Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-04034/USCOURTS-ca10-92-04034-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Darrell
Appellee
Gary W. Deland
Appellee
Johnny Mario Duran
Appellant
Jim Gober
Appellee
Muller
Appellee
Perales
Appellee
Richardson
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JOHNNY MARIO DURAN, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

. FILED 

Unaed Srares Co~rr of Appeals 

T~nth C1 rruit 

·' n. 3 o 1992 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) 

) 

GARY W. DELAND, JIM GOBER, ) 

PERALES, RICHARDSON, DARRELL, ) 

MULLER, ) 

No. 92-4034 

(D.C. No. 91-C-1203) 

(D. Utah) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

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. 

This appeal is from an order of the district court adopting 

the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing plaintiff's complaint under 28 u.s.c. § 1915 (d). 

Appellant Johnny Duran appeals on the grounds that the district 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-4034 Document: 010110275178 Date Filed: 07/30/1992 Page: 1
court erred in dismissing his complaint because the complaint 

failed to state a claim under 42 u.s.c. § 1983. We affirm. 

We agree with the district court that all allegations against 

the defendants in their official capacities must be dismissed 

because 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not provide a congressional override 

to the Eleventh Amendment. Therefore, state officials acting in 

their official capacities are immune from suit. With respect to 

the individual claims against defendants, Duran has failed to show 

the deprivation of a property or liberty interest sufficient to 

state a claim under 42 u.s.c. § 1983. We have held that the 

Constitution does not create a property or liberty interest in 

prison employment. Ingram Y..!.. Papalia, 804 F.2d 595, 596 (10th 

Cir. 1986). A.ny such interest must be created by state law. See 

Hewitt Y..!.. Helms, 459 U.S. 460 (1983). Utah law does not create 

such a right to prison employment. Further, the "C" notes, or 

chronological notes, are property of the prison in which the 

inmate has no property interest. Thus, the district court 

correctly dismissed the complaint as frivolous under 28 u.s.c. § 

1915(d) • .AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-2-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-4034 Document: 010110275178 Date Filed: 07/30/1992 Page: 2