that the district court did not allow his suit to go far 

enough "to allow the true facts to surface." The balance of his 

brief contains a reiteration of the wrongs he suffered while an 

inmate in the Choctaw County Jail. We are not persuaded by these 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-7077 Document: 010110034350 Date Filed: 04/24/1991 Page: 4 
. ) 

arguments. 

Persons untrained in the law are entitled to have their 

pleadings liberally construed. This rule, however, does not allow 

us to speculate as to the underlying facts nor are we allowed to 

create a cause of action in such cases. Courts have promulgated a 

rule requiring civil rights suits be backed by facts stated in the 

complaint. For example, the term "plumbing problems" as used in 

Mr. Moore's complaint may or may not constitute a constitutional 

wrong. Either a faucet which drips occasionally or a toilet which 

cannot be flushed would constitute a "plumbing problem." The 

legal ramifications of each set of facts could be vastly 

different. Before a trial court is entitled to start the wheels 

of justice turning in a case such as this, the plaintiff must do 

more than claim a foul. He must state with sufficient 

particularity what the foul involved, who was involved, and when 

and where it took place. It is not sufficient to use legal jargon 

and bald conclusions. Mr. Moore failed to back up his conclusions 

with facts. 

It may well be the Choctaw County Jail does not conform to 

all applicable standards. Mr. Moore may have suffered wrongs 

while confined. However, Mr. Moore is not entitled to an 

opportunity to prove these wrongs until he has specifically 

identified these wrongs by setting forth in his complaint what 

actually happened, including the details. Mr. Moore has failed to 

do this, and will therefore not be entitled to go into court to 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-7077 Document: 010110034350 Date Filed: 04/24/1991 Page: 5 
prove his case. 

Mr. Moore has raised numerous other issues in his brief to 

us. Most of these matters were not raised in the district court 

and we cannot now decide those. The balance of the issues raised 

by Mr. Moore do not merit discussion. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate 

shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

-6-

Appellate Case: 90-7077 Document: 010110034350 Date Filed: 04/24/1991 Page: 6